DrmDoc

What you are suggesting here applies to the plasticity of neocortical structure and function. The hypothalamus is a subcortical structure (brain stem) where we find more specilized function. The cortex is known to compensates for damage to cortical function and structure, which is why it can sustain considerable damage without causing death. The function of brain stem structures is more highly specialized, which is why damage to these structures often has fatal consequences. Emotional behaviors such as fear and rage have instinctual roots and are likely to reside in the more primitive segments of our central nervous system (CNS) because these instinct-based behaviors were likely more vital to the survival of ancestral animals than higher cognitive functions. Spinal cord aside, the brain stem is the most primitive segment of our CNS.

Well, we don't have to switch off other brain areas, we simply have to evaluate cases--and we have--involving hypothalmic injury or disorder in humans. The behavioral aberrance we observe through these cases should suggest whether or what the hypothalamus contributes to our behaviors.

The earliest evidence for the production of an emotion in brain structure was suggested by decerebrate study of cats that produced rage postures with portion of the hypothalamus as the only remaining hierarchal structure in the brain cavity after surgery. As the center of our primary drives, the hypothalamus is likely most critical to the production of all emotional behaviors. However, amygdalectomy in primates have produced the strongest evidence for the amygdala as the center of fear responses and social behavioral activity possibly driven by fear. I hope this helps.

Again, there is nothing in the reams of studies on human sleep deprivation that suggest the kind of rolling "offline" brain function observed in sleep deprived rats. The effects of sleep deprivation in humans appear to be brainwide rather than localized. Humans are not well adapted to remain alert when sleep deprived. This seems consistent with a distinction of humans as a species whose survival is not as dependent on continual vigilance as is the survival of other species. This sleep study, in my opinion, merely suggest that the brains of rats appear to be better adapted for sustained periods of vigilance than humans.

Court opinion notwithstanding, there has never been a proven case of unihemispheric sleep in humans with intact brains. Although there have been some court cases where somnambulism was used as a successful defense for murder, I never believed in the validity of such opinions. There are no brain studies in somnambulism which suggests that the brain is engaged in sleep function. In my opinion, the condition is akin to hypnosis wherein the hypnotized engage behaviors they normally would not without the lower inhibitions hypnosis evokes. Murder, even under hypnosis, is still murder in my opinion. Sleep deprived activity in rats is not relatable to somnambulism in humans because there is no evidence of unihemispheric sleep processes in humans as in rats. If the goal is to understand the nature of sleep deprivation and sleep-walking in humans, how are rat studies more relatable than human studies? Are there no humans who experience sleep deprivation and sleep-walking? Other than for vivsection or drug testing purposes, how are rats more suitable for this kind of human-equivalent study?

Sleep deprivation has been studied ad nauseum over many years. A quick Google Scholar (GS) search returned over 54,000 such studies between 1992 and 2011 alone. Among the thousands of papers and studies I've personally reviewed on sleep not a single one suggested or showed unihemispheric sleep in humans under any circumstance. Even with a GS search, I did not find any reference to such sleep behaviors in humans with intact brains. If it were possible under sleep deprivation, unihemispheric sleep in humans would have been determined decades ago. Although I did not read the article, it is unlikely that the discovery of unilateral sleep--evoked by sleep deprivation--in the brains of rats has any implication for similar sleep processes or behaviors in humans. I question the validity of rat studies of sleep deprivation when human study provides the most direct and relatable evidence to humans even in extreme cases such as fatal familial insomnia.

Although animal studies show a strong association with spatial memory formation and hippocampal damage has produced a number of autonomic and behavioral effects, the hippocampus in humans has been functionally associated with the formation of explicity or declarative memory. In humans, our implicit and/or procedural memory formation remain largely intact when the hippocampus is damaged; however, our ability to form new memories of recent events and facts (explicit memory) becomes severely impaired. Rather than memory retrieval, memory formation seems to be the primary function of the hippocampus. Recent studies are suggesting an association between the right hippocampus and the "aquisition of new spatial information." I hope this helps.

Although you did not quote your source or provide a citation, that Wikipedia article on Lateralization of brain function--from which you obviously supplemented your general knowledge on this topic--is a good start, I would recommend that readers here view the article for themselves then move on to more substantial sources of neuroscience and neuropsychology such as: Kolb B., Whishaw IQ., Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, New York: Worth Publishers. Nolte,J., The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional Anatomy, St. Louis: Mosby Publishers. These published works explore the current research and research history in exceptional detail. Happy hunting!

Neither will I; however, I selected the article you previously cited and indeed it does discuss social dominance in a theorethical context. In that article, social status versus social power were discussed as key elements of social dominance. Among other constituent qualities relative to social status, prestige was described and discussed as a key component. A discussion of prestige is, by definition, as discussion of "the level of respect at which one is regarded by others" (American Heritage Dictionary). Rather than a "wobbly poorly-defined phenomenon", respect is a quality of significant social relevance and real psychological import. Conversant or not, misunderstandings, misperceptions, and misconceptions can and do occur in every discussion where individuals take opposite positions. Even with prior experience and knowledge through research, we can become more conversant in defense of our knowledge base through mature and constructive exchanges rather than witless quips, monosyllabic replies, or subtle insults. I wish you well.

Although the brevity of your reply speaks volumes, you are wrong. Taken from Google Scholar (Keywords: Dominance and Respect): Hierarchy and social status in Budongo chimpanzees, NE Newton-Fisher - Primates, 2004 - Springer Bullying in prisons: The importance of perceived social status, prisonization, and moral disengagement, CR South… - Aggressive Behavior, 2006 - Wiley Online Library Determinants of adolescent perceptions of maternal and paternal power in the family, GW McDonald - Journal of Marriage and Family, 1979 - JSTOR Developmental pathways in youth sexual aggression and delinquency: Risk factors and mediators, JA Hunter, AJ Figueredo, NM Malamuth… - Journal of family …, 2004 - Springer The Utilitarian and Deontological Entanglement of Debating Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America, R Weisberg - The University of Chicago Law Review, 2004 - JSTOR Social status and shaming experiences related to adolescent overt aggression at school, C Åslund, B Starrin, J Leppert… - Aggressive …, 2009 - Wiley Online Library These articles were among many more with abstracts suggesting an association or interconnectedness between respect and dominance. To suggest otherwise without substantial support is disingenuous--in my opinion.

Isn't respect a measure of social dominance and isn't dominance integral to the study of social hierarchy and hierarchal behavior? Isn't hierarchal behavior a well studied, data filled subject of behavioral and social psychology? Therefore, indirectly, respect has been the subject of psychological study. If no, could you elaborate further?

Respect contemplation not related to psychology? "Dataless"? Isn't this the stuff of behavioral psychology? In addition, I would also define respect as the regard and consideration for others that we expect for ourselves.

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

Is tactile perception the same as visual perception? Does tactile perception require visualization? Is it necessary to see an object to understand its tactile shape? What you have described here is tactile perception rather than visualization. Visualization is not required to build logical models or forms with the dimensional perception tactile sensory provides. With tactile perception, we can determine textures and relative dimensions in size, spacing, and shape without benefit of sight or mental visualization. Although tactile forms can be reproduced from tactile perception, there simply isn't sufficient credible evidence suggesting that the brain can identify or, by extension, create visual forms without a reference base of real visual experiences.

I am not aware of any report of the congenitally blind having the ability to visualize faces under any circumstance, injury, or illness. Congenital blindness provides the strongest evidence that the brain cannot visually synthesize what it has not visually experienced. In your example of the hypoglycemic patient, the patient's sensation of seeing something without the ability to visually describe what that something may have been suggests a proximal tactile perception rather than a visual construct. If the patient truly experienced something visual, what were the visual attributes that convinced the patient his experience was indeed visual? Whatever visual description the patient provided was likely predicated on his ability to identify previously known or experienced visual attributes. For example, the patient likely could not have rendered a facial description without having previous knowledge of what constitutes such descriptions. It is likely that whatever we are able to imagine is culled from the reservoir of visual experiences amassed through life experience.

Would you have been able to describe that creature as "a chicken with wings, four legs, teeth and a long tail" without the visual experiences and references in your life that enabled such a description? Would you even know what a chicken is without experiencing a reference, visual or otherwise, for such an animal? Isn't a creature such as the one in your dream merely a composite of animal attributes that your dreaming brain likely culled together from your memory store of animal references you have visually or otherwise experienced in some form? That odd dream creature is likely how your dreaming brain visually synthesizes or interprets something it believed it experienced as a result of the neural activations and influences it experienced amid the sleep process.

Although not conclusive proof, you could examine the well established indirect evidence and form a supportable and educated opinion based on that evidence. For example, if there is evidence, in well established studies of cases such as congenital blindness--that the brain cannot conceive what it has not perceived--this would provide a very good base for arguments supporting the idea of dream faces as recreations or composites of real faces; i.e., a support for the idea that dream faces are constructs from experience rather than spontaneous invention. However, from an opposite perspective, one could envision the most hideous creature and confidently say he has never seen such a thing or image. Even in this instance and argument could be made that such a creature could not be visualized without the reservoir of visual representations we've stored and are able to draw upon from a lifetime of visual experiences. I disagree; current technology tells us that dreaming is a product of neural processes--occuring amid sleep--whose purpose is becoming increasingly defined through continuing study. If we believe that technology, dream content interprets what the dreaming brain believes it is experiencing as a result of those mid-sleep neural processes.

Because there is none. As SMF commented, such assertions are merely "unsupported opinion and speculation." However, congenital blindness suggest that the brain can't envision or visually construct what it hasn't seen without some visual experience as a reference base. Conceivably, the myriad of unfamiliar faces in our dreams could be composites gleaned from the likely thousands of faces we've seen. However, yet again, the most reliable evidence in brain study of dreaming suggests that such composite gleaning is the result of a synthesis rather than an inventive process. Simply stated, the dreaming brain appears to be interpreting rather than inventing. As would I. The most legitimate evidence in recent research associated with the dreaming brain suggests that dreams are, in part, the result of a neural process involving the synthesis of wave impulses (PGO waves) originating in the pontine brainstem and extending to the occipital via the lateral geniculate. And here we have another assertion that is "unsupported opinion and speculation." answers(OP)--if it is legitimate answers you seek--there is plenty of peer reviewed science suggesting the true nature of dreams and dreaming, which you can readily find through Google Scholar with just a little effort rather than rely on obviously unstudied views likely rooted in subjective experience.

No, not at all. My perspective has been clear from the start: Although I've approached this topic from several angles, my perspective has remained consistent...it's there in the details.

I understand. If you are as content with a perspective rooted in your reflections as I am with mine in science, what more is there. To each his own. Again, I wish you well.

Although I genuinely intend no offense or condescension, why would anyone come to a science discussion site without an interest in discussing the science relevant to his or her theoretical interests? What I find most compelling here and at similar sites and forums is the discussion and exploration of the credible scientific evidence supporting our views and interests. If I had an interest in musings without—and this is not a critique of your post—some credible basis in serious science, I would be visiting and posting to the myriad of Intelligent Design sites across the internet. Admittedly, there are many in science who dismiss the study of dreams and dreaming as eccentric, fringe, and without any substantive value. Some of the perceptions expressed in this discussion line (e.g., illogical, psychosis, and hallucinations) are likely the basis for this dismissal and for good cause. As I have commented, the incongruity or nonconformity of dream experience to real experience convincingly creates the perception of irrationality; however, that perception is only a perception. When we wake from dreaming or hear dreams retold, we often say they are illogical and don't make sense likely because we interpret our experience of dreams from the perspective of what is real physically and materially. However, dreams are not real physical/material experiences. The logic we apply to physical/material reality should not logically apply to an experience that is not truly physical or material. Why, emphatically, is that so difficult for so many to comprehend? Therefore, logically, our next step should be to determine what kind of experience dreams are and apply the logic of that experience to our perspective of what dreams may convey. The science and the entirety of human experience tell us what dreams experiences are and the logic of that experience is what we should apply. There are similarities between states of schizophrenia and dreaming in brain function. One such similarity is low prefrontal activation (hypofrontality). Hypofrontality is the reason why I do not associate schizophrenic hallucination and dreaming with any creative or imagination brain process or area. I will dispense with the science as a courtesy and merely say that I believe there is real evidence suggesting that schizophrenic hallucinations, like dreams, are interpretations with the exception that schizophrenic imagery interprets the deteriorating mental state of the schizophrenic.

As do I. I wish you well.

Therefore, by your reasoning, dreams are actually "conscious thought" that, in your opinion, "don't make any sense". Is that correct? If so, is that reasoning or opinion based on any earnest study or cursory evidence? This seems to further frame your opinion of dreams as expressions of conscious thought that do not conform to logic. Is this also correct? If so, what is it about the nature of "being chased by out of water [by] sharks with machine guns" that makes such a scenario seem illogical? Could it be the incongruity of dream experience to real experience in physical/material reality? If so, why are you apparently filtering your perspective of dreams through the logic of physical/material reality when they are not real physical/material experiences and do comport to physical/material reality? If, in your opinion, dreams are expressions of conscious thought, do conscious thought processes consistently produce great messages "in presence and form and persistent instead of random"? Succinctly, does conscious thought always result in some great message? Although dreams are meaningful and are not conscious thought, it is a mistake to perceive them primarily as the conveyors of some "great message", which they are not. This seems to be an opinion based on subjective experience rather than any particular study of the dreaming brain or brain function. Although you are free to believe as you will, belief in a perspective without a serious consideration of the available science is faith and religion. If you have serious interest and are not averse to logic and reason, you may want to begin with the empirical—dreams are mental experiences that arise from what occurs in the mental context that unconscious brain function creates. If dream imagery appears illogical or nonsensical to some that is because they are not filtering their perspective through the mental context from which dream experiences arise.

To Nivetha and others of serious interest, there is indeed credible scientifically rendered research available on the subject of dreams and dreaming as both SMF and I have provided. Regardless of the impressions or concerns expressed here, the general research on this aspect of brain study and human experience is no more influx than any other scientific endeavor where multiple theories have been posited. However, as I have provided and as supported equally by the science submitted in opposition, dream are essentially meaningful mental experiences that should not be discounted based on subjective experience, cursory study, or the opinion of others who are clearly not sufficiently studied in this field of research although they are scientists or professionals who claim to be knowledgeable. As I have commented, to form an opinion without a serious independent investigation of the mounts of research is faith and religion not science. If you follow the science, you will arrive at perspectives that are as certain and sound as those I hold. Good hunting.

Although I believe I have addressed any problems with this thread, I did select your link and found this conclusion suggesting a meaningful functional interplay underlying waking and dreaming: "The REM sleep–dream protoconsciousness hypothesis proposed here suggests that the development and maintenance of waking consciousness and other high-order brain functions depends on brain activation during sleep. The hypothesis places an emphasis on the primary aspects of consciousness, the basis for which — it is posited —arises late in evolution and earlier in brain development than do the brain substrates that support the secondary aspects of waking consciousness. Waking consciousness, with its impressive secondary features, might be present only in humans, who have the highly evolved and extensive cortical structures that are probably necessary to mediate the abstract aspects of conscious awareness. From this hypothesis flows a new theory of consciousness that suggests that the brain states underlying waking and dreaming cooperate and that their functional interplay is crucial to the optimal functioning of both." I also found this statement supporting my references to Hobson's activation-synthesis hypothesis--inclusive of PGO waves--within the AIM theory you previously referenced from this article: "We advanced the 'activation-synthesis' hypothesis of dreaming[71], which posits that brain activation during REM sleep results in the synthesis of dream mentation. Since that time, we have tested, modified and extended these two hypotheses in the light of new experimental data[66,100,103]. Recent work has revealed additional mechanistic details regarding neuronal control[104,105] during REM sleep. For example, the triggering mechanism for PGo waves in the lateral pons has been shown to interact with glutaminergic neurons in the pontine reticular formation." My sincere compliments, SM, on your diligent research.