Dreams and Dreaming

[DrmDoc]

Your original comments regarded no evidence of scientific studies of dreaming.

That was not what I said. My comment was no qualified scientific studies for characteristic of dreaming which explains if dream is imagination or meaningful experience.

In conciliation, I reviewed the comments that prompted my response and "no qualified scientific studies for characteristic of dreaming which explains if dream is imagination or meaningful experience" is not what you wrote. Your original comments were that "The characteristic of dreaming has not been a scientific subject yet, despite of what the famous scholars said", which is an unqualified statement since the characteristics of dreaming—perceptual, neural, and otherwise—most certainly have been the subject of scientific investigation, which I have provided thus far.

 

Nevertheless:

 

The qualified scientific study is typically published in creditable scientific journals, such as Journals of Coginitive Neuroscience. It should be peer reviewed by creditable scientists in the field. And it can hold up against independent re-test.

The characteristic of dreaming defines if the dream is illogical imagination, or regular imagination, or meaningful combination of the experience, etc.

Taken from this peer reviewed article The Effects of Current-Concern- and Nonconcern-Related Waking Suggestions on Nocturnal Dream Content, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and obtained through the EBSCO Host of an online university, Doctors Nikles, Breckt, Klinger, and Bursell concludes the following from their study of student participants over several nights in their sleep laboratory:

 

"…the evidence from this and other investigations confirms that dreams are meaningfully related to dreamers' current concerns and hence to their real lives. The findings of the present study also confirm the importance of current-concern content in moderating the effectiveness of presleep suggestions. They therefore contribute further evidence that dreams reflect current goal pursuits and that volitional processes continue to be active enough during sleep to influence dream imagery."

 

In this similarly obtain paper titled Dream Content and Psychological Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study of the Continuity Hypothesis and published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, Doctors Pesant and Zadra concludes:

 

"In summary, ours is the first longitudinal study to examine the relationship between people's level of psychological well-being and corresponding dream content characteristics. The findings obtained provide further empirical evidence for the continuity hypothesis and indicate that affect and social interactions represent two psychologically important dimensions in dream content that merit further study."

 

And in this paper, Relation Between Waking Sport Activities, Reading, and Dream Content in Sport Students and Psychology Students, published in the Journal of Psychology, Dr. Schredl's study suggests a relationship between waking-life experience and dreaming with:

 

"To summarize, the results of this study clearly show an effect of time spent in a particular waking-life activity on the rate of incorporating the waking-life activity into dreams. The findings also indicate that factors such as emotional involvement and associated worries might be of importance in explaining the relation between waking and dreaming. Future studies using longitudinal designs would shed more light on this relation and would help researchers to derive a more precise formulation of the continuity hypothesis."

 

The links to these articles do not work outside of the university's library site. However, I was able to find the following links to abstracts confirming these peer reviewed papers conclusions:

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-04530-018

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20212/abstract

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a925359142

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2011 by DrmDoc

[SMF]

DrmDoc, this is a response to your post #19 and it may also apply to what ThinkerJeff has been talking with you about.

 

Your answers to my first two questions were that I didn't understand what you were saying. I will accept this, but with the addition that if you wish responsive comments perhaps you need to work on making your assertions more understandable and provide citations on the spot.

 

Your answer to my question about rigorous support for statement that "Dreaming is an interpretive brain process" was initially a series of studies on REM sleep and PGO waves. I know what PGO waves are, I have recorded them with microelectrodes as mass action potentials and as single cell recordings in the Lateral Geniculate nucleus of experimental animals, and they have no relationship to any theory of dreams or any interpretive brain process. This was disappointing and a big waste of time for anybody here who wishes to gain some understanding.

 

I was very happy to see the reference to the 1981 Hoffman research paper that did a test of his activation-synthesis hypothesis. Some real relevant science! So I did a search for information on this. What I found is that Hoffman's theory, originally published in 1977, has been pretty much disassembled by subsequent research. See for example this study by Solms (2000) that separates REM sleep from Dreaming mechanisms- http://www.why-we-dr...hertheories.htm . To his credit, Hoffman has adapted to the research disproving his theory by adapting. His current version is referred to as input-output gating, modulation (AIM) theory.

 

I also found that there have been several other theories that have been tested and found wanting including Freud's wish fulfillment theory, the we dream to forget theory by, of all people, Francis Crick, the we dream to remember (memory consolidation) theory, and the expectation fulfillment theory (no real subsequent support). In addition to all the speculations by psychologists and psychiatrists, what this all suggests to me is that nobody really knows what dreams are about and nobody has a coherent theory that has, or is, surviving post publication peer review. That is, there is no construct by which the science is progressing at this time.

 

I was hoping for something new regarding the "thalamic stage of evolution" comment. In fact the triune brain idea put forward by MacLean in the 1960's has nothing to do with any thalamic stage. Further, research left this idea behind a long time ago. See this paper for example- http://rstb.royalsoc.../1485/1585.full . Here is a quote (my bolding)-

 

Quote- Since the development of the telencephalon, the basic outline of the vertebrate nervous system has been strongly conserved throughout its phylogenetic history (Butler & Hodos 1996; Holland & Holland 1999; Katz & Harris-Warrick 1999) and even recently, elaborated structures such as the mammalian neocortex have homologues among non-mammalian species (Medina & Reiner 2000). Although the idea that brain evolution consists of new structures being added on top of old structures (e.g. the 'Triune Brain'; MacLean 1973) is still popular among non-specialists, it has been rejected in recent decades of comparative neuroanatomical work (Deacon 1990; Butler & Hodos 1996). Brain evolution consists of the differentiation and specialization of existing structures through shifts in existing axonal projection patterns (Deacon 1990; Krubitzer & Kaas 2005), not through the addition of new structures.

This is now just pop culture.

 

I, and I don't think anybody here, is going to try to follow up on your giant copy paste of your book research bibliography. For me, it is just too information poor relative to trying to understand what you are trying to relate. I suggest, at least for me, that for a good scientific discussion, especially when it involves such a diffuse topic, that it is best to make a coherent statement and then provide a citation or two that are specifically relevant, not a whole bunch that includes a lot of irrelevant information. In this way readers can look at the science and then discuss specific points. SM

Edited April 16, 2011 by SMF

[SMF]

With apologies, I pasted one incorrect link above. The first is actually the website for the expectation fulfillment theory that hasn't really received much attention. The link to the Solms research that provides evidence that Hobson's activation synthesis theory won't work is-

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11515144

 

I couldn't find this as a free full text article but I did find a book of collected articles that has it. For the book advertisement, access is provided with only a couple of pages from the Solms article missing-

 

http://books.google....O00AIclGlxByTv4 - v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Finally, in looking around I found a recent review of dream science by Hobson's as a free PDF. This is well done and I think it would be a good start for anyone coming to this thread to learn what the science is about. In addition to the review he is presenting his new REM sleep-dream protoconsciousness hypothesis-

 

http://www.culturaci...dc/sueno_01.pdf

 

SM

Edited April 16, 2011 by SMF

[DrmDoc]

Your answers to my first two questions were that I didn't understand what you were saying. I will accept this, but with the addition that if you wish responsive comments perhaps you need to work on making your assertions more understandable and provide citations on the spot.

Actually, you "didn't understand" was not my answers to your first two questions. If you will review those answers, you will find that I questioned your characterization of my comments and restated them almost verbatim from prior posts. Since they are now acceptable to you, it seems I needn't have made my assertions any clearer.

 

Your answer to my question about rigorous support for statement that "Dreaming is an interpretive brain process" was initially a series of studies on REM sleep and PGO waves. I know what PGO waves are, I have recorded them with microelectrodes as mass action potentials and as single cell recordings in the Lateral Geniculate nucleus of experimental animals, and they have no relationship to any theory of dreams or any interpretive brain process. This was disappointing and a big waste of time for anybody here who wishes to gain some understanding.

Although no slight to your experience intended, it is obvious that you have never investigated PGO waves relative to dreaming because there are studies that do indeed support such a relationship such as this suggested by researchers Andrew et al (2007) in their paper, Characterization of REM-Sleep Associated Ponto-Geniculo-Occipital Waves in the Human Pons :

 

"The activation-synthesis dream hypothesis proposes that dreams result from cortical interpretation of phasic ascending brainstem input.^8,9 The finding of P-wave related changes in cortical activity confirms the existence in humans of a key element of this hypothesis and suggests a way to test it by selective assessment of dream recall during periods of P-wave activity, particularly in the pre-REM period, when P-waves and REM sleep are dissociated."

 

I was very happy to see the reference to the 1981 Hoffman research paper that did a test of his activation-synthesis hypothesis. Some real relevant science! So I did a search for information on this. What I found is that Hoffman's theory, originally published in 1977, has been pretty much disassembled by subsequent research. See for example this study by Solms (2000) that separates REM sleep from Dreaming mechanisms- http://www.why-we-dr...hertheories.htm . To his credit, Hoffman has adapted to the research disproving his theory by adapting. His current version is referred to as input-output gating, modulation (AIM) theory.

I would be happier with some sincere investigation of the available science because it was Hobson and McCarley (1977) who first posed the activation-synthesis hypothesis that studies more recent than Solms (2000) support as evinced by Andrew et al (2007).

 

I was hoping for something new regarding the "thalamic stage of evolution" comment. In fact the triune brain idea put forward by MacLean in the 1960's has nothing to do with any thalamic stage.

And my comments were: "The most well known theory of brain evolution is The Triune Brain Theory, which makes no specific reference to a thalamic stage of evolution.The "thalamic stage etc" was not a coining of term but rather a descriptive reference to the evolutional emergence of an important brain structure." However,...

 

Since the development of the telencephalon, the basic outline of the vertebrate nervous system has been strongly conserved throughout its phylogenetic history (Butler & Hodos 1996; Holland & Holland 1999; Katz & Harris-Warrick 1999) and even recently, elaborated structures such as the mammalian neocortex have homologues among non-mammalian species (Medina & Reiner 2000). Although the idea that brain evolution consists of new structures being added on top of old structures (e.g. the 'Triune Brain'; MacLean 1973) is still popular among non-specialists, it has been rejected in recent decades of comparative neuroanatomical work (Deacon 1990; Butler & Hodos 1996). Brain evolution consists of the differentiation and specialization of existing structures through shifts in existing axonal projection patterns (Deacon 1990; Krubitzer & Kaas 2005), not through the addition of new structures.

As I stated, my perspective is based on what I learned from the research involving "cross-species analysis of decorticate, decerebrate, brain injury, and abnormal brain development studies that suggested the evolutional hierarchy of the brain. Those studies showed that the thalamus is positioned atop other brainstem structures that decrease in functional sophistication contiguously from thalamic base to the spinal brain, which conversely suggest the contiguous evolution of our central nervous system from its most primitive to its most recent structures." That bibliography was presented as a sampling of my research.

 

Whether that evolution involves the "addition of new structures" or the "differentiation and specialization of existing structures through shifts in existing axonal projection patterns", the hierarchy of our central nervous system contiguously follows a primitive to recent functional path from spinal cord to cortex. When we examine the contiguous sequence of functional advances in afferent neural developments from the myelencephalon (MYEL) to the metencephalon (MET), for example, this primitive to recent path is evident.

 

The afferent nerves of the MET are the Vestibulocochlear, the Intermediate Facial, and the Trigeminal. The Vestibulocochlear nerve advances the tactile ear sensory development of MYEL structure with the perception of sound sensory. The Intermediate Facial nerve enhanced the posterior taste distinctions of MYEL function with anterior tongue sensory (2/3) and soft palate distinctions. Finally, the Trigeminal provide sensory enhancements from the face, sinus, and teeth. These afferent nerves arise in MET structure separately and in the order given here. When we evaluate where and when these nerves appear in MET structure and the sensory capability they provide, we can track the functional direction--suggesting primitive to recent--of taste, sound, and facial perception from simplistic posterior developments (MYEL) to refined anterior developments (MET). Although any neuroanatomy text will supports these descriptions, the Atlas of Human Anatomy, Third Edition by Dr. Frank H. Netter provides excellent illustrations of these brainstem neural development.

Edited April 16, 2011 by DrmDoc

[SMF]

DrmDoc. Except for apologies for my typo on Hobson's name I think I will let my statements stand for reasons I have already mentioned.

 

For others, I recommend, again, that those interested in the basic science of sleep and the theories that have been looked at in the past regarding the functions of dreams, REM and nonREM (NREM), sleep read the recent Nature review by Hobson- http://www.culturacientifica.org/textosudc/sueno_01.pdf

 

This review is clearly and extensively referenced with citations to previous research to help a reader pursue the science and it clears up many of the problems with this thread, and makes it clear that this general area of research is in a state of flux, but also proposes a hypothesis for future research. I love a good scientific review article. SM

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc. Except for apologies for my typo on Hobson's name I think I will let my statements stand for reasons I have already mentioned.

 

For others, I recommend, again, that those interested in the basic science of sleep and the theories that have been looked at in the past regarding the functions of dreams, REM and nonREM (NREM), sleep read the recent Nature review by Hobson- http://www.culturaci...dc/sueno_01.pdf

 

This review is clearly and extensively referenced with citations to previous research to help a reader pursue the science and it clears up many of the problems with this thread, and makes it clear that this general area of research is in a state of flux, but also proposes a hypothesis for future research. I love a good scientific review article. SM

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.

Edited April 16, 2011 by DrmDoc

[DrmDoc]

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.

 

 

[random]

Dreams don't make any sense, Yes we have all likely heard stories of dreaming precognition, meaningful dreams providing some level of insight etc, The dreams we remember are the ones just before waking while the brain is still swimming in melatonin but progressing to a waking state, So therefore it stands to reason (in my opinion) that the brain is actually producing conscious thought. What about all the illogical dreams ?????? flying, being chased by out of water sharks with machine guns? all the stupid crap? It seems to me if there was a "great message" to be heard during sleep it would be consistent in presence and form and persistent instead of random. No I will take the stance that it's either a placebo effect or it is a level of conscious thought.

when we have a meaningful dream, it's not a dream at all but moreso a "in between" level of a sleepy brain and full alertness. We are still able to maintain a heightened level of connection to creativity which we only seem to have during sleep but we are able to consciously reason. It's like those lucid dreaming machines that allow you to control your dreams, they wake you up , your actually awake but still groggy enough to fantasize therefore........not really dreaming is it? It's conscious thought.

[ShmuckersJam]

Im sure most dreams mean absolutely nothing. But dreams that do mean something I find, at least with myself, are a metaphor of whats going in in my life. For example, there was a time many years ago, when I was stuck in a rut and I wasn't sure what to do. I guess I was waiting for things to get better, instead of taking action. While these harsh times were upon me, I had a dream that I traveled to Holland or something (I can't remember the location), with my aunt and uncle. I had a great time when I was there, but when I asked them when we would be leaving, they replied "We've got our plane tickets, and we're leaving on Wednesday."

This dream had great meaning to me because I realized that to get where I wanted to go, I had to buy my own ticket. This was the perfect metaphor for what was happening in my life at the time.

I have had a few dreams that were metaphors to my life.

 

Anyone else?

[DrmDoc]

Dreams don't make any sense, Yes we have all likely heard stories of dreaming precognition, meaningful dreams providing some level of insight etc, The dreams we remember are the ones just before waking while the brain is still swimming in melatonin but progressing to a waking state, So therefore it stands to reason (in my opinion) that the brain is actually producing conscious thought.

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?

 

What about all the illogical dreams ?????? flying, being chased by out of water sharks with machine guns? all the stupid crap?

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?

 

It seems to me if there was a "great message" to be heard during sleep it would be consistent in presence and form and persistent instead of random. No I will take the stance that it's either a placebo effect or it is a level of conscious thought.

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.

when we have a meaningful dream, it's not a dream at all but moreso a "in between" level of a sleepy brain and full alertness. We are still able to maintain a heightened level of connection to creativity which we only seem to have during sleep but we are able to consciously reason. It's like those lucid dreaming machines that allow you to control your dreams, they wake you up , your actually awake but still groggy enough to fantasize therefore........not really dreaming is it? It's conscious thought.

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.

[random]

Drm doc it's theory.............. and it appears you can't read a simple sentence without trying to reinterpret it or twist it around into somthing stupid so I have had my fun we'll let this thread fade off into the distance. I feel I clearly defined the difference between actual dreaming (deep sleep) and perhaps "conscious fantasy" is a suitable term. Continue to show your superiority, we're all saps and your brilliant.........geez I tire of know it all know nothings too quickly these days.

[DrmDoc]

Drm doc it's theory.............. and it appears you can't read a simple sentence without trying to reinterpret it or twist it around into somthing stupid so I have had my fun we'll let this thread fade off into the distance. I feel I clearly defined the difference between actual dreaming (deep sleep) and perhaps "conscious fantasy" is a suitable term. Continue to show your superiority, we're all saps and your brilliant.........geez I tire of know it all know nothings too quickly these days.

 

As do I. I wish you well.

Edited April 20, 2011 by DrmDoc

[random]

Perfect we agree on somthing, I take great interest in this subject as a discussion of theory and hypothetical reasoning. Mostly because I feel dreams and imagination (MY THEORY SO RELAX!!!) are closely related to psychosis and delusional mental illness. It is my belief that these forms of mental illness are produced by a "short circuit" of the brain that allows a person to maintain a somewhat constant connection to the area's of the brain associated with creativity, The same area's accessed through deep meditation and/or hypnosis. I believe that the sufferer is not "ready" for this type of heightened or increased connection to these parts of the brain and they are therefore subject to sensory overload. The brain blurs the boundary between what is actual perception or logical perception of the environment and surroundings and so the sufferer interprets sensory input as alway's relative to the" fantasy" or delusion they are engaged in.

 

The fantasy or delusion comes about from the personal life experiences of the individual, so theoretically speaking an individual who has suffered emmotional trauma and/or increased isolation from the outside world will adapt and create persona's (voices) to compensate for lonliness. As they are left alone with their thoughts the fantasy world increases in complexity and detail due to prolonged attachment to the creative center of the brain which produces connections enabling this (much how you can train your brain to better access memories or increase problem solving ability the brain creates connections to allow faster access) The brain is also associating this state with pleasure similarily how a fond memory can invoke feelings of well being. and releasing pleasure hormones So the individual is mentally and physically addicted to this delusional fantasy world because it makes them feel good. (which to an extent explains how anti-psychotics which suppress these feel good hormones work THEORETICALLY))

 

so in essence the mentally ill individual is constantly connected to the creative and pleasure centers of the brain

much moreso than the average person , outside stimuli / sensory input is integrated and interpreted as always relative to the current delusion or fantasy which reinforces the belief the imagined world is real.

 

so the best way to describe it is dreaming while awake. Now it is just a theory so don't waste time asking for scientific evidence because there may not be anyand i have no desire to go look for it anyway. It is just a different perspective on the functions of the human brain and dreaming, and how it relates to conscious thought. Somewhat similar to how Buddhists / martial arts masters etc. are able to achieve insight and heightened awareness through meditation. The mentally ill/ psychotic individual is simply cast into the same state without the mental preparation needed to differentiate between real life and the imagined/ day dreamed one whatever you choose to call it, a heightened level of awareness perhaps.

[random]

Just to clarify, the creative center I refer to is the same as accessed while dreaming, I believe those involved in deep meditation, use of hallucinogenics for spiritual purposes, shaman etc, all train themselves to enter this area of the brain at will where as a psychotic individual just "stumbles" upon it and cannot return to normal functioning like the others. So dreams, psychosis, meditative states spiritual awakenings are all the same mental state. The dream importance you desire drmdoc is the same state. Just my hypothesis.

[DrmDoc]

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.

 

Perfect we agree on somthing, I take great interest in this subject as a discussion of theory and hypothetical reasoning. Mostly because I feel dreams and imagination (MY THEORY SO RELAX!!!) are closely related to psychosis and delusional mental illness. It is my belief that these forms of mental illness are produced by a "short circuit" of the brain that allows a person to maintain a somewhat constant connection to the area's of the brain associated with creativity, The same area's accessed through deep meditation and/or hypnosis….The brain is also associating this state with pleasure similarily how a fond memory can invoke feelings of well being. and releasing pleasure hormones So the individual is mentally and physically addicted to this delusional fantasy world because it makes them feel good. (which to an extent explains how anti-psychotics which suppress these feel good hormones work THEORETICALLY))…in essence the mentally ill individual is constantly connected to the creative and pleasure centers of the brain much moreso than the average person , outside stimuli / sensory input is integrated and interpreted as always relative to the current delusion or fantasy which reinforces the belief the imagined world is real…the best way to describe it is dreaming while awake. Now it is just a theory so don't waste time asking for scientific evidence because there may not be anyand i have no desire to go look for it anyway. It is just a different perspective on the functions of the human brain and dreaming, and how it relates to conscious thought….The mentally ill/ psychotic individual is simply cast into the same state without the mental preparation needed to differentiate between real life and the imagined/ day dreamed one whatever you choose to call it, a heightened level of awareness perhaps.

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.

[random]

@ drmdoc it's not that I don't find the science relevant to my theory important it is simply that I don't think there is any, It is a very unorthodox and theoretical perspective brought about by my own personal reflection. The average medical professional would dismiss it as ridiculous. Espescially if they found out I suffer from a recurrent psychotic illness..........then it is just the ravings of a mad man.

However..........the upside...........I'm psychotic, I can reject their reality and substitute my own any time I wish.

 

 

[DrmDoc]

@ drmdoc it's not that I don't find the science relevant to my theory important it is simply that I don't think there is any, It is a very unorthodox and theoretical perspective brought about by my own personal reflection. The average medical professional would dismiss it as ridiculous. Espescially if they found out I suffer from a recurrent psychotic illness..........then it is just the ravings of a mad man.

However..........the upside...........I'm psychotic, I can reject their reality and substitute my own any time I wish.

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.

[random]

Is dreaming a type of imagined experience or is it something more substantial? If dreaming is anything more than imagination, could dreams truly be substantially meaningful or relevant experiences? As wanderings of an idle mind, what we imagine is meaningful to us on some level. Although frequently not time well spend, our imagination could be a source of insight, innovation, and stress relief. Einstein, whose "thought experiments" produced extraordinary insights, is a great example of meaningful and relevant imagination. However, evidence in brain study suggests that dreaming is likely not imagination.

 

Imagination is a consciously directed activity of a wakeful brain, whereas, dreaming appears to be the random and directionless activity of a sleeping brain. Although it occurs amid sleep, dreaming isn't sleep. EEG and PET studies of the dreaming brain suggest that it is as active as a waking brain. Because dreaming involves a brain as active as one that is consciously awake and aware, dreaming could be categorized as an altered state of consciousness amid the sleep process. However, there is evidence suggesting that dreaming is more than the hippie trip of an idle mind amid sleep. Rather than random and directionless, dreams are perhaps more meaningful, relevant, and directional than a majority of us may perceive given how little many of us care to know about their exact origin and nature. This is not the stuff of Freud or Jung, who both missed the mark considerably. If you have interest, I welcome your thoughts.

 

 

I find alot of similarities within your first post and my theory, however I speculated considerably more, I guess you must have changed your mind about it's plausibility.

[DrmDoc]

I find alot of similarities within your first post and my theory, however I speculated considerably more, I guess you must have changed your mind about it's plausibility.

No, not at all. My perspective has been clear from the start:

 

Is dreaming a type of imagined experience or is it something more substantial? If dreaming is anything more than imagination, could dreams truly be substantially meaningful or relevant experiences? As wanderings of an idle mind, what we imagine is meaningful to us on some level. Although frequently not time well spend, our imagination could be a source of insight, innovation, and stress relief. Einstein, whose "thought experiments" produced extraordinary insights, is a great example of meaningful and relevant imagination. However, evidence in brain study suggests that dreaming is likely not imagination.

 

Imagination is a consciously directed activity of a wakeful brain, whereas, dreaming appears to be the random and directionless activity of a sleeping brain. Although it occurs amid sleep, dreaming isn't sleep. EEG and PET studies of the dreaming brain suggest that it is as active as a waking brain. Because dreaming involves a brain as active as one that is consciously awake and aware, dreaming could be categorized as an altered state of consciousness amid the sleep process. However, there is evidence suggesting that dreaming is more than the hippie trip of an idle mind amid sleep. Rather than random and directionless, dreams are perhaps more meaningful, relevant, and directional than a majority of us may perceive given how little many of us care to know about their exact origin and nature. This is not the stuff of Freud or Jung, who both missed the mark considerably. If you have interest, I welcome your thoughts.

Although I've approached this topic from several angles, my perspective has remained consistent...it's there in the details.

Edited April 22, 2011 by DrmDoc