On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but >>>>>>> that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing >>>>>>> to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a >>>>>> genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over >>>>>> backward to mistake it for anything else. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you say so... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most >>>>>>> dangerous >>>>>>> ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the >>>>>>> subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you >>>>>>> conscious of, but everithing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us >>>>>> so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more >>>>>> easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make >>>>>> up, >>>>>> but we shouldn't take them seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig >>>>> is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not >>>>> something >>>>> based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and >>>>> evolutionary biology. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to >>>> advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all >>>> reverse engineered story telling. >>>> >>>> There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only >>> until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or >>> against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited >>> extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc >>> is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what >>> mechanisms have evolved and why. >>> >>> For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being "for" >>> protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them >>> harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some >>> experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the >>> stripes gave. >>> >> >> Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need >> not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). >> >> >> Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have >> strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a >> (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when >> awake. That is the reason why a cat "performs" the dream activity when >> Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the >> dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of >> the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). >> >> Bruno >> > > Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence > of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a > connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm > pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain > takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is > involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream > states with activities like that. > > There may be a more general correspondence....I'd be surprised to hear the > technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of > thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet > to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. > > There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the > top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real > landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage > the chances of real discovery now and in the future. > In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for a number of days, will began to pass out more and more. They don't return to normal given a good nights sleep. They actually have to make up for the whole accumulation of lost REM sleep. In addition to that, there seems to be a lot of work now to show mental fatigue can be task specific...if you've been working with a specific kind of mental challenge, you will fatigued in that challenge.But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will fell much fatigued. Hence "a change is as good a rest". A lot has been done to rule out psychological drivers. The fatigue then starts showing up more and more quickly with each next changed activity, until we begin to feel tired and sleepy. Denied REM sleep, we start to carry that same fatigue over to the next day. There's evidence I believe that higher mammals (not exclusively) eventually die, if REM sleep denial continues. In addition, dream states themselves - which we all have - are not remembered, and are not like being awake at all. Things have different meanings. Things happen in disjointed sequencing, or physically morph, what was a person can become a can of fish and that may not be a problem in the dream...things can add up in dreams that on waking simply fall away from us....probably because our conscious structures he way to represent the meaning arranged that way. All of that together does not point to your idea that this is simply our conscious selves carrying on through the night. It points to the presence of physical structures that are interconnected but also individually associated with specific kind of mental activity and conscious thought. Physical because seen as pathways, they can only be used a certain number of times before beginning to break down. Furthermore, that this physical wearing down, cannot be fixed and replenished as we go along. Not in areas that are also conscious as well. The REM appears to involve repair and maintenance works on these sort of physical structures. Like railway repairmen on the tracks at night. It could well be, that we experience a dream because that repair work, although functionally serving a crucial maintenance service, nevertheless twangs the strings that generate the physical reality of inner experience. That is where the evidence - all together - points, at this current time. The reason I can see that and you can't, is because you dollop large assumptions onto things. And the reason you do it, is because you need to support pre-fixed notions what consciousness is, that did not come from a process involving any kind of study of the brain, or serious thought about the brain. Instead, you ignored the brain completely - which happens to involve some of the greatest mysteries of science - ignored it completely in a process that nevertheless claims to have solved it....to the extent you still hardly bother with the evidence in the brain....except apparently that which can help your argument. And you claim that as a standard in science. Karl Popper claimed he had solved science in a process that totally ignored science, instead concentrated only on the speculations ....usually themselves with histories largely or sparsely connected with science. But at least Popper labelled it philosophy. At least he did that.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
