On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:39:38 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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. > typo correction (I'm trying to reform myself) "But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will fell much fatigued." ----> But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will feel much LESS fatigued.
-- 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.
