DrmDoc

In fact, we do have access to human brain study via brain injury, anormality, surgical intervention, and equilvalent animal studies. We've learned a great deal about the nature of human brain function from animal studies in particular. For example, luocotomy (lobotomy), which earned a Noble for its founder and continues to be in limited use today, originated from primate behavioral studies. There isn't very much we can't or don't understand about our brain given our continued access to the types of brain studies I've cited. Also, I agree that our overall understanding of the brain relies on understanding of its basic components beginning from its most primitive to its most recent --relative to how our brain likely evolved to its present state.

I agree; behavior and behavioral responses to non-verbal cognitive tests are indeed another way we are able to assess the equivalent cognitive skills of other species.

I disagree; there are tests or standards for measuring aspects of consciousness which, I believe, is set by humanity itself. The only species in which we are likely able to fully determine consciousness is our own. We can determine whether other species have some level of consciousness equivalent to our own through tests based on our understanding of the human measures for consciousness; e.g, a standard test for self-awareness through the use of mirrors. We have use such test on our infants to determine at what stage they develope signs of self-awareness and on primates to determine a similar distinction. Therefore, language is not our only means for understanding or conveying consciousness. We use the non-verbal tests proven for our species to give us evidence of what cognitive skills other species may have. Whatever skills we find similar to our own in other species are evidence for consciousness. From a neurological perspective, much of what we understand about the nature of human brain function has been determine through animal tests and studies, from fish to fowl to primate. This in itself is evidence of some equilvalency between humanity and other species inclusive of consciousness.

All forms of life require the intake of nutrients to survive. Maintaining the ability to actively seek and procure nutrients requires the expenditure of energy. Although prolonged dormancy may conserve energy through periods of privation, energy renewal and uptake remains essential to sustaining life. When animals adapt the ability to absorb a stable and steady supply of nutrients amid a inactive, dormant state, then the need for sleep could become unnecessary. However, I am not aware of any nutrient source or catalyst that is stable or steady. Even the sun is not such a source or catalyst because of the earths rotation.

Below are comments I've posted in this and other forums regarding the nature of sleep: "If some of us do not know why we sleep, it is because we haven't examined how sleep may have evolved among sleeping species. Nearly every species enters a state of rest that could be interpreted as sleep. This suggests a common evolutionary advantage to the sleep process among sleeping species; i.e., we would not have sleeping species if sleep did not offer some survival advantage to ancestral species. When we examine the neurological components of sleep in most animals, we find that its various attributes arose at varying stages in neural evolution. Contemporary sleep processes in the human brain appear to be mediated by neurons in the lateral hypothalamus. Further down the brainstem, other components of the sleep process appear to suggest an earlier evolutionary incarnation of sleep. During the earliy stages of sleep, the brain engages in diminishing activity until the onset of atonia, which is the lost of muscle elasticity. Interestingly, atonia can and does occur in animals without hypothalmic neural structure. This positions atonia as one of sleep's earliest incarnation because it appears to be mediated by neural structures earlier in the brain's evolution than that suggested by the hypothalamus. If the brain evolved from some earlier form, we should be able to find some footprint of that form, which we can trace back to some earlier point. Most researchers agree that the brainstem is a primitive component of our central nervous system. Of the brainstems components, the spinal brain (myelencephalon) appears to be the most primitive segment because it most closely resemble the notochord development we find in existant species of primitive animal life. When we examine the afferent neural systems of the spinal brain, we find those associated with feeding. This suggests that ancestral animals at this stage in brain evolution engaged behaviors requiring the intake of nutrients. Although the efferents neural paths of the spinal brain suggests movement at this stage in earlier ancestral animals, movement most likely evolved with the evolution of the metencephalon where we find more sophistocated afferent neural systems associated with sound detection. The ability to detect sound suggests ancestral animals at the stage where they were orienting themselves either away from or towards sensory stimuli. Early spinal brained animals were probably not as mobile as later metencephlic animals. This suggested lack of mobility suggests that these animals had to adopt a stratergy that allowed for survival in the absences of readily available nutrients. In some archeological literature, it has been suggested that the earliest forms of complex life where a combination of plant and animal. During the prolonged absence of sunlight or nutrients in their primodial sea, immobile animals that could suspend their need for sustainance likely had a survival advantage over those that could not. During the atonic stage of sleep, we find a suspension of muscle readiness with energy devotion to organs more critical to our survival. Atonia appears to be mediated by the metencephalon/myelencephalon brainstem segments. In decerebration studies, test animals entered an atonic state while not being fed or otherwise stimulated for the duration of their survival. This suggests that the earliest components of sleep evolved likely as a means to sustain survival through periods of prolonged food privation. Although food privation is not a severe concern for some of us, our modern brain rest upon a primitive foundation that was dependent on the periodic suspension of activity to conserve energy for more vital physiological systems. In our brain develpment, evolution built upon its successful systems rather than replace those systems. Sleep evolved from a vestigial need that has become integral to how our contemporary brain functions."

And there we have it. It is my opinion that you, like many who are disinterested and unstudied in dream science, consider all dream research and study "junk science and pseudoscience" regardless of the preponderance of peer-reviewed, scientifically obtained evidence to the contrary. Of the thousands of links to scholarly articles, that was all you found? For the readers of this discussion with serious interest, the following is from a prior search of peer-reviewed articles whose links can be found with a Google Scholar search: 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 Which confirms your earlier admission of not knowing "what meaning means" relative to dream content. For what other reason might there be a coding methodology of dream content for study if not for meaning--which, by the way, is an effort to determine the relevance, if any, of dream content to the psychological or material experiences of the dreamer.

Your independent review confirms, as I have said, that the site is a link to reliable evidence of ongoing scientific study of dream content for meaning contrary to an unsubstantiated claim to the contrary. If other followers here select the links and review the site, they will confirm what your efforts have revealed. If "high-quality peer-reviewed" journals and articles are your sincere interest, what was the results of your Google Scholar search? New directions in the study of dream content using the Hall and Van de Castle coding system [/color][/size][/b] [color=#0000cc]Methods and measures for the [b]study [/b]of [b]dream [/b]content[/color]Start with a Google Scholar search.

As you well know, selecting The Quantitative Study of Dreams link is not in itself a Google Scholar search for Quantitative Dream Study. As it was originally presented, The Quantitative Study of Dreams overall and readily contradicts your prior claim regarding "...the 'meaning' of a dream--or any other cognitive experience, for that matter--is not really an item of scientific study." A Google Scholar search, as many here know and as I suggested to you, can and does provide a plethora of readily available links to the types of scholarly works you described. What's most "suspicious" here is your attempt to construe the above link as a resource other than as I originally presented. However, if pursued with sincere interest, navigating to that link's references is no more difficult, involved, or "suspicious" than at any similar science resource site. If the followers of this discussion select the links and do the scholarly searchers themselves, all I have here stated will be confirmed.

Your comments,"And really, to be honest, can't, since the "meaning" of a dream--or any other cognitive experience, for that matter--is not really an item of scientific study," were very clear. Indeed there has been some ongoing quantitative scientific study of dream content for meaning. The links above, particularly The Quantitative Study of Dreams, stands in clear contradiction to your frankly stated position. In view of your uncertainty as to "what meaning means", I suggest, relative to dream content, a Google Scholar search on Quantitative Dream Study for your future references--if you are of serious interest. Before openly declaring a position on any aspect of this subject, I advise a search of the science, particularly the neuroscience, to everyone of sincere interest. What this science suggests about brain evolution and the nature of the active unconscious brain amid dreaming is fascinating.

Empirically, dreams are unconscious, mental experiences--meaning experiences that play-out in our mind amid an unconscious state. To suggest otherwise would be disengenuous; to believe otherwise is without basis in the science "we both know about." Given this general nature of dreams and dreaming, what I proposed to Appolinaria was one possible way to view the unconscious, mental effects her dream experiences likely suggested. A dream about eating fruit, for example, interprets something the dreamer believes she mentally experienced unconsciously. The whole of that experience regards something she unconsciously perceived as a mental occurrence. What possible meaning could the mental occurrence shown by consuming fruit suggest? Consumption of something she perceives as inwardly (mentally) satisfying perhaps? What I proposed to Appolinaria was that possibility. Surely an adult wouldn't select your profile, then proceed to your ongoing discussions with, apparently, the sole intent to anonymously manipulate the tenor of your amaible and constructive discussions via the negative point/reputation option. Although known to me from our initial exchanges at this discussion site, I presume from such behavior that this individual would rather remain anonymous.

If considered in the context of what I previously wrote--that dreams are unconscious mental experiences arising from the synthesis of activations in the brain that occur amid the sleep cycle--there is most certainly peer-reviewed science. Also, on a separate note to all, I do not engage the point/reputation option on this board as I have stated elsewhere. Should anyone find their comments rated, it was not my doing. That option, as I have learned, is a meaningless popularity game that at least one particularly vindictive and ego obsessed juvenile anonymously plays here to often pit one poster against another in the mistaken belief that reputation points equal credibility. I should think that commentary enveloping substantive study encompassing many years and multiple desciplines rather than artfully appropriated Wikipedic references equal credibility. Nevertherless, should I agree or disagree with any comments here, I will express my opinion in words rather than points.

I've noticed that some who post here consider this board their private kindom and seek to discourage discussions on topics that they have precious little to offer beyond adolescent humor or a limited, unstudied, Wikipedic knowledge base. There is credible, peer reviewed science on this subject should one care to explore. I wish you well.

If you'd like to understand what these dream images might suggest, try adding the word mental to your descriptions. For example, dream fruit becomes mental fruit, which describes something perceived as food for the mind rather than body. Dream zeppelins become mental zeppelins, which could suggest an archaic transport for one's mental efforts or aspirations. Mental fountains in the sky might suggest how you unconsciously perceive a source of inner satisfication that issues from above or beyond your level of understanding. Dreams most likely regard our unconscious mental experiences and are, therefore, more likely to interpret something mental. Although an oversimplification, adding the word mental to every key description in your dreams could bring you closer to understanding whether they have any relevance to your conscious experience. I hope this helps as well.

Although psychology provides no clear answer, neuroscience comes close. Dreaming is a byproduct of activations in the brain that occurs at the onset of atonia, which is the release of muscle tone. There is evidence which suggests that these activations, amid atonia, are vestiages of a period in brain evolution when the energy stores of ancestral animals were used to sustain those physiological system--more vital to survival than muslce tone--amid periods of prolonged inactivity, rest, or food privation. When the brain becomes active amid sleep, it does what it has evolved to do, which is interpret what has aroused its function. That interpretation is what we recall as dreams upon arousal from sleep. More precisely, dreams are how our waking-state brain interpret the residual effects of our brain's activation amid sleep. Dreams are how our waking brain interprets what it believes it experienced amid sleep. The next obvious question is, are dreams meaningful? Dreaming is an unconscious experience; therefore, dreams are interpretations of unconscious experience. Essentially, dreams interpret something we believe we've experienced unconsciously. As an experience that occurs wholly within the brain, dreaming is also a mental experience. Therefore, dreams are likely interpretations of unconscious mental experiences. Dream memories appear to be the product of a waking-state mind that has become consciously aware of something that has had an unconscious mental affect on its properties. I hope this helps.

Thought, as it relates to brain function and its data assessment processes, is difficult to quantify in simple terms because our thought processes require a concert of neural activity eveloping the whole of brain function. Thought could be defined as a process of mentation or a mentation response to the perception and assessment of sensory data arising from sources internal or external to the body. It's safe to say that our mentation responses likely begin when sensory data enters the hypothalamus, which is where our survival drives originate. Our survival drives are likely at the center of all our thought processes.

Actually, the thought to arouse from sleep and bed begins in the most primitive parts of our central nervous system. Sleep appears to be regulated by neurons in that part of the brain associated with our basal drives and motivation, which is the hypothalamus. More recent data suggest that the thalamus also play a prominent role. Sleep satisfies a physiological need. When that need is met, arousal from sleep begins. Upon arousal, internal drives such as hunger initiate those mentation or thought processes associated with satisfying those drives. I hope this helps.

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines mentation as mental activity, which is activity relating to the mind. If a behavioral response isn't instinctual, then it is likely learned behavior as I have previous suggested. Learned behaviors in complex animals suggest the kind of sensory recognition, assessment, and memorization activity, within the brains of these animals, that could be associated with mental activity.

If I understand correctly, the question is can humans devise objective experiments or render objective observations? Generally, we quantify behaviors relative to our own, which isn't entirely an objective place to begin. However, to understand behavior with any certainty we have to judge the behavior of other species by the standards we are only capable of fully understanding to some degree, which is the standard human behavior suggests. Instinctive behaviors can be deduced from what remains of behavior through decerebration experiments and brain injury study. Decerebration involves the successive removal of brain structure as a means to identify which structures produce certain behavioral attributes. Instinctive behaviors are likely to be present from birth and issue from the primitive aspects of brain structure. Behaviors that persist after the successive removal of recent brain structures are likely to suggest those behaviors that are instinctive to a spieces. To some degree, all behaviors are a response to some stimulus, whether internal or external. However, proactive behaviors can be explained as behaviors that appear to anticipate an eventuality. If not conditioned, such behaviors require some mentation process of consequence assessment relative to the actions or inactions of the animal. With conditioned behaviors, that mentation process would have had to occur concurrent with the conditioning or learning process.

Hello SJ, Please note that I do not engage in the point/reputation option on this board. Should you find your comments rated amid our discussions or exchanges, they were not rated by me. Also, I do not believe any ratings in this discussion thread was posted by you. That option, as I have learned, is a popularity game that the adolescents on this discussion board anonymously play to pit one poster against another to, likely, soothe some unhealthy esteem or ego related issue. Should I agree or disagree with your posts, my commentary will only appear in writing. Your written words, rather than reputation points, are the only statement of your insight and opinion that is of any substantive value to me. I wish you well.

Given the police-horse analogy, my position is that some mentation process had to occur initially before the animal's acquired behavior. If a behavioral response isn't instinctive, then it is a learned response. Whether by conditioning, practice, or some other instructional form, learned behavioral responses begin with some initial period of sensory recognition, distinction, and memorization congruient with mentation. Rudimentary mentation, in my view, is merely the integration of divergent sensory information to mediate a behavioral response. This is like reacting one way to a loud noise (e.g., firecracker) while blindfold and reacting differently when the source of that noise (e.g., person standing in room) can be seen before it occurs again. This integration of sound with the added visual information that results in a modified behavioral response suggest the rudiments of thought. With conditioned police-horses, the animal learns that it needed panick amid loud noises and crowds.

An animal that responds to conditioning suggest a capacity to learn from and remember prior experiences, which suggests a mentation process. At minimum, the animal must demonstrate some mentation process that produce behaviors that appear to override the basal instincts of the animal. My investigation of brain function relative to the mediation of behavioral responses suggests that the integrations of divergent sensory data may initiate those mentation processes that produce behaviors independent of instinct. For example, a totally tactile entity might initially respond to all tactile sensory with similar behaviors. When we add visual sensory data to the entity's abilities, it now has a capacity to make a visual distinction in how it should respond to distinctly different tactile stimuli. An over simplification? Perhaps; however, the contiguous functional nature of our central nervous system--from spinal cord (primitive) to more complex neural structures (recent)--suggests significant developments in human brain structure likely began with the evolution or acquisition of sight.

Self-consciousness necessitates behaviors that suggest an awareness of a distincition between self and surrounding influence. Proactive behaviors necessitates a capacity to assess and anticipate consequence. This is evidence of anticipatory mentation prior to behavioral responses suggestive of reactions without such assessments. A mind is shown by reactions to stimuli that isn't typical of the instinctual response to such stimuli. For example, flight in response to any and all sudden loud noise suggests an instinctual response. However, calm amid some sudden and loud noise suggest a distinction process assessing a non-threat. This is an assessment of the consequences of not reacting to loud noises.

Mind is the environment of cognitive activity with the brain that arises from brain function and is quantified by a capacity to integrate divergent sensory information (tactile, visual, olfactory, aural, etc.) throught a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is evinced by proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

The dreaming brain, whether lucid or not, is as electrically active as a waking-state brain. In some brain areas (e.g., temporal and occipital lobes) , the dreaming brain has been shown to be more active. Also, the brain in dream sleep is not completely sensory deprive. Sensory studies have shown increased brain activity amid the dream state in response to light, tactile, and aural stimuli. In some cases, such stimuli is integrated as part of the dream experience as reported by sleep subjects. However, sensory information does not reach the dreaming brain with the same intensity as it does when the brain is in its waking-state.