DrmDoc

You did not answer my question, so I will ask again. Is it acceptable for an adult to engage a prepubescent child in sexual behaviors exceeding that child's level of physical, mental, and emotional maturity? I've underlined adult because prepubescent children do not willingly engage this behavior without the influence, urging, or coercion of an adult. This is unlike a child able to engaging in business endeavors. These are children who are clearly vulnerable to adult authority and influence. You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex. Although I'm still waiting on your reply to my prior post, perhaps you could answer: When is a prepubescent child able to consent to sex with an adult? In other words, can a person who is physically, mentally, and emotionally immature, whether adult or child, willingly consent to sex without influence, urging, or coercion from an adult?

You have not replied to my post...have you abandon our discussion? Adolescent boys, perhaps it was considered normal; however, prepubescent boys, it was likely not. Is it your opinion that it is acceptable for the adult members of a civilized society to engage prepubescent children in behaviors that exceed their sexual maturity? If so, what affect, if any, might this behavior have on the overall wellbeing of the society's youngest, most vulnerable members?

How pedophilia impact the life, mind, and emotion of both children and society. And then there's this exchange: So, not all pedosexuals molest children; however, those who do molest children chose them because of their "orientation." Is that correct? When is sex between an adult and child not considered rape? Among all your statements, this is the first time you've made such a direct declaration...interesting. Do you understand why they are wrong? And then again, there is this exchange: Perhaps you didn't understand my use of the words, "by proxy." Whether or not a pedophile or pedosexual pays for child porn and whether that porn is home-made, that individual is engaging vicariously in the sexual violation of a child. When an individual derives pleasure from pornographic images of children, that individual is deriving pleasure from the sexual molestation of children. Although the pedosexual may not be the abuser, the actual abuser becomes the pedosexual's agent when the pedosexual views the abuser's pornographic material. In your words, "Sexual acts with children are wrong". Are you suggesting that "home-made" material involving sexual acts with children are acceptable? Have you any testimony from children who willingly—without adult influence, urging, or coercion—engaged in sexual contact with an adult? If you do, is it likely that a prepubescent child has the sexual maturity in mind, body, and emotion to independently and deliberately initiate such behavior?

To which I have written: You have only espoused views supporting pedophilia as an "orientation," which is indeed one-sided. I was asking if you considered the sociological/psychological impact and implication of this "orientation". Review my comments and you will find that I have expressed no such belief. So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct? If so, why wouldn't he? If the behavior is merely an innocuous sexual orientation, why would or should a pedosexual restrain himself? If I understand correctly, having sexual congress with adults and viewing child pornography are ways a true pedosexual calm his desires? How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy? Homosexuality does not lead to man-rape as pedophilia to child molestation does invariably. Invariably, either directly through contact or indirectly through media viewing, a child must be molested to satisfy a pedophile's sexual desires. Then how does one know that he is sexually attracted to children? Isn't arousal a sexual act? Are you now suggesting that there could be an indirect link? So, if I understand correctly, the "sexual orientation" label is not an attempt to legitimize pedophilia? Is it your opinion that sexual acts between adults and children can or should be legitimized? As I wrote: Although the referred site was part, my comments regarded our discussion and my impression of bias in your perspective. Shouldn't there be? If I understand your perspective, "pedosexuality" involves behaviors that cannot be acted upon directly and if ever a child is involved in satisfying the pedosexual, that should be consider behavioral aberrance. Without a legitimate outlet for the expression of their sexual desires, wouldn't therapy ameliorate what is obviously a frustrating compulsion?

And this is a science forum rather than a platform for one-sided discussions of topics with tremendous sociological and psychological impact and implications. If we are discussing science rather than some effort to building support for one's personal predilections, then an exchange of perspectives on the sociological and psychological effects of a behavior or "orientation" is indeed part of the science in our discussion. If you understood my use of the term "analogous," you would know that I was not referencing pedophilia as murder but was attempting to draw a cogent comparision between a behavioral aberrance and its sociological/psychological impact. In relative terms, a discussion of the potentially severe social and psychical impact of a behavioral aberrance is a siginificant aspect of our discussions as responsible scientist. You are referencing a site that clearly lack objectivity in its content and goals. A balance discussion should ideally encompass both sides of an issue. You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other. Beyond morality, this "orientation," if acted upon, has sociological and psychological implications exceeding most others in that it compels behaviors that ultimately do not serve the lasting wellbeing of either the oriented or the subjected. Therefore, our discussions should include therapeutic remedies.

By "sexual orientation" you are indeed describing that which arouses sexual desire and congress. In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions? As I previously commented, "...you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?" Well, have you?

Should we consider pedophilia acceptable behavior because of this "orientation" label? Does "orientation" legitimize or justify pedophilia? Homosexual and heterosexual behaviors differ from pedophilia in that they ideally require willing, sexually mature participants. Have you any data regarding the sexual "orientation" of prepubescent children towards adults without adult influence or coercion? Have you reviewed any studies regarding the affects pedophilia has had on children subjected to this behavior? Rather than an objective inquirer, you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?

Some pedophiles may not be killers but do you sincerely believe that "they don't hurt anyone", which includes the psychological development of the subjected children? By what rationale would the perspective of "they don't hurt anyone" be considered "true" when that perspective involves subjecting a child to the sexual advances of an adult. Such behavior is akin to those fellows in California who where arrested after video surfaced of them sexually molesting paralyzed and otherwise invalid patients--individuals incapable of defense against the aberrant behaviors of others.

As I wrote, "The evolved nature of sexuality is procreation at the uppermost, mutually beneficial and nurturing interaction that promotes bonding at the very least." As I have asked, "How does a physically and sexuality immature prepubescent or a creature not evolved to procreate with humans benefit from the advances of a sexuality mature human? How does pedophilia and bestiality, which are clearly behaviors aberrant to the evolved nature of human sexually, benefit entities (children and animals) incapable of participating in behaviors clearly incompatible with their physical and psychological development?" Behaviors, imposed on children and animals by sexually muture human adults, that provide no direct or indirect benefit to either child or animal are unequivocally suggestive of aberrance and an unhealthy mind in need of treatment.

As this is a science forum, let's consider the logic. Statistical preferences may merely reflect the frequency of aberrance in the specific behaviors of a populous rather than the natural or evolved nature of that behavior. The evolved nature of sexuality is procreation at the uppermost, mutually beneficial and nurturing interaction that promotes bonding at the very least. How does a physically and sexuality immature prepubescent or a creature not evolved to procreate with humans benefit from the advances of a sexuality mature human? How does pedophilia and bestiality, which are clearly behaviors aberrant to the evolved nature of human sexually, benefit entities (children and animals) incapable of participating in behaviors clearly incompatible to their physical and psychological development? Although thoughts enveloping aberrant behaviors are not illegal, they are suggestive of an unhealthy mind arising from either a deep psychological root cause or some brain disorder.

The human brain can sustain a surprising amount of damage (e,g., Google search Phineas Gage) without causing death. Although not instantaneous, a gunshot to any area of the cortex can cause death through excessive intracranial pressure arising from either brain swelling or edema. Abraham Lincoln lingered for several days as a result of the brain injury cause by a low-caliber bullet that didn't exit his skull after being shot at close range from the back. Instantaneous death may only be caused by gunshots to the brain that also damage the brainstem, which regulates heart and lung function. To some of us, it is not uncommon to think of such things around this time of the year. The holiday season seems to amplify the loneliness and misfortune some of us feel. However, such thoughts are unhealthy and one should seek the counsel of a mental healthcare provider should these thoughts persist.

No! To confirm that someone has died because of a dream, we would require some evidence, direct or indirect, as confirmation from the dreamer. After nearly four decades of general study, I have not reviewed any credible evidence of dreaming as a cause of death while sleep other than deaths due to injury while sleepwalking. During an earlier age of investigative ignorance on the causes of death, the myth of people dying because of a dream likely got its start as an explanation for deaths occurring amid sleep without any outward sign of injury. Dreams are how our brain synthesize or interpret activations in the brainstem that occur amid sleep. These activations are a result of vestigial metabolic neural processes associated with prolonged periods of physical inactivity. The memories we have of dreaming form as the sleeping brain arouses to wakeful levels of activity. Those memories are how our waking brain interprets what it believes it experienced as a result of the activation in the brainstem occurring during the sleep process.

I think these comments suggest the most likely cause of your experience:

For functional anatomy, Kolb B., Whishaw IQ., Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, New York: Worth Publishers. Or, Nolte,J., The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional Anatomy, St. Louis: Mosby Publishers. For pure anatomy, Netter F.H., Atlas of Human Anatomy, New Jersey: Icon Learning Systems Publishers. I hope this helps.

As mental experiences, dreams are primarily reflective of influences affecting what we may deeply think and feel. The cyclical nature of life experience (fall, winter, spring, summer, etc.) suggests the likelihood that your recurring dream aligns with the cyclical nature of your life experience. Something that occurs annually or periodically in your life is having such an affect as to cause your dream recurrence. Examine the experiences in your life surrounding your recurring dream and you will likely find its source. I hope this helps.

If you are describing the experience of dreaming while awake, that state is akin to what we find with schizophrenia and you should probably review your family history and consult a mental health specialist. However, if what you are descirbing is akin to vivid memory of a prior experience, then it is not so uncommon. Your vivid recollections of a dream can occur as most memories of experience do, through environmental cues that trigger your recollections. Essentially, rather than imagination, dreams are interpretations of mental experience. Dreaming is an experience that occurs when the sleeping brain partially disconnects--at the onset of atonia--from the sensory experience of physical reality. Amid that state, the sleeping brain becomes active as a result of the vestigial processes of sleep arising from activations in the brainstem. The now active brain amid sleep interpret those activations in the brainstem as mental experience rather than physical because of the brain's partial disconnect from physical reality. It isn't until we awake that the mental experience of dreaming becomes interpreted by our waking-state brain as the pseudo-physical/material experiences we recall as dreams. Dreams, in reality, are physical/material interpretations of mental experience. They are best understood by prefacing their description with the word mental; e.g., dream foods and homes could be best understood as mental foods and mental structures. I hope this helps.

Although the experience of dreaming occurs amid sleep and is popularly understood as the working of the unconscious mind, the imagery and scenarios that interpret dream content are products of the conscious mind. At the onset of atonia--the suspension of gross muscular elasticity and motor responses that occur during the dreaming state of brain function--our brain experiences a partial cessation of full sensory contact with physical/material reality. Our brainstem activations amid the dream state do not generate gross muscular responses because they do not contain the sensory data that informs the dreaming brain that its experiences require a response in physical/material reality. Essentially, dreaming is a mental experience and is interpreted by our brain responses as such, which is why we should consider their imagery and scenarios as interpretations rather than symbols. My study of dreams and dreaming convincingly suggests that our memories of having dreamed form during the arousal process as physical sensory afferents reenters brain structure and arouses those cognitive processes associated with memory. What is not well known by many is that the experiences we recall as dreams are how our linear/literal waking brain interpret the non-linear, purely mental experience of dreaming. More succinctly, dreams are interpretations of mental experience. They are how our waking state brain synthesizes what it believes it experienced amid the sleep process. What our brain experiences during sleep is something best understood by prefacing the content of our dreams with the word mental. For example, being seated in a restaurant while eating a delicious apple pie could be best understood as being mentally seated in a mental structure while mentally consuming some mental food. Our dream recollections are the applications of our conscious linear/literal sensibilities to an experience that does not conform to the laws and logic of physical/material reality. Although our brain's contact with tactile and aural sensory reality diminishes amid dreaming, the experience is every bit an interpretive process as our experiences are in physical reality. Rather than imagination, which is a consciously focused and directed experience, dreaming is the synthesis and response to incoming subcortical data--albeit intracranial neural data--minus the data associated with tactile/aural sensory systems. My study of dreaming suggests that dream content interprets the neural effects from our waking experiences that have remained resonant in brain structure from the onset of sleep. At the onset of sleep, our brain is like one of those old monitors with images that slowly fade as the screen cools when the power is switched-off. Like those old monitors, the data associated with our waking mental experiences is partially restored when switched-on, meaning when the brain arouses amid the sleep process. The mental experiences comprising our dream content are those mental perceptions that remain unabated through the initial phases of sleep (powering-down period) prior to dreaming. Indeed, dreams are not the nonsensical mid-sleep meanderings of an unfettered mind, they are as cogent and meaningful as our conscious experiences might be. What makes our dreams appear otherwise is the linear/literal mindset essential to our navigation of conscious reality. Our unconscious mind, amid dreaming, is not subject to the laws and logic of conscious reality, which the consideration of physical/material experience and consequence governs. The partial cessation of physical/material sensory data to the dreaming brain diminishes activation in specific areas of the brain essential our conscious experience. Without the considerations and constraints of conscious experience, our unconscious mind is able to expand its cognitive limits extraordinarily far beyond the boundaries of our conscious thought and perception.

If you are suggesting information processing as a reason why we sleep, I disagree. The evidence our central nervous system (CNS) provides suggest that the basic processes of sleep evolved in the brainstem before those elements in the cortex associated with the synthesis of information. Although our conscious acuity appears to be enhanced by the sleep process, that is a relatively recent advantage of sleep rather than the primal reason why we sleep. The elements of our brain structure associated with information processing are relatively recent compared to those primitive elements associated with the mediation of our energy stores and autonomic systems. Our recent brain elements arise from and are dependent upon the primitive elements of our CNS for functionality. If the primitive elements do not function efficiently, this can and does affect the efficiency and function of dependent recent elements. The functionality of our brainstem is dependent on the sleep process. When that process is disrupted, it has a rippling affect on hierarchical functions of our brain. According to my read of the latest findings, our brain experiences two distinct functional states of cognitive active rather than some type of sectioning: Waking state [conscious] and the state of dreaming (unconscious). Because our mental acuity and memory is enhanced after sleep periods inclusive of dreaming, some sleep researchers believe this process is some how associated with memory consolidation. If sleep improved our mental acuity and memory, we should find the elderly of sharper mind than they were in their youth since the elderly tend to sleep longer. However, that is not the case. Atonia, rather than dreaming itself, enhances the production of Orexin-A, which has be shown to reverse the affects sleep deprivation with the benefit of dream sleep. If some mental analyses or processing amid dream sleep was essential to the brain's functionality, orexin alone would not have proven as effective in deprivation study. We dream as a consequence of vestigial activity in the brainstem associated with the mediation of our metabolism amid prolonged periods of inactivity and rest. This activity is a vestige of the neural processes ancestal animals likely evolved to endur extended periods of nutrient privation.

You and I are really not that far apart on our assessment of thalamic function. However: If this references thalamic processes amid the active state of dreaming, our individual assessments differ. Although dreaming is an interpretive process, sleep and dream research suggest that it is not quite the restorative and consolidating process many have come to believe. The evidence in dream study suggests that atonia rather than dreaming provides our brain with what it requires to reach optimum conscious acuity. There is convincing evidence that we owe our conscious acuity to the periodic release of muscle tonicity that occurs at the onset of dreaming rather than the mental activity that occurs amid this state. Dreaming is a response to the activations in the brainstem arising from vestigial neural processes associated with the conservation and redistribution of our energy stores amid prolonged periods of inactivity and rest. When the brainstem becomes active amid sleep, our cortex does what it was evolved to do and that is to interpret subcortical neural impulses and directives. Although believed to originate from periodic impulses from the pons, the hypothalamus is most likely the source of the impulses and directives that inspire our dream content. When you consider the primary role of the hypothalamus in its mediation of our sleep, feeding, sexuality, and other survival processes, its contributions to dream content is quite convincing.

In a book I wrote about the evolution of the dreaming brain, I said that mind is the environment of cognitive activity within brain structure that arise from brain function. My study of brain evolution suggested to me that mind could be quantified by a capacity to integrate sensory information, from divergent sensory sources, through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct; i.e., a mind enables proactive behaviors above and beyond those considered reactive. My investigation suggests that thalamic function, after the emergence of sight, gave ancestral animals the rudiments of thought and the burgeoning ability to overrule their instincts. From my perspective, a brain, human or otherwise, with thalamic structure is suggestive of the capacity to produce a mind and, by extension, a consciousness. Although I believe the presence of thalamic structure suggests the capacity to produce consciousness, the quality of that consciousness is suggested by other contributory factors in brain function. All this to say that, from my perspective, the thalamus is the center of mind and consciousness. When the thalamus first evolved, my study suggests that its primary function was to integrate divergent sensory input (sight, sound, taste, and touch), which generated focused responses to sensory stimuli and the development of brain structures (basal ganglia) that enhanced this process. The effects of this process and brain developments were behavioral responses increasingly more coordinated and appropriate to stimuli. The adaptation of such focused behaviors gave these early animals a capacity to distinguish necessary from unnecessary responses, which allowed them to mediate their energy expenditure more efficiently. Such mediation allowed for the development of those brain structures that promoted habituation (limbic system). Through the routine, familiarly, and security habituation promoted, my study suggest that these early animals began to expand the range of their sensory environment and corresponding behaviors. Facilitating this expansion required the sophistication of memory, which led to the evolution of cortical structure. In decorticate studies, neural isolation of the cortex from subcortical structure resulted in sustained cortical deactivation throughout the survival period of test animals (Jouvet, M. and Jouvet, D. "A Study of the Neurophysiological Mechanisms of Dreaming." Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. [1963]: Supplement 24.). This is consistent with the functional hierarchy of brain evolution; i.e., recent brain developments enhance the function of prior developments and are dependent on those prior structures for functionality. The contemporary thalamus is the primary structure in the brain where decisions are neurologically made about which sensory information, excluding olfactory, should reach the cerebral cortex. In this way, thalamic function decides the focus of cortical evaluation. There are more neural relays from the cortex to the thalamus than vice versa. This is consistent with how cortical attenuation of consolidated sensory input from the thalamus enhances thalamic function. As a scaffold, around which mind and consciousness are constructed, the thalamus does not engage thought or abstraction but rather inspire the process and consolidate the resulting directives. As for the unconscious mind, its circuitry--as suggested by brain activations and deactivations amid dreaming--is distinct from that of the conscious mind. A hypnotized brain, in my view, is merely a more focused conscious mind rather than an accessed unconscious mind. Amid dreaming, the sleeping brain experiences a partial cessation of contact with its tactile (including auditory) sensory environment. Amid this cessation, the active dreaming brain is unencumbered by the mental demands and responsibilities physical reality and the sensory data it generates. To place dreaming within the context of sleep, is deceiving. The dreaming brain is as electrically active as a waking brain; therefore, dreaming could be consider an altered state of consciousness amid the sleep process. However, there are significant differences between the consciousness of the waking and dreaming brain as suggested by specific differences in areas of activation and deactivation in the brain between the two states of brain function. However, returning to the OP, the thalamus is the primitive within us that uses a thinking cap (cortex) to attenuate its responses to stimuli. I believe that attenuation accounts for the number of relays from the cortex to the thalamus.

What "cannot be known" is only evidence of a limit to our understanding of a phenomenon rather than the nonexistence of a cause for that phenomenon. To believe otherwise is analogous to suggesting that what we don't see, doesn't exist because it is beyond our spectrum of vision. When we close our eyes, does the world cease to exist because we can't see it? Does a cause not exist because it is not known or has not been determined? In another well known example, does a falling tree make a sound when no one is there to hear it? I think it best to suggest that a cause exist for a phenomenon with the caveat that its cause has yet to be determined when that cause is unknown or unknowable. Any thought to the contrary borders on the supernatural rather than science--in my opinion.

I'm no physic's expert, but your example doesn't seem to be a very good one. Just because we don't know or understand why a uranium atom decaded at that precise moment doesn't mean there is no explanation or cause for that moment of decay. Your example appears to illuminate the depths of our ignorance on decaying uranium blobs solely rather than some empirical lack of causality in that decay--in my opinion.

Referred to as hypnogogia, yours is a fairly common experience that often occurs during the brief period between wakefulness and sleep. The experience may include voices, loud noises, sharp sensations, bed shaking, lucid paralysis, imagined room intruders, and, of course, tinnitus among various other types of sensory experiences. That sound you hear is most likely the amplified ringing many older adults hear imperceptibly. Exposure to loud noises and the continuous use of earphone devices over the years is the likely cause. As you drift into sleep, you may be experiencing an increased sensitivity to ambient noises in your sleep environment as many of us do. Unfortunately, that sensitivity could be enhancing your tinnitus. Although I advise that you visit a sleep specialist, noise cancelling devices and natural sound generators have shown some effectiveness in easing the symptoms of this kind of sleep disturbance. I hope this helps.

Simply stated, we can not. We cannot employ certain mental faculties to the full extent of their use without an original sensory source of input as reference. Although the cogenitally blind, for example, can imagine the tactile shape of an object previously touched, they cannot fully conceive in mind the shade, colors, and other visual nuances of the object. How can a congenitally blind individual fully comprehend, imagine, or reason the distinction between light and dark or red and orange without ever having a visual reference for comparison? From another perspective, much of what we know and are able to do mentally and physically is predicated on what we have learned and experienced. What we learn and experience provides our brain with the data input its mental response systems (imagination, reason, memory, etc.) requires to effectively navigate the physical, mental, and emotional realities of life experience. Without that input, those systems are effectively impaired by what could be considered omissions in their reference database. Feral children, perhaps, provides the best example of how what we do and do not learn and experience shape the mental faculities we employ.

A specific area of the brain (prefrontal), associated with the formation of sustained memory, experiences a condition of low activation (hypofrontality) during the dreaming (REM) phase of sleep. This area, among other functions, mediates our assessment and consideration of consequence and consequential experience. Its low activation amid dream is a response to our dreaming brain's diminished conscious connection to our physical sensory (sound and touch) environment. What we remember most about our dream content begins to form during our arousal from sleep as our prefrontal function is once again stimulated by incoming (afferent) data from our physical sensory array. Consequently, dreams that incorporate stimuli from our sleep environment (e.g., cold room) are how our arousing brain integrates the internal experience of dreaming with afferent stimuli from our sensory environment. Arousing from dreams about urinating with a need to do so, is likely caused by the dream itself rather than a bodily need. This is a case of mind over body wherein the compulsion to urinate is inspired by the content of the dream rather than an afferent perception that has been integrated into the dream. Although not entirely his fault, Freud was wrong. Freud's ideals about the nature of dreams and our mental construct were predicated on his observations of aberrant examples. Unfortunately, Freud did not have access to the kind of imaging technologies nor brain and sleep research that we presently enjoy. If he had, he would have realized that dreaming is merely the synthesis of brainstem activations amid the sleep process. He would have understood that these activations do not originate from our senses and, therefore, are not perceived by the brain as originating from our sensory environment. Because these activations do not contain data that our brain recognizes as reality, they do not stimulate the kind of memory and gross-locomotion responses we apply to true physical/material experience. It's difficult to make an accurate count of how many dreams we experience during each cycle of REM; however, REM occurs at 90 minute intervals during normal sleep on average. The longer we sleep, the more time spent in REM per interval. Our brain is predisposed by evolution to remember experiences of real physical/material consequence. Although we may not be mindfully aware amid a dream that our experiences aren't real, atonia and hypofrontality suggests that our brain is very much aware. Atonia is the cessation of the muscle readiness essential to our responses in physical reality. Hypofrontality suggest a cessation of the assessment process associated with our consideration of consequential experience. There are studies that suggest a strong association between dream sleep and conscious cognitive functions. However, the stronger studies are those that show that atonia rather than dreaming is the component of sleep process that is most essential to our conscious mental acuity. Although some of us may have construed our dream experiences as reality, the possibly of that happening is most likely not the reason our dreams are so easily forgotten. We have to think about the evolved nature of brain function, memory, and dreaming to understand why. Dreams aren't reality and memory was evolve as a survival strategy for reality. Dreaming is a response to subcortical stimuli that does not activate a part of the brain that contributes significantly memory when we are consciously awake and aware. One of the most prominent distinctions between the dreaming and waking brain is the kind and degree of data available to each.