DrmDoc

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.

Why are our dreams so easily forgotten? Although not the only one, one explanation is that dreaming is a mechanism for ridding the brain of useless data; i.e., dreams are irrelevant data and are not meant to be remembered. Here's the short answer suggested by the research I did for a book about the dreaming brain, which I wrote a couple of years ago. Memory was evolved to preserve the physical well-being of ancestral animals before those animals developed dreaming brains. What these ancient animals likely remembered most were those experiences that had a real impact on their physical/material survival. Consequently, as descendents of these animals, certain parts of our brain that involve memory appear to become active only in the presences of real physical/material sensory experiences. Although it may appear otherwise, dreams do not involve real physical sensory encounters; i.e., physical/material sensory experiences do not reach our dreaming brain the way these experiences do when we are consciously awake. Because our dreams do not involve real physical experiences that are actually perceived through our bodily senses, parts of our brain--associated with memory--remain inactive and we, consequently, do not give our dreams the concurrent priority and attention that produces a sustained memory of them. We forget our dreams easily because they are not concurrent with true physicality. I welcome your thoughts.

Here's an article describing research suggesting a link between our cortex and that of a species of marine worms, which further extends our brain's evolution back some 600 million years: http://news.discover...uman-brain.html The article goes on to describe how these pre-brain structures in early animals "probably consisted of a group of densely packed cells that received and processed very basic information about food and the environment. The structure may have enabled our ancestors crawling over the sea floor to identify food sources, move towards them, and then later to integrate previous experiences into learning." The goal of this research, the author quotes, "'is to reconstruct and understand the evolution of brains in animals, to trace their neuronal composition and their function from the very beginning of animal evolution to something as complex as today's human brain,'" Aspects of what this article discusses appear to be consistent with some of my comments regarding relatable aspects our central nervous system to an earlier time in its evolution.

Not being a physicist, but having great interest in and considering most thoeries regarding this subject, I believe that something cannot spring from nothing. Everything had a beginning and that beginning was something we may never truly understand. Even if one perceives some supreme consciousness as the progenitor of our universe, something came before it to bring that consciousness into being. Everything came from something or somewhere and no speculation, no matter how reasonable, could convince me otherwise. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is magic not science.

To paraphrase this process from prior comments elsewhere, when evolutional biology provides very little about the emergence of specific behavioral qualities expressed through brain function, we begin by evaluating the anatomic minutia of each brain segment relatable to existent primitive species with those qualities, then look for similar species in the fossil record, explore the likely compelling evolutionary pressure (environment, population, survival resources, etc.) influencing the behavior of those prior species and, based on those pressures, surmise the demands (e.g., feeding) leading to the emergence of the neural developments (e.g.,Glossopharyngeal and Intermediate Facial), known to promote those behavioral qualities.

Forgive my lengthy absence from our little discussion: Contemporary brain studies suggest how enriched environmental experiences are compelling factors in brain growth and development (e.g., Uylings, H. B. M. "Development of the Human Cortex and the Concept of 'Critical' or 'Sensitive' Periods." Language Learning, Jun2006 Supplement, Vol. 56, p59-90, 32p, and Perry, B. D. "Childhood Experiences and the Expression of Genetic Potential: What Childhood Neglect Tells Us about Nature and Nurture." Brain and Mind, 2002, Vol. 3, p79-100.). In Uylings's article, for example, he describe how "Global neglect (i.e., minimal exposure to language, touch, and social interaction during the first 5 years of life) leads to a permanently smaller head circumference, smaller brain size…." However, Uylings goes on to say, "This does not mean that the brain cannot change further in adulthood; for example, environmental enrichment remains capable of challenging the brain, even in adulthood." Further studies in experience-dependent neural plasticity support Uylings's conclusions on how experience influence brain development (e.g., Kleim, Jeffrey A.; Jones, Theresa A.. "Principles of Experience-Dependent Neural Plasticity: Implications for Rehabilitation After Brain Damage." Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, Feb2008, Vol. 51 Issue 1, pS225-S239, 15p, and Holtmaat, Anthony; Wilbrecht, Linda; Knott, Graham W.; Welker, Egbert; Svoboda, Karel. "Experience-dependent and cell-type-specific spine growth in the neocortex." Nature, 6/22/2006, Vol. 441 Issue 7096, p979-983, 5p.) Opposite of nutrition, my position is that experiences related to the more rigorous effort of sustaining a meat diet led to our animal ancestry's meteoric (IMO) brain growth and cognitive development above competing species. Clearly, given our ancestry's likely competitors, foraging among trees is not the same as savaging for meat. Maintaining a meat diet likely, as it does among contemporary animals, demanded a level of cunning, cooperation, and ingenuity exceeding that of more acclimated animals as our primate ancestry migrated from forest to savannah.

I disagree. As my position regards an association between atonia and feeding in the brainstem that could be relatable to the evolutionary process; consideration of other areas are, therefore, irrelevant. The NTS supports my idea of a tonicity promoting area (via NREMS) of the brainstem, associated with sleep, that could be linked to processes associated with feeding, which involves the viscera. ...true NREMS- and REMS-generating mechanisms exist exclusively in the forebrain and brainstem, respectively [...] the thalamus engages in both NREMS and W "True NREMS" meaning sustained NREMS. Although the NTS does not generate sustained NREMS, its association with visceral related activities suggests a relationship between those activities and the propagation of sustained NREMS through a primitive element of our CNS. The Triune theory presents a popular perspective of the brainstem as relatable to an earlier, more primitive incarnation of brain structure, which you have yet to deny. If we agree that brainstem structure suggests an earlier time in brain evolution, then what does that structure suggests about its earlier time? How do we go about the process of accessing what the brainstem suggests about the progression of brain development from an earlier evolution? When evolutional biology provides very little about the emergence of specific behavioral qualities expressed through brain function, do we begin by evaluating the anatomic minutia of each brain segment relatable to existent primitive species with those qualities, then look for similar species in the fossil record, explore the likely compelling evolutionary pressure (environment, population, survival resources, etc.) influencing the behavior of those prior species and, based on those pressures, surmise the demands (e.g., feeding) leading to the emergence of the neural developments (e.g.,Glossopharyngeal and Intermediate Facial), known to promote those behavioral qualities? When, for example, no peer reviewed research exists on the primal emergence of the tonic/atonic expressions of brain function, how do you suggests we access and assess those factors leading to that emergence?

To which my response was, "All of Dr. Jouvet's work is available online. Try a Google Scholar search." And now, your reversal: Initially you dismiss Jouvet's work as irrelevant without even a glance. Then, in the very same post, you state your willingness to concede it may indeed have some relevance. Now, it seems we are back to square one. To be clear, as stated in prior post, we are looking for an association between the mechanisms for atonia and those for rest and food privation in the segment of brainstem relatable to ancestral animals (Triune Theory). All papers available through Google Scholar (GS) are peer reviewed, including Jouvet's should you once again care to consider them. However, while perusing GS, I found this peer reviewed article suggesting a connection between mechanisms for NREMS (a tonic state) and visceral activities. Villablanca, J. R. (2004). Counterpointing the functional role of the forebrain and of the brainstem in the control of the sleep-waking system. J Sleep Res., 13(3), 179-208. Specifically: The article suggests that this site, n. tractus solitarious, in the truncated, mesencephalic brainstem is the only area capable of promoting NREMS, which is a tonic state. The viscera association with the solitarius and its NREMS (tonic state) mediation in the brainstem coupled with the unstable nature of tonicity in mesencephalic animals suggest a connection between the need to feed and the sustained tonicity of NREMS in the mesencephalic brainstem. At the very least, this article associates visceral activities with sleep/wake processes through a segment of brainstem relatable to an earlier time in brain evolution according that segments position in the Triune model.

I welcome your cordial and insightful perspective and agree with much of what you have said. Sleep involves a confluence of neural functions arising from brainstem components evolving at various stages in our CNS's evolution, as its recent-to-primitive contiguous structure suggests. Although we may have a general understanding of the neurological and neurochemical mechanisms of sleep, these mechanisms by themselves do not tell us much about the origin and evolutional path of sleep. When we evaluate these mechanisms in context with how our CNS likely evolve, I think we can form a cogent evolutional perspective of how these components of sleep arose and why they persist today. The individual components explain themselves but, individually, they do not speak to the history of the sleep process. That history provides a fascinating perspective of why we dream—in my opinion. Indeed, macro study doesn't explain the emergence of the individual components that constitute contemporary brain structure. Studying how the function of those components contiguously emerge and fit together offers, in my opinion, a unique perspective on the emergence of mind, memory, consciousness, and various other aspects of brain function. Indeed, we know a great deal about what sleep and the absence of sleep do from brain and body. However, the nature of contemporary sleep tells us very little about its initial adaptation or its compelling evolutional circumstance. I began a study of that adaptation and circumstance during research for a book about the dreaming brain, which I wrote several years ago. The experience caused me to question contemporary notions about the confluence of functions that produce mind and consciousness and the significance of specific structural developments. It was fascinating to discover how--through decorticate research--cortical structure and function may not be as essential to some cognitive behaviors as I had thought.

You misunderstand; my reference to arrogance regarded my initial comments, which I sought to clarify in subsequent comments regarding the non-existence of a clear, integrated theory. If you reread my comments, you should find that I was expressing no assumption regarding information in your possession. Again, if you reread all my comments in this discussion, you will find that I expressed no direct or indirect comments regarding your personal attributes or motives. In answer to your question, I consider any theory or statement regarding the nature of consciousness as speculative that does not include foundational aspects of brain evolution. Although your comments appear to suggest there is literature that cogently merges the nature of consciousness with brain evolution, I have not found any. If you are aware of such, I'd be delighted to review and discuss it. No, I understood the text above because I wrote it. What I didn't understand was having written that text without using a metaphor that was unclear, which suggests to me your belief that I should have used an unclear or obscure metaphor to better explain my position. In review of your subsequent comments, perhaps you meant I should have used a metaphor that is clearer to you. By footprint I meant some neural evidence of that earlier form, which we can walk (metaphorically) or trace back to a beginning. Nitpicking over innocuous details such as this, forestalls more meaningful discussions—in my opinion.

To prejudge evidence as irrelevant without what seems the slightest consideration or knowledge of that evidence's content suggests your biased conviction, which validates my position regarding evidence in adverserial discussions. And yet, I have provided citations to such evidence, contrary to your claim that I have not. Your approach notwithstanding, I support my position with the available evidence when no new evidence or evidence to the contrary exists. I consider neuroanatomy texts as reliable guides and resources to the basic available research regarding the functional nature and structure of our CNS. Where the mechanisms for atonia and the afferent neural systems associated with feeding reside in the brainstem have not changed since their initial discovery. That these mechanisms reside in the same segment of brainstem isn't a coincident of evolution. As early as research by Sir Charles Sherrington, atonia has been known to engage when decerebrate animals were not being fed or otherwise physically stimulated. You did receive the proper citations for my thoughts regarding this issue. Now, as an afterthought, maybe there is relevant material in Jouvet's work? Careful, you may ruin my perception of your psychology. All of Dr. Jouvet's work is available online. Try a Google Scholar search.

Who says that we lack the "slightest understanding?" I can go on Google, Amazon, or a searchable academic database and find dozens of books and hundreds of articles about the evolution of the human brain, of intelligence, and of specific cognitive functions. Are you just saying that individuals speculate on the topic without understanding, or that science lacks it in general? An arrogant statement? Granted; however, from my perspective, a clear, integrated theory of brain evolution and consciousness emergence does not exist. Who speculates this? Classical Freudians? You've mentioned two parts of the classical Freudian tripartite model of the psyche (leaving out the superego--I'm not certain why) and the concept of a "complex"--by which you mean, perhaps, the Jungian concept of the complex. These theories have been significantly discarded by the mainstream community of psychology. To be so gauche as to quote myself from a previous post: These were merely speculative examples in an ongoing discussion rather than an all inclusive, detailed description or discussion of those examples. was expressed without the use of an unclear metaphor. Follow what footprints how? "…without the use of an unclear metaphor." What? I don't understand. Should I have used an obscure metaphor?

You selectively attack evidence you believe to be irrelevant without proper study or discussion. As I have said, as your reply evince, no sound evidence of significance and relevance to a topic in adverserial discussion would be amenable to the opposition.

It seems you only know one mode—attack! You make one claim here, and then a variation on that claim. First, that the relative lack of sensory acuity (compared to other animals) among early primate ancestors compelled cortical growth on an evolutionary scale. Second, that relative lack of sensory acuity, as well as relative lack of speed, and relative lack of stealth compelled this growth. Is it sensory acuity, or is it all three? It's not particularly novel to suggest that h. sapiens occupy a niche in which a relatively high degree of cognitive skill, and relatively low degrees of physical strength or senses are used to make a living. To make more specific variations upon that claim requires some more evidence. To make it in general terms is largely to recite what's already well-known. If I may simplify, in research some have suggested that larger brain size among ancestral primates may have occurred as that ancestry moved from a herbivorous diet to meat consumption. The idea is that the increase in protein consumption, associated with a carnivorous diet, may have led to this growth. My position, on that issue only, is that there could have been factors more compelling than dietary intake. In describing those factors, I suggested how certain sensory and physical disadvantages might have led to behaviors that could have resulted in increased brain size and development. In support, I briefly described how such disadvantages might have required reasoning capabilities and, by extension, brain power beyond those of competitors adapted to sensing, stalking, and capturing source of sustenance adapted to avoiding same. With a bit of patience and cordial inquiry from respondents, I would have further explored how experience has proven the most compelling factor in sustained brain growth. Brain studies of domesticated animals, for example, have shown as much as a thirty-five percent reduction of growth in their visual cortices relative to non-domesticated species. Presumably—given the unstable diet of non-domesticated animals compared to those in domestication—this size variance arises from the limited visual experiences of domesticated animals relative to the rich and varied experiences of wild animals. the mental demands associated with obtaining meat likely stimulated the larger brain developments we have found among the primates considered ancestral to humans is somewhat incomplete, given that brain-to-body mass ratio has steadily increased along the mammalian line since very early mammals during the mesozoic. Also, the rapid advances in encephalization during the history of the early hominids we're talking about occurred long before the technology associated with hunting had arrived. Thus, the "mental demands" of obtaining meat are really the mental demands of scavenging--a strategy not unlike what mammals had already been employing for millions of years. One would have to make a case that scavenging meat and scavenging vegetable matter are qualitatively dissimilar. Indeed, what one group of savannah mammal have adapted to do after "millions of years" is not reflective of what others were required to learn and do over a few hundred or thousand of years. Evolution obviously selected for certain groups of primates with mental capabilities exceeding their sensory and physical limitations. Given your obvious erudition, I am astounded by this comparison between plant and meat savaging. This is not about the development of tools but rather the changes in brain development likely compelled by dramatically altered survival conditions and demands. My conclusion are rooted in what contemporary brain studies suggest about compelling factors in its growth and development. If you are sincerely interested in those, then we can explore a few.

If you wanted to be civil, you would have set that tone from the outset. Clearly, you did not. Although I'd rather this not be adversarial, I think it's best to have some idea of what could be an opposition's psychology in such discussions. That psychology suggests to me that no matter the evidence, no position I espouse will be perceived as sound. Therefore, this simply becomes a point/counterpoint discussion rather than a cordial and enlightened exchange of ideas, which I had hoped to engage. Nevertheless…: It was unclear because you either ignored or didn't understand prior statements outlining the direction of my comments regarding the various components of sleep arising at varying stages in brain evolution. Without some inherent agenda as a hindrance, I think anyone reading those statements will find the direction I outlined quite clear. I hardly think any wording would have suited given your subsequent comments: If you had read my prior comments, this is what you would have found: 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.…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 resembles the notochord development we find in existent species of primitive animal life….When we examine the afferent neural systems of the spinal brain, we find those associated with feeding. This infers that ancestral animals at this stage in brain development engaged behaviors requiring the intake of nutrients….movement most likely evolved with the evolution of the metencephalon where we find more sophisticated 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. And the point: Early spinal brained animals were probably not as mobile as later metencephalic animals. This suggested lack of mobility infers that these animals had to adopt a strategy that allowed for survival in the absences of readily available nutrients…. 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. This suggests that the earliest components of sleep evolved as a means to sustain survival through periods of prolonged food privation. Using your analogy to describe the path of the earliest factors leading to the earliest evolved component of sleep (atonia): 1 thru 4) Mechanism x exists in what most researchers agree is the most primitive aspect of our CNS that is relatable to the complex animals likely ancestral to humanity. Mechanism x suggests a primary compelling factor in the behavior of early complex species leading to the emergence of the earliest component of sleep behavior (atonia) where mechanism x resides. OK, so here's something. First off, I'm not sure if we could really call these processes "vestiges," since they have clear extant function. The components of contemporary sleep emerge from and rest upon functions that are vestiges of an earlier time in our brain's evolution. Because the tenor of my original post eluded (IMO) your initial understanding, I sought to summarize the intent and direction of my thoughts in as few words as possible. If this was a cordial and enlightened exchange, you likely would have asked me to elaborate further at which point we would have explored the details of how I arrived at my conclusions in more amenable terms and tone. Instead, as it seems, you pounced on somewhat concise individual statements as detailed descriptions and conclusions, which leads to misperceptions and false assumptions. As I have said, I can provide you with the evidence I relied on to reach my conclusion but they would likely not be sufficient in adversarial discussion. However, for those of more enlightened interest who might be following our little discussion, the Triune theory of brain evolution explores the evolutional stages of brain development defining the brainstem as its most primitive stage. The various components of the sleep process emerging from the brainstem was largely revealed by Dr. Michel Jouvet through a series of papers beginning in the late 1950's and continuing through the to the late '60's (e.g., Jouvet, M., Michel, F., & Courjon, J. [1959], Sur un stade d'activité électrique cérébrale rapide au cours du sommeil physiologique [CR Soc Biol., 153, 1024-1028] and Jouvet, M. [1967], Neurophysiology of the states of sleep [Physiological Reviews, 47(2), 117-177].). The segments of brainstem and the specific neural developments associated with each, as reference in my comments, can be explored at your leisure through any college level neuropsychology or neuroanatomy text (e.g., Kolb and Wishaw's Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology or Notle's The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional Anatomy.). .

Again, my comments here were to show how the primitive aspects of our central nervous system (CNS) suggest the behavior of the first complex animals at the metencephalic stage of neural evolution. Prior developments suggest feeding as a primary pursuit and capability among early complex animals, as might be found among animals anchored to a primordial sea floor. Newer, contiguous development suggests the emergence of gross locomotion in support of what might have been increasingly complex feeding habits. Indeed, there may have been, as at present, organisms capable of movement without a CNS. However, our CNS structure suggests the evolutional path of brain development in the complex animals ancestral to humanity. Agreed; the word is paleontology. Why we sleep is tied to brain evolution, which is suggested by its recent-to-primitive structure and supported by the similar structures we find among animals in the fossil record. My intent was to engage in a productive discussion of the sleep process as suggested by its various components in brain evolution and structure. We sleep because the functionality of our recent brain developments is dependent on the vestigial processes of earlier development evolved to sustain the viability of the vital systems, of antecedent animals, through periods of rest and food privation. Rather than engage in equally productive discussion and contribute substantive comments, you'd rather mollify what certainly appears to be a personal esteem issue by selecting passages out of context to support a skewed perception of my comments. [headdesk][ Agreed; the word should have been lateral.

Hello All, While researching how our brain evolved to dream for a book I wrote a few years ago (Neuropsychology of the Dreaming Brain), I learned much more about the nature of mind, consciousness, and unconsciousness than I could find in any one specific text. It amazes me how much we speculate about our mental nature and construct without a cogent perspective of brain evolution. To speculate about the nature of the mind or investigate the nature of brain function without the slightest understanding of how our brain evolved is like, in my opinion, constructing a building without considering its foundation. For example, what is the mind? We speculate the mind to be a mixture of id, ego, and complexes when we have empirical evidence which defines the mind as an environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. If the mind is indeed a product of brain function, we can further quantify the nature of the mind by how and when the brain evolved that function. If the modern brain evolved from some primitive form, we should be able to find and follow the footprints of that form back to its beginning. Should you like to join me in further discussion, I welcome your thoughts.

Hello All, Here are other comments I've posted elsewhere that some of you may want to explore. Again, I welcome your thoughts: "This difference between cortical volume and interbrain size supports a distinction suggested by the relative factors effecting cortical evolution among species divergent from humanity. While researching brain evolution for a book I wrote a few years ago, it became clear to me that the cortical development among animals ancestral to humans might have been compelled by a disparity in their sensory acuity. In a nutshell, ancestral animals, akin to contemporary primates, may not have had the sensory acuity of the predators they likely encountered as the protection of their receding African rainforests surrendered to the perils of what may have been a rapidly expanding continental savannah. Consequently, our animal ancestors were probably compelled to reason beyond the limitation of their sensory to survive and compete against faster, stealthier, sensory superior animals. Some believe that the differences in diet (as suggested by fossil teeth evidence) influenced the differences they discovered in brain size between primitive co-existent primate families. While some early primates may have been herbivores, some researchers believed that our ancestral primates began to eat meat and that this steady diet of protein enhanced their brain development. What these researchers failed to consider is the amount of reasoning and brainpower essential to procuring and maintaining a diet of meat compared to that required to obtain leaves, nuts, and roots. Essentially, when our ancestral primates began to eat meat, they had to reason how to compete with other, more skilled meat-eating animals to safely procure and maintain a source of sustenance that probably resisted being that source vigorously. Foraging among the trees of what was once lush rainforests, early primates didn't need the degree of visual, olfactory, and auditory acuity required of animals living in the flat, open grasslands of early Africa. Emerging from a retreating forest to a predator fraught savannah, early primates were likely forced to adapt beyond their sensory limitations to survive. Without sensory capabilities comparable to their savannah contemporaries, the competition, danger, fluid and varying circumstances associated with obtaining meat probably compelled our primate ancestors' use of brainpower in ways not required by foraging. As we know, through contemporary brain study, sensory experience and learning stimulate brain growth and development. Rather than meat consumption itself, the mental demands associated with obtaining meat likely stimulated the larger brain developments we have found among the primates considered ancestral to humans. Consequently, our dependency on the sophisticated thought processes our primate ancestors evolved to survive distinguishes our larger cortical-to-interbrain size ratio over that of more sensory dependent animals—in my opinion."

Hello All, Below are comments I've posted in other forums regarding the nature of sleep. I welcome your thoughts: "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 literal 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 infers that ancestral animals at this stage in brain development 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 infers 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. This suggests that the earliest components of sleep evolved 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."