DrmDoc

The US Constitution is the foundation for all laws in our country and it is the SCOTUS job to reconcile these modern times with that foundation. The laws that permit and regulate abortion in our country must be tracible to our constitutional foundation in some discernable way. For example, the laws that govern abortion are tracible to the laws in our Constitution that govern personal freedom and whether government has the right to abridge that freedom. If a law can be traced to the Constitution, then it can be adjudicated on that basis and, if it cannot, then the law is invalid and must be dismissed on that basis. These modern times doesn't have to appear in the wording of the Constitution, but their laws must be based on that foundation.

It matters when a majority of our SCJ rule a law or lower court ruling to be either constitutional or not constitutional. If a law or rule is judged to be constitutional, then that law or rule is enforceable and must be honored by the various governing bodies of our country who are charged with maintaining our social order, freedom, and stability. Conversely, an unconstitutional law is unenforceable and our citizens cannot be compelled to adhere to that law. Our society is comprised of both Conservative and Liberal citizens who want these SCJ rulings to reflect their differing ideas and values. The "hand-wringing" comes when our court's rulings appear to lean in a partisan or political direction incongruent with the separate ideas and values each side holds--which is why we want Justices on our Supreme Court who are likely to constitutionally validate laws that favor our views over the oppositions.

Just to add my tardy 2 cents to this discussion, the SCOTUS doesn't make laws nor necessarily interpret laws. The SCOTUS decides whether a new law or a lower court ruling conforms to our Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Laws are proposed by the Legislative branch of our government, which is the House of Representatives and Senate. These proposed laws or bills only become law when they are signed by the POTUS. New laws that change our Constitution must go through this process in addition to having a majority of our individual state governments ratify that change. The Supreme Court has no intercession in this process unless they are presented with a challenge to a law or ruling. The members of our Supreme Court decides whether a challenged law or court ruling conforms to their individual interpretation of our Constitution, which is not an interpretation of the new law or ruling but whether these legal instruments agree with the intent of our Constitution as paved by its original signers. In deciding whether some legal challenge is valid, the process can become partisan or political through the individual interpretations of our Constitution as held by the Justices on our Supreme Court.

Although I agree this perspective appears plausible, it really isn't a possibly if this dying brain was experiencing a dreamlike state as its gamma waves appeared to suggest. If near-death brain function produces a dreamlike state, then our perceptions within that state are more likely interpretations of what the brain believes it is experiencing. This suggests that the dying brain's perceptual experiences are interpretations of what is happening to it rather than a memory search for those interpretations.

If I may further elaborate, the initial impact of any stimuli on brain function is a cognitive response, which is essentially a response that minimally suggests an awareness of some state of stimulation. The brain waves these researchers observed as their epileptic patient died certainly suggests that this patient's brain was experiencing some state of stimulation. How a dying brain reacts to stimuli should inform our assessment of how this brain interprets the stimuli associated with that state. At the very least, this research suggests that this patience's dying brain experienced that stimulus visually and in a dreamlike state. If we can agree that the dying brain is engaging an interpretive process, then it is very unlikely that "life flashes" are part of that process. I believe it is likely that a dying brain is more engaged in the experience of what is having an immediate impact on its function than experiences that are far removed. Memories of a life lived doesn't interpret the process of dying, which is a state antithetical to life. Accordingly, the process of dying is likely more aptly interpreted as entering a state from which others of similar experience has not returned. Rather than a review of the patient's life experiences to understand what it may be presently experiencing, I believe the dying brain interprets that experience in the present as something that is happening now rather than as something it has encountered before. This would present as experiencing some perceptual change of state--a perceived transition from some former state to another.

"For the first time, doctors have collected detailed brain wave activity before and after a sudden death. In their interpretation, the researchers suggest life may indeed 'flash before our eyes'—but other experts aren’t so convinced." That quote is from a Popular Science article discussing a conclusion presented by Estonia doctors from their assessment of brain waves recordings of a patient in epileptic distress who unexpectedly died amid the seizure they were monitoring. The doctors recorded evidence of gamma and alpha waves, which they associated with "dreaming and memory retrieval", "information processing and the visual cortex" respectively. In a Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience paper on this event, researchers speculated "that such activity could support a last 'recall of life' that may take place in the near-death state". Although I do agree that this patient's dying brain did experience something, I do not believe it was quite what these researchers suggest. I am not a neuroscientist; however, my years of personal study and interest in the unconscious nature of brain function suggests to me that these recordings merely support the primary nature of brain function, which envelopes an effort to maintain its metabolic balance. Brain activity engages as a metabolic response to stimuli, which is the impetus for all brain function. Our brain's metabolic responses to stimuli primarily begins--and is perceived by us--as an interpretation of that stimuli. This is our brain's effort to first understand what it is experiencing before engaging a reciprocal, metabolically counterbalancing response to that experience. If intact as it dies, I believe our dying brain proceeds to interpret what it believes it is experiencing in the absences the perceptual cues associated with life and the living. To a conscious mind, this interpretive response would present as a lucidly real experience as though the individual is entering a real place where others who are deceased have gone. To be clear, this is not about an afterlife but rather about a dying brain's understanding that it is experiencing something from which it will not recover.

"A mathematician from Harvard University has (mostly) solved a 150-year-old Queen's gambit of sorts: the delightful n queens puzzle. In newly self-published research (meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed), Michael Simkin, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications, estimated the solution to the thorny math problem, which is based loosely on the rules of chess." That quote is from a Popular Mechanic's article on research self-published through Cornell University. I don't quite understand the math, but I thought it might be an interesting read if only for its references to chess. Enjoy!

I believe our highest courts should reflect the diversity of our citizenry; therefore, I think Biden's pre-judgement on the type of candidate to be select is correct. To infer that a selection should be based on merit doesn't invalidate that qualification as long as it also brings the requisite diversity to our highest court. Diversity is essential to the fairness, balance, and inclusion we Americans should all hope to achieve through our justice system.

Pardon my late entry to this topic and retread of prior opinions possibly expressed more eloquently but, ideally, a high-court jurist in America's system of justice should not only be qualified, competent and capable, but also representative of our nation's people--ideally. But that hasn't always been true for America and it's not true now. The majority composition of our nation's highest court is representative of the people who have held power over our system of government since the inception of our nation. Unfortunately, selecting high-court jurists who are more racially representative of our nation's diversity doesn't necessarily guaranty that they will render opinions reflecting that representation (e.g., Justice Clarence Thomas). Clarence has consistently sided with those court decisions that tend to undo the progress of fairness towards the treatment of our nation's non-Caucasian citizens. However, if the ideal is truly what we hope to reflect as a nation, then Biden has very little choice in the matter. His choice must be a qualified, competent, and fully capable woman of color because no other distinction can contribute the perspective of law that her life experience as a woman of color uniquely provides.

Greetings, Unless otherwise inspired, this will be my last entry on this topic. After a revelation of sorts, I’ve hesitated to engage further discussions of this nature. My hesitancy involved a critical understanding of what homeostasis--the driving force of brain function--truly suggests about the basic nature of mind and consciousness, generally, and humanity overall. If you’ll recall from my prior comments, homeostasis infers a system of brain function where maintaining functional stability is the primary progenitor of all behavioral expressions and responses. In greater context, our actions and reactions, thoughts and feelings emerge from a biological system balancing on what seems a razor’s edge of stability with afferent stimuli balanced against efferent responses within the brain. The manifest expression and nature of mind and consciousness are essentially a balance between extremes ultimately suggesting that we do not function without instability. If you truly understand the significance of that last suggestion, you’d probably understand why I’m hesitant to engage further discussion on this subject. However, I said I would discuss the nature of our unconscious mind in brain function in my previous post and so I shall. Our conscious mind is merely a product of unconscious processes, which means that our consciously perceived and recognized behaviors emerge from processes that occur below or beyond the threshold of our conscious awareness. In the brain, those processes begin when afferent stimuli enter the thalamus. The thalamus isn’t well understood or recognized, in my opinion, for its prominent place in our brain’s evolution. In my model of that evolution, the thalamus emerges as the first iteration of our contemporary brain with a right and left hemispheric configuration. It was a proto-brain where all stimuli initially arrived and from where all efferent responses ultimately issued when at its functional pinnacle. Presently, even without its congenital cortical connections, research suggests our thalamus would serve its evolved function sufficiently to viably sustain life. It’s likely that the thalamus is where our instinctive, reflexive behavioral responses originate. Our unconscious mind, accordingly, appears to be more reflexive and doesn’t appear to engage a thought process. If true, this would suggest that the unconscious mind doesn’t quite conform to my initial definition of “Mind” at the beginning of this discussion; wherein, its expressions and responses should appear to emerge from a thought process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. What isn’t very clear to most of us is that our unconscious mind does indeed provide evidence of a thought process as suggested by the most active state of unconscious brain function—REM sleep. I will end my discussion here but will remain available for your further thoughts and critique if interest persists.

Greetings, The greatest mysteries aren’t those that lay at our oceans’ deepest depths or beyond the furthest edge of our universe but in fathoming the seemingly infinite potential of our unconscious mind. We all exist in an Eden of ignorance considering the level of our current understanding and perception of the unconscious mind. We do not understand the true nature of the unconscious clearly and what we do understand is merely whimsy and conjecture without a firm foundation in brain function. Most of what is understood in science about our unconscious mind is based on behavioral studies and observations. To be clear, these studies and observations merely reveal expressions of the unconscious rather than its construct in brain function which, if understood, would explain how those expressions emerge as specific behaviors. So, what is the unconscious mind? In earlier comments, I described mind as the environment of cognitive activity in within the brain that arises from brain function. As I have described so many times before in this science forum, our brain function produces just two distinctive states of cognitive activity—conscious and unconscious. The conscious state is that level of awareness you are engaging now by reading my comments here as I have written them. The unconscious state is that level of your awareness that perceives all the noises and influences beyond your current reading space that has, until now, escaped your notice or, in other words, escaped your conscious awareness. Some authorities will use the term subconscious synonymously in reference to the unconscious mind. Don’t be deceived by these individuals because they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Subconscious is not an observable or testable state of brain function and, therefore, subconscious is not a mind relative to brain function. Subconscious describes a mental influence or operative nature rather than the mind itself (e.g., our unconscious mind operates subconsciously). Previously, I referenced hemostasis as the biological basis and system for brain function that produces a mind. Within that system, the delivery of stimuli creates an imbalance that produces responses to restore that balance. Within the brain, the delivery of sensory stimuli requires and uses energy, which generates biological responses to restore the energy used persistent with that stimulus. Conscious awareness is a response to sensory stimuli that has reached those areas of our brain that generates and mediates our conscious responses. To be clear, all sensory stimulus reaches the brain; however, not all stimuli to the brain generates a conscious cognitive response. What we perceive and respond to consciously is unconsciously filtered and merely the smallest fraction of what our brain intakes from one micro moment to the next. Our unconscious brain function experiences everything and filters what reaches our conscious response system. At this moment, your conscious perceptions are merely a pinpoint on a mountain of sensory data that has not reached your conscious awareness—your unconscious mind has filtered and retains that data. In my next post, if interest persist, I will attempt to be more specific on how the unconscious mind is likely distinguishable through thalamic processes in the brain function. I welcome thoughts.

Greetings, In previous discussions, I alluded to an "attribute" of consciousness. To further refine, consciousness describes the observable attributes of an organism's awareness suggested by that organism's responses to stimuli. Some of us may view consciousness as an esoteric, abstract quality of little to no scientific gravitas. Contrary to that view, these "observable attributes" places consciousness firmly within the realm of science. Mind emerges from consciousness and, I ask, how well do you understand your mind and yourself with little to no concept of either? We can categorize evidence of consciousness, if human equivalent, by two primary and observable attributes of awareness comparable to humans: Sensory awareness and mental awareness. Sensory awareness is evident by an organism's behavioral responses to stimuli and mental awareness is suggested by behaviors that infer a thought process. Behaviors that infer a though process are evidence that an organism possesses a mind. Although humans possess a mind, many of us have no knowledge or interest in how that quality evolved or how it emerges through brain function. Perhaps that's a good thing because we all routinely titter on the edge of rampant insanity due to the basic biological nature of our mind's emerge in brain function (see homeostasis). Maintaining mental stability is thrust upon an emerging mind from the moment of birth and, perhaps, invitro. It requires surprisingly little to unbalance a mind as imbalance is continually driven by the stimuli we experience every waking moment of life. A balanced mind is a quiet mind and mine, like most others, is very noisy. If there are no further inquiries or contrary arguments thus far, I would like to proceed to a discuss of the unconscious mind in my next post. There is disappointingly very little popularly understood about the unconscious that is true, precise, or rooted in empirical science. The unconscious mind and how it manifests is made remarkably clear by how it emerges in brain function. That clear perspective of the unconscious mind is suggested by our examination of brain activity amid the unconscious state of brain function. If permitted, we can explore this further in my next post. I welcome your continued interest.

Indeed, the intent of my definition was to be broad because that quality isn't particularly special or unique to humans if one understands its emergence through biological systems. Others may not generally perceive trees as conscious because of their understanding of that quality, which may be incomplete or limited by an expressly human view of that quality. To refine my perspective further, which is an intent of this discussion, an organism must initially have a biological system in place that generates a physiological system from which measures of consciousness can emerge. Our brain is a product of our biological evolution and its physiological functions produce responses to stimuli that we interpret as evidence of mental awareness. Indeed, a mental level of awareness is an attribute of consciousness, but it's not the only measure of that quality's emergence in a organism. Stripped to its most basic level, consciousness is merely the measure of awareness an organism expresses. The question of whether chimpanzees are aware is answered by their responses to stimuli. Whether or not chimpanzees possess humanlike awareness is suggested by their humanlike responses to human equivalent stimuli. The question of how consciousness produces a mind is answerable by the biological components and attributes of consciousness. In humans, the biological system we've evolved to generate a physiological system that produces consciousness is homestasis. Essentially, homestasis is an internal system of checks and balances in the brain that maintain system stability. Maintaining system stability in our brain is what generates and powers our responses. In the simplest of terms, stimuli that creates an imbalance in brain function generates our responses to those stimuli. In the brain, the transference of sensory stimuli requires energy, which relies on and expend brain nutrients. The nutrient imbalances this stimuli causes in the brain initiates those biological processes to restore its functional balance. Our mental awareness and acuity are responses to the continual measures of stimuli our brain experiences. Mind is a product of how brain integrates its awareness responses to the stimuli it experiences.

Your question appears to suggest a perspective of consciousness resigned to a human quality of expression. Indeed, a tree's responses to stimuli may not equate to a human's level of consciousness but it's biological responses to stimuli does at the very least express a tree's biological awareness of that stimuli. Consciousness is only special when it produces a mind--trees do not produce a mind as I have defined. Trees do not produce evidence of a mind because their responses are not known to produce behaviors independent of what we may ascribe to their intrinsic biological nature. For this discussion, consciousness isn't some grand quality but simply the level of awareness we observe through an organism's responses. Generally, our observations of an organism's responses to stimuli may suggest either a biological/physical awareness or some measure of mental awareness. You may not perceive a tree's response as evidence of consciousness because you may only be considering a mental perspective of consciousness. I welcome your further thoughts.

Greetings All, If you’re up for a brief but insightful exchange of perspectives and, perhaps, withering criticism of same, then this is a discussion for you. Regardless of your IQ on the science and subject, I will make every effort to keep our brief discussion accessible to all knowledge levels. Let’s begin with a couple of definitions on which we should all agree: Mind – the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function and is quantified by a brain’s capacity to integrate dichotomous sensory information with memory through a process that produces behaviors independent instinct. Essentially, a mind enables proactive over reactive behaviors. Consciousness – the basic awareness suggested by an organism’s responses to stimuli. Mind and consciousness are not qualities unique to humans but remain worthy of our continued interest, study, and discussion here because of the advantages these qualities uniquely provide humanity. It may be a bit arrogant to suggest that your perspective may be a bit misguided and worthless if isn’t based on an understanding of brain function and its evolution, but don’t let this notion deter your contribution to this topic. I’ve learned much myself by opposing staid and established ideas, as well as the status quo. I’m student in a class that has lasted and will last my entire life. As I march through the twilight of my remaining years, with considerably more behind me than ahead, I still have more to learn and questions new or opposing perspective could answer. It’s my experience that exchanges in forums like this often reveal unique and interesting perspectives that have enhanced my own. I don’t particularly trust everything I read or so-called experts, but I do trust my ability to investigate and discern for myself whatever a truth might be. For many years now, I’ve been investigating the extraordinary nature of mind and consciousness with particular interest in the unconscious mind in brain function. Quantifying the distinction between our conscious and unconscious mind, their remarkable nature, and how they emerge distinctly in brain function are incredibly clear from my perspective. If this is your interest, I welcome your thoughts.

If I may provide an opinion on just this bit, sport is an outlet for our natural aggression and baser drives. Although humanity is our world's pinnacle intelligence, we remain a primitive, primal species whose only predator is itself. We are driven by that predation to best each other in a continuous and unending struggle to prove we are superior and deserving of survival and our place above all others. Even our solitary efforts in sport, where our only opponent seems to be ourselves, we are driven by our insecurity against the mere appearance of vulnerability in eyes of observes.

Although it may take about 16 mins for sunlight to travel to the moon and then reflect back to your position on the sun, the actual reflected light from the moon will only show the moon as it appeared 8 mins ago. Although the light from the sun to the moon and back to sun may require about 16 mins, the moon's reflection is only 8 mins old. Essentially, the light in that reflection is 16 mins old but the reflection itself is only 8 mins. Just to add a bit more, the moon's visage is not in the 8 mins of light that travels from the sun. Its visage is only in the 8 mins of light that is reflected back from the moon.

Precisely; consciousness is a global quality that is not localized to the output of a specific brain structure. As I've commented, the consciousness or quality of awareness the evinces intelligence and identity involves a confluence of neural responses from all areas of the brain. To iNow's point, consciousness cannot be ascribed to the brain by how it "looks." Although you may consider the brain relatable to a CPU, it is infinitely more complex in its neural minutia and considerably less in its functional matrix from a perspective of its evolution. Constructing a brain that produces human consciousness involved a series of evolutional milestones over millions of years as the functional remnants of that evolution in contemporary brain structure suggest. It isn't that simple. Clearly, you have considerably more to research. For example, our second brain--The Enteric System.

If we are discussing consciousness, we should all agree on how we define that quality. In its most basic form, consciousness is merely the awareness exhibited by an organism's responses to stimuli. In brain function, this basic awareness is suggested by our brain's efferent responses to afferent stimuli. Our brain produces two basic forms of awareness, which are the two basic forms of efferent responses our brain generates. We term these basic responses as conscious and unconscious. Conceptualizing consciousness as a type of frequency our brain generates may be a bit misguided. Indeed, consciousness may be observed by brainwave activity and that activity measured by its level of electrochemical exchanges but that only suggest how intently brain function may be engage rather that the quality that confers intellect or intelligence, personality or identity. Consciousness, as it relates to the sum of our intellect, personality or identity, involves a confluence of brain activity converging in reciprocal efferent responses to the array of stimuli we have continually experienced from birth. The level or frequency of our brainwave activity merely suggest how our brain is engaged. To be clear, consciousness in brain function is about the place where incoming stimuli triggers a reciprocal response. That reciprocal response signifies the awareness that an afferent stimuli has created. Consciousness, as I am defining here, does not infer intelligence or personality. Intelligence is inferred by a brain that produces a mind. Mind, as I have frequently defined, is the environment of cognitive activity in the brain that arises brain function and that is quantified by a brain's capacity to integrate divergent sensory information through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is quantified by a capacity to engage proactive behaviors over reactive behaviors. Understanding the emergence of consciousness in brain function requires a consideration of how our brain likely evolved. Brain evolution should be at the foundation of your theories. Although not a linear evolution, our brain retains remarkably clear evidence of its contiguous path of functional evolution from brainstem to cortex. On that path, the thalamus emerges as an ancestral or proto-brain and the cortex as a functional extension of that brain, which is why the cortex may sustain considerable damage that doesn’t lead to death, while damage to the thalamus is deadly If you are looking for some resonant frequency of consciousness in brain function, that frequency is suggested by the overall activity of the brain in its continual electrochemical responses stimuli. If I may add, our brain responses to stimuli are a major component of its metabolic homeostatic processes. However, If you're looking for the place in brain function where these responses merge or emerge, the article link iNow provided is a good start...but you may find that the specific place is everywhere.

I've commented on this subject before with actual evidence presented in an article link that iNow provided: About life and consciousness. - Page 9 - General Philosophy - Science Forums As I suggested, consciousness occurs in brain function where afferent (input) sensory stimuli merges with efferent (output) sensory responses.

Hello All, I began my recent spade of discussions on dreaming as an effort to encourage exchanges, among interested minds, that would enhance my perspective of mind and consciousness in brain function and deepen my understanding of certain types or forms of dreaming. In that effort, I’ve shared my personal dream experiences which is, frankly, not very easy for me to do. Dreams convey so much information to me that sharing them is like publicly exposing one’s medical/psychological history. Fortunately, as I’ve learned, there are precious few who share my degree of insight or even interest in this subject. In my initial post in this discussion thread, I mentioned precognitive dreaming and ran afoul of our site’s moderators by not qualifying that description of a dream type. I said I could explain how this extraordinary type of dreaming occurs but not always why it does. I was charged by our moderators to “do the work” to support my claims and now, I believe, I have an opportunity to do so and demonstrate my meaning. In qualifying my description of precognitive dreaming, I said it’s like forecasting the weather where sufficient meteorological data could be gathered and assessed to predict or provide a future weather-related scenario or outcome. With precog dreaming, the data is unconsciously gathered, assessed and, primarily, it forecasts some aspect related to our social or mental environment. As I consciously pondered our moderator’s charge and the work that needed doing, I experienced the following dream response this past evening: In this dream, rather conveniently, I found myself as a meteorologist amidst reporting the oncoming week’s weather forecast for television viewers. I recall reporting the mid-week pollen count as 10, which I thought and said was low. The forecast in this probable precog dream is 10 with a predicted low probability of occurring about mid-week which, from my perspective, starts this coming Wednesday. For those who are unfamiliar, the United States permit two types of countrywide lottery drawings weekly, Mega Millions & Powerball. Of the various ways to win either drawing, one needs only the Megaball or Powerball number to have a winning ticket. My dream appears to forecast 10 as either the Megaball or Powerball number for this coming week. I believe this dream offers us a uniquely public opportunity to observe either the fallacy of precog dreaming, the profound nature and value of dream content or, perhaps, the nature of coincidence as MigL amusingly observed in a prior comment. I guess we'll all know by this time next week.

I saw that documentary and I was engrossed from start to finish!

Las Vegas developer, Robert Bigelow, is offering almost $1,000,000 to neurologists or psychologists as follows: "Specifically, the billionaire wants to know if it is possible "the survival of human consciousness beyond bodily death ." To do this, scientists, neurologists and psychologists have until August 1, 2021 to submit a response of up to 25 thousand words. A group of specialist judges will select the winner on November 1. Thus the first place will receive 500 thousand dollars, the second 300 thousand and the third 150 thousand." I think I can answer that question in 1 word but Mr. Bigelow requires 25,000. If you're up for easy money, here's your chance. Enjoy!

If I understand correctly, you're presenting a position that correlates genetically based racial distinctions with variations in brain size that confer variations in intelligence. Let's start with the genetics, which does not confer intelligence unless their expression result in malformations that inhibit normal or average brain development or function. Homo sapiens, as a species, share a commonality of brain development, structure, and function that may only be altered invitro or after birth as a result of nutritional, environmental, or social influences and effects. What I'm stating here is that genetics do not influence our capacity to learn and innovate unless those genetics in someway effects brains developments that are inconsistent with average, atypical developments among the human species--which brings us to brain size. Indeed, genetics can affect brain size as evident by the brain cases of humans from extinct to modern emergences. However, brain size empirically does not confer "exceptional cognitive abilities". If brain size were an empirical measure of intelligence, we'd be a planet of Neanderthals whose brain size were larger than modern humans. Or, perhaps, we'd be ruled by species of whale or elephant whose brain volumes can measure as much as 9 kg and 7 kg respectively. Indeed, the idea that brain size confer intelligence is a ludicrous assertion. Lastly, race vs. ethnicity are not synonymous from how I understand and has used those terms. Race describes a purely physical distinction between humans primarily characterized by skin pigmentation, eye color, and hair texture. While ethnicity describes a social distinction rooted in tribalism and traditions relative to origins of religious and/or geographic significance. Race and ethnicity are not empirical scientific measures of intelligence because they do not constrict the basic cognitive capacity of humans. The basic cognitive capacity of humans may only be constricted by the prejudices we impose overtly and subvertly on our species--as suggested by the argument you have posed in this discussion.

If there is some real or practical advantage to understanding dream content, one may ask, what is it? A primary advantage, as many mental healthcare providers could attest, is psychological. Dream content can provide remarkably clear insight on the psychological underpinnings of our thoughts and behaviors. However, for several years now, I've investigated whether there is any materially overt advantage to knowing anything about dream content. Well, the juries still out on the latter; however, at the very least, I've proven to my own satisfaction that the psychological advantages are real. Many years ago, amid a particularly painful divorce, I fell into an extraordinarily deep depression that lingered for several years. Being a typical male of that era with my upbringing, I did not seek the professional help I obviously needed with the belief that I would recover sufficiently without it. And I did recover, but not until after I experienced a particularly vivid dream about my mother who had died just a couple years before my divorce. It was a simple dream involving me crying profusely over her departure in the dream from my home. When I awoke, I immediately understood that dreams relevancy to my current psychological state at the time and I also new what that dream meant. The cause of my deep depressions during the years after my divorce was not my marriage dissolution but the loss of my mother whom I had not sufficiently grieved until the emotional buoyance my marriage provided dissolved in divorce. Over the years, I've had many such psychological revelations regarding the underpinnings of mind and emotion from the insight my perspective of dream content provides. In more recent years, I've investigated the material advantages of dream content with inconsistent results. The material advantages I seek are those dreams that provides some provably and overwhelmingly real physical or material result that cannot be dismissed by pure chance. I've devised experiments, based on my functional perspective of dreaming, that initially but do not consistently provide the type of unassailable results I seek. But, I remain in the hunt. If your interest remains, I welcome your thoughts and discussion of the relevant science.