What are dreams about?

[SWM]

What do you think dreams are?

Some people believe they are meaningless misfirings of neurological nerve-endings, while others believe they have a psychological purpose and meaning. Of those who believe they have meaning, some believe they are images and messages from the subconscious or unconscious mind while others see them as mystical experiences with the power to foretell life events.

What do you believe about dreams?

[Shell]

I think each dream is dreamt for different reasons.  Some dreams are the subconscious' way of releasing the tensions felt over troubling situations or "dealing" with supressed emotions.  Some are purely played off of the movie you last watched.  And I actually believe in messages sent through dreams.

I hope I won't bore anyone with my story, but I'd like to share my experience with a particular dream I had in 2003.  I remember it detail by detail.  At the time, I was trying to divorce my now-exhusband, who was very abusive towards me.  I left him many times only to be drug back "home" over and over.  During this time, my mind was so exhausted!  I believe I was truly on the verge of going absolutely crazy.

This is the dream:

***********************
A man is walking with me up a rocky cliff.  I don't know who this is, but he came to my dreams a lot during my rough times.  Anyway, so as we walked, I grew very tired.  I kept tripping over rocks and found myself stumbling.  But the man kept holding me up and telling me that it was just a bit further.

Finally, we are at the edge of this cliff.  At the bottom, I see a muddy lake.  There are tons of huge rocks and nasty water.  But what was weird was that on the other side of the lake was gorgeous green grass and the water by the shore was clearer than the water under the cliff.

I looked at the man and he told me that in order for me to get to the other side was to first dive into the muddy, rocky water.  I looked back down and knew that it was going to be painful and ugly.  But then I looked across at that clearer water and healthy land.

The man told me that he would be through it all and I didn't have to be afraid.

*********************

That was the end of the dream.  I believe it was a message telling me that the divorce was going to be painful and ugly, but once it was done it would be worth it.  And the dream was right.  It was painful and ugly and I didn't think I could go through it, but I kept thinking of that clear blue water.  And once it was over, I still had financial issues and everything, but I was in the clear.  It was worth it.

[Schizo]

In my personal opinion dreams are the unfettered imagination.  In other words while we are awake the mind has to dedicate a certain amount of "processing power" to senses and other neural activities, but when we are asleep those senses are not completely functioning.  I have noticed that my dreams occur generally before I wake up, so logically it could be said that dreams are merely the brain "booting up". 


The actual ways in which dreams effect an individual are a different story.

I have noticed that senses effect dreams though, best example of that is leaving the t.v. on and the volume at a moderate level.  In many cases it has effected my dreams, interesting. 

So while the senses are not completely functioning, they do still function.


 


 

[anaklio]

Valli and Revonsuo (2009) review the evidence for the threat stimulation theory (TST). The TST states that dreaming about threatening events has a biological function. The authors summarize and reevaluate the results based on the dreams of Finnish and Swedish university students, traumatized and nontraumatized Kurdish, Palestinian, and Finnish children, and special dream samples, namely recurrent dreams and nightmares collected from Canadian participants.

[liza123]

What do you think dreams are?

Some people believe they are meaningless misfirings of neurological nerve-endings, while others believe they have a psychological pupose and meaning. Of those who believe they have meaning, some believe they are images and messages from from the subconscious or unconscious mind while others see them as mystical experiences with the power to foretell life events.

What do you believe about dreams?

Well, I believe that there are many types of dreams... some predicting the future, some merely a reflection of our worries or fears and others could even be part of our spiritual journey

[anaklio]

There are many types of dreams, and this can be easily shown. Originally, it was thought that dreams occurred only during rapid-eye movement sleep. (REM). But it is now known that dreams occur in non-REM sleep as well. Further, REM dreams and non-REM dreams have distinctive qualities. 

[knight]

I believe that dreams are part of the extension of subconscious mind. What we think most, believe are likely to occur in our dreams. However dreams do have a sweet side attached to it as people rarely have the ability to see what will happen in future.

[DrmDoc]

From my research for a book (Neuropsychology of the Dreaming Brain), dreams are caused by vestigial activation in the brainstem amid the sleep process.  The imagery in our dreams are how our active brain, amid sleep, interprets the neural effects of conscious experience that persist into dream sleep.  These neural effects are the lingering mental and emotional impressions of our conscious experiences, which the sleep process has not abated.  References to dreaming as a type of sleep process is a misnomer.  The reality is that the sleeping brain has to arouse to wakerful levels of activity to dream; therefore, dreaming is a type of consciousness in the brain amid the sleep process.  My research suggests that the imagery we recall as dreams begin to form during the arousal process as the sleeping brain reconnects with the physical/material sensory experience of wakeful reality.  This bit of insight is merely the tip of the iceberg and may not be what some expect.  Nevertheless, I will provide further if interest remains.  I welcome your thoughts.

[SWM]

hi doc

so pleased you joined us.

trying to simplify this, do you think that dreams are something along the lines of imagination and memory, constructed from conscious (or waking) experience?

what do you think about intepreting meaning from dreams as so many people do including myself?

what do you think about times when a person is asleep but conscious in their dream and sometimes conscious of dreaming.

[DrmDoc]

hi doc

so pleased you joined us.

Delighted, sincerely.

trying to simplify this, do you think that dreams are something along the lines of imagination and memory, constructed from conscious (or waking) experience?

As imagined experience, dreams would imply some type of mental creation, which my study suggests they are not.  Also, they are not constructs of memory because our dreams frequently do not involve our memories nor do we generally have detailed memories of them.  Primarily, again from my study, dreams are interpretations; i.e., they are how our unconscious mind applies physical/material references to experiences of mental and emotional impact.   

what do you think about intepreting meaning from dreams as so many people do including myself?

There is a school of thought wherein dreams are personally meaningful and, wherein, meaning may changes from dream to dream, dreamer to dreamer.  My study suggests that this isn’t entirely true.  Indeed, dreams are meaningful; however, every aspect of dream imagery has a basal meaning that remains consistent from dream to dream, dreamer to dreamer.  This idea is supported by the very nature of dream sleep.

There are some who believe we enter ethereal realms of experience beyond the physical when we dream; however, we can only objectively and scientifically prove that dreaming is produced by brain function and is, therefore, a mental experience.  Because our dreams are mental experiences, they conform to the laws and logic of mental reality.  This conformity to mental reality is what provides dream imagery with commonality in basal meaning.  The experiences in our dreams occur in mental reality; therefore, they are depictions of mental experiences rather than physical experiences.  As mental experiences dream food, for example, describes something that satisfies mental hunger and dream homes describes something we might perceive as providing mental structure.  In this way, the images in our dreams describe some basic mental quality that remains consistent in all dreams.

what do you think about times when a person is asleep but conscious in their dream and sometimes conscious of dreaming.

Lucid dreaming—becoming aware of being within a dream while dreaming—is itself an interpretation of something our unconscious has experienced.  This sort of dreaming is how our unconscious mind perceives an epiphany or some state of extraordinary mental clarity.  Through such dream experiences, the unconscious mind is expressing its deep awareness and understanding of an experience of mind and emotion.  As profound as lucid dreaming may be, the most profound experience dreams offer is the opportunity to engage a dialogue with a functionally distinct aspect of our consciousness.  Our waking consciousness is functionally distinct from the consciousness that manifest during dream sleep.  I welcome your further interest.

[SWM]

As imagined experience, dreams would imply some type of mental creation, which my study suggests they are not.  Also, they are not constructs of memory because our dreams frequently do not involve our memories nor do we generally have detailed memories of them.  Primarily, again from my study, dreams are interpretations; i.e., they are how our unconscious mind applies physical/material references to experiences of mental and emotional impact.   

not that i doubt your knowledge in this area but more to clarify my understanding of your knowledge i raise the following points.

your study suggests that dreams are not imagined expereince because that would imply mental creation,  and you say that the study suggests dreams are more akin to interpretation, but it is my understanding that interpretation implies mental creation also in a similar vein to imagination.

how do you mean that dreams do not involve our memories?

There is a school of thought wherein dreams are personally meaningful and, wherein, meaning may changes from dream to dream, dreamer to dreamer.  My study suggests that this isn’t entirely true.  Indeed, dreams are meaningful; however, every aspect of dream imagery has a basal meaning that remains consistent from dream to dream, dreamer to dreamer.  This idea is supported by the very nature of dream sleep.

this would agree with my own experience of dreaming, however i believe that meanings that people derive from their dreams may change overtime as the personality changes and develops.

There are some who believe we enter ethereal realms of experience beyond the physical when we dream; however, we can only objectively and scientifically prove that dreaming is produced by brain function and is, therefore, a mental experience.  Because our dreams are mental experiences, they conform to the laws and logic of mental reality.  This conformity to mental reality is what provides dream imagery with commonality in basal meaning.  The experiences in our dreams occur in mental reality; therefore, they are depictions of mental experiences rather than physical experiences.  As mental experiences dream food, for example, describes something that satisfies mental hunger and dream homes describes something we might perceive as providing mental structure.  In this way, the images in our dreams describe some basic mental quality that remains consistent in all dreams.

this is a very satisfying perspective.

Lucid dreaming—becoming aware of being within a dream while dreaming—is itself an interpretation of something our unconscious has experienced.  This sort of dreaming is how our unconscious mind perceives an epiphany or some state of extraordinary mental clarity.  Through such dream experiences, the unconscious mind is expressing its deep awareness and understanding of an experience of mind and emotion.  As profound as lucid dreaming may be, the most profound experience dreams offer is the opportunity to engage a dialogue with a functionally distinct aspect of our consciousness.  Our waking consciousness is functionally distinct from the consciousness that manifest during dream sleep.  I welcome your further interest.

surely if the unconscious is being aware of something then when in that state of awareness it is no longer unconsciousness.

[DrmDoc]

As imagined experience, dreams would imply some type of mental creation, which my study suggests they are not.  Also, they are not constructs of memory because our dreams frequently do not involve our memories nor do we generally have detailed memories of them.  Primarily, again from my study, dreams are interpretations; i.e., they are how our unconscious mind applies physical/material references to experiences of mental and emotional impact.

   

your study suggests that dreams are not imagined expereince because that would imply mental creation,  and you say that the study suggests dreams are more akin to interpretation, but it is my understanding that interpretation implies mental creation also in a similar vein to imagination.

In more precise terms, our unconscious mind, amid dream sleep, experiences neural effects that our conscious mind translates or perceives as physical/material experiences when we awake.  Essentially, the memories of experience during sleep that we recall as dreams upon waking are how our conscious mind translates the neural experiences of our unconscious mind amid dream sleep; i.e., dreams are primarily translated neural experiences.

how do you mean that dreams do not involve our memories?

Some sleep researchers view certain brain activations during dream sleep as evidence of its association with memory processes.  They perceive this evidence as an indication of the primary role of dreaming in the memory consolidation process.  Although memory associated brain areas become active when we dream and our dreams may at times involve our memories, such activity and experiences are not evidence that our memories are the source of our dreams.  We employ our memory functions for a variety of mental tasks; however, such functional activity is not evidence of our tasks’ association with memory processing.  My study suggests there is nothing unique or distinct about the usage of memory and memory function amid dream sleep.

…i believe that meanings that people derive from their dreams may change overtime as the personality changes and develops.

What changes, in my view, is not the basal meaning dream imagery conveys but rather the dreamer’s conscious reaction to or perception of that meaning. 

Lucid dreaming—becoming aware of being within a dream while dreaming—is itself an interpretation of something our unconscious has experienced.  This sort of dreaming is how our unconscious mind perceives an epiphany or some state of extraordinary mental clarity.  Through such dream experiences, the unconscious mind is expressing its deep awareness and understanding of an experience of mind and emotion.  As profound as lucid dreaming may be, the most profound experience dreams offer is the opportunity to engage a dialogue with a functionally distinct aspect of our consciousness.  Our waking consciousness is functionally distinct from the consciousness that manifest during dream sleep.  I welcome your further interest.

surely if the unconscious is being aware of something then when in that state of awareness it is no longer unconsciousness.

Indeed; however, the distinction is that while being conscious of our status within a dream, we continue to remain unconscious of occurrences beyond that dreaming state in the physical/material world where our body rests.  Although we are conscious within lucid dreams, we remain unconscious of our true experiences in physical reality.  I welcome your thoughts.

[anaklio]

>Although we are conscious within lucid dreams, we remain unconscious of our true experiences in physical reality.

It would probably be more accurate to say that we remain subconscious of our true experiences. This finding has been demonstrated in the laboratory. There's also our personal experiences of incorporating things like the phone ringing (in real life) into our current dream.

[DrmDoc]

>Although we are conscious within lucid dreams, we remain unconscious of our true experiences in physical reality.

It would probably be more accurate to say that we remain subconscious of our true experiences. This finding has been demonstrated in the laboratory. There's also our personal experiences of incorporating things like the phone ringing (in real life) into our current dream.

I disagree; subconscious describes an influence of or upon the mind, while unconscious describes a state or condition of the mind.  Within the state of lucid dreams, we experience the opposite of the state or condition of the mind that is perceptive of physical/material experience.  The state or condition of the mind that is perceptive of physical/material reality is conscious; its opposite state or condition is unconscious. 

[anaklio]

In an excellent review of consciousness in dreaming Cicogna and Bosinelli (2001) argue that several forms of consciousness are present in lucid dreaming. In addition, Erlacher and Schredl (2004) showed that people can count and perform squats during lucid dreaming.

[DrmDoc]

All functional evidence to-date suggests that the active brain produces two functionally distinct states:  Conscious and unconscious.  The conscious state of brain function is suggested by its waking-state activation, whereas, the unconscious state of brain function is suggested by its dreaming-state activation.  Although the brain may experience subconscious influences, it does not produce a functionally distinctive subconscious state.  Unconscious, as a description of dream sleep, does not suggest a rigidly unaware state of mind and brain function.  The unconscious in dream sleep suggests the active knowledge of those conditions, experiences, and influences that have not reached our conscious awareness; i.e., unconscious, as suggested by the dreaming-state, is our active awareness of those influences and experiences we may not consciously know.  During lucid dreaming, we are not consciously connected to true physical/material experience and reality.  Essentially, during lucid dreaming we are unconscious or not aware of true physicality.  Although some may perceive the subconscious as an attribute of consciousness, it is not a state defined by brain function; therefore, subconscious is an influence upon or within the mind rather than a state or cognitive process of the mind.  Although we may become consciously aware within a lucid dream state, that awareness is governed by the unconscious state of brain function in which lucid dreaming occurs. 

[alloker]

NEW THEORY OF DREAMS

Dream thoughts are shown to be produced by the right cerebral hemisphere (RH). Only Antrobus claimed the opposite, but what he showed is only that the details of the dream images MAY be contributed by the left hemisphere (LH). But even if this is true, it is not important, because only meaningful details are contained in dreams, and this means that very few details, and moreover, these are gross characteristics of the events and objects, which may be supplied by the RH.

Consequently, the knowledge of the functions of the RH can shed light on the meaning and function of dreams. It is shown that the prevention of rapid eye movement (REM) dreams affects mental functioning negatively, whereas dream rehearsal has positive effect. This proves that dreams have some function, but this function and its relation to dream meaning are not known. This problem can be solved only by studying dreams on the basis of the functions of the RH which produces them. Non-REM dreams are more like waking state thoughts compared to REM dreams, evidently because of the involvement of LH activity during Non-REM sleep.

The infant is born with an almost completely developed �old brain,� or the �animal brain,� which is at the center of the total brain and deals with the basic needs of the organism, including basic social needs. The expressions �old brain,� �new brain,� �right brain,� �left brain,� etc. refer to cortexes where the bodies of the neurons are assembled.

The new brain is a thin layer at the periphery of the total brain above the old brain. The new brain on the right, often referred to as the RH, develops faster in childhood compared to the LH and deals therefore with the needs of the child, which are related mainly to self-protection. The RH is known to be equipped with self-protective abilities, especially in relation to close dangers. Consequently, dreams produced by the RH are likely to have self-protective functions and meanings.

The LH is the seat of consciousness, whereas the RH operates automatically outside consciousness and constitutes what is called the �unconscious� in relation to dreams and many other automatic responses. The RH, or the unconscious, can even oppose conscious will, evidently for realizing self-protection, as happens in the production of pain, fear, anxiety, etc., which have obvious self-protective functions when they are not excessively intense. Anything useful becomes harmful when exaggerated.
 
Evidently, the conscious LH too seeks to realize self-protection, but failures are not infrequent, although rarely fatal. On the other hand, the failures of consciousness are usually repressed into the unconscious, i.e., the RH, when nothing positive can be done about them. This serves to protect self-confidence and mental health. Therefore the RH and consequently the dreams have to deal especially with repressed failures. If this is true, it will mean that evolution has not entrusted the organism solely to consciousness and free will but that it created self-protection mechanisms which are activated and operate automatically whenever consciousness and free will fail to realize sufficient self-protection.

Consequently, we can find out what kinds of thought must exist in dreams by considering the conscious thoughts produced when dealing with failures consciously and rationally. The idea that the unconscious is irrational has no basis other than the conscious failure to understand its products such as dreams and the symptoms of non-organic mental disorders, for example. Considering half of the human brain/mind irrational is just nonsense.

In dealing with failures consciously and rationally, three types of thought are produced: (a) the failure is mentioned and described, (b) its causes are looked for and exposed, and (c) means of terminating it are determined. Additionally, thoughts that aim to prove that the failure can be terminated can be produced, especially for boosting self-confidence. In fact, by examining thousands of dreams, I found that they contain three types of thought: (a) the presentation of the failure dealt with by the dream; (b) the explanation of the causes of the failure, usually in the form of its external attribution; and (c) the presentation of a means of terminating the failure. I also found that dreams deal only with very severe failures that threaten to ruin self-confidence and mental health. This is in fact the function of also repression which supplies most of the failures dealt with by dreams.

These three types of thought contained in a dream may be expressed in three different parts of the dream; any one of them may be implicit in another part of the dream or may be altogether missing for various reasons. But the failure is always present in explicit or implicit form, because it is the cause of the production of the dream.

A dream begins with part (a) or part (b) and ends with part (c), excepting very rare dreams that carry special meanings. Part (a) is accompanied by negative affect, whereas part (c) carries positive affect. The affect that accompanies part (b) depends on how successful and useful the external attribution is. The intensity of all affects depends on the level of harmfulness or usefulness of the material dealt with.

Emotions experienced during a dream are not real emotions; they are means of expression like everything else in the dream. Negative affect means: �This is bad for you; this is the problem you have to solve; this is what you must terminate or avoid; etc.� Positive affect means: �This is good for you; this is the solution of your problem; this is what you should try to realize, etc.�

Dream language is concrete-analogic, or pictorial-metaphoric. Dream analogies acquire meaning in the context created by the three types of thought that they contain and the dreamer�s life experiences. The three parts of the dream that contain the three types of thought are recognized by their location in the dream and the affects that they carry, as explained above. The interpretation of a dream is in the form of a message from the unconscious of the dreamer to his or her consciousness.

The latent dream is made up of the sources from where the images are taken and may contain more meanings than the manifest dream. But the latent dream obeys the same rules as the manifest dream.

When I presented the above theory of dreams at an international psychology conference, the moderator said that it did not cover the telepathic and prophetic dreams. This is not true. Telepathic or prophetic knowledge, if it really exists, is certainly not a product of consciousness and therefore consciousness can be considered as experiencing a cognitive failure in relation to it. The above theory of dreams applies to this state of failure of consciousness as well as to its other states of failure.

Besides, information that appears to be obtained through telepathy or prophecy may have been obtained by consciousness through known channels and may have been then repressed and may cause a dream. Also, such information may be obtained by the unconscious through its special abilities that serve to realize self-protection, such as learning a person�s true emotions and aims from his or her facial expression, voice, and body language, although in non-precise form.    

EXISTING VIEWS ON DREAMS THAT APPROACH THE ABOVE THEORY

The idea that dreams try to solve problems and even have a healing effect existed before Freud (e.g., Delage, 1891; Perkinje, 1848; Robert, 1886). He mentioned this fact but did not profit from it adequately. His theory of �imaginary wish fulfillment,� as Jung called it, is just wrong. Some psychologists did better in using the idea of problem solving (e.g., Maeder, 1916; French and Fromm, 1964; Greenberg and Pearlman, 1980, 1993; Kramer, 1993). But they all failed to see what kinds of problem are dealt with by dreams and what kinds of thought are produced in dealing with them.

According to Jung, the unconscious compensates the lopsidedness in the conscious attitude, and dreams are part of this process. His dream interpretations show that what he called �lopsidedness� was a harmful failure, or a harmful mistake, and �compensation� meant its termination. This is the dream theory that came closest to the truth and produced many correct dream interpretations, but also caused wrong interpretations even more often. The reason is that Jung�s theory of dreams, like all other dream theories, consists of a single concept: compensation of lopsidedness. Other such concepts are: wish fulfillment, problem solving, protection of self-esteem, healing, reduction of tension, self-dream, coming from above or from below, telepathy, prophecy, etc. These concepts have been insufficient to expose the thoughts contained in dreams, because their producers and users failed to consider what thoughts dreams need to contain in order to realize what they are produced to realize. By eliminating this mistake, Jung�s compensation theory can be developed as explained below.

If the unconscious is capable of terminating a failure of consciousness, it must be rational enough to do that. Because the rational treatment of failures is done by producing the three types of thought mentioned above, dreams must contain those types of thought. Combining this with the fact that dream language is concrete-analogic, correct dream interpretations can be produced, and the interpretation of a high number of dreams on that basis can expose all facts about dreams mentioned above.

Jung did not do that, and instead, he assumed that everything contained in a dream meant the compensation of some lopsidedness, whereas in reality some dreams or dream parts present not the compensation but the lopsidedness that needs to be compensated, i.e., the failure instead of the means of its termination. Because of this mistake, Jung produced many wrong interpretations. Freud made the same mistake by interpreting everything in a dream as the imaginary fulfillment of a repressed or suppressed wish and did not consider how wishes are fulfilled rationally at conscious level.

I recommend reading the article New Facts about Dreams and Psychotherapy Deduced from Jung�s Compensation Theory, published in the Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Volume 9, Number 2, 2007.

Altan Loker

[DrmDoc]

Dream thoughts are shown to be produced by the right cerebral hemisphere (RH). Only Antrobus claimed the opposite, but what he showed is only that the details of the dream images MAY be contributed by the left hemisphere (LH). But even if this is true, it is not important, because only meaningful details are contained in dreams, and this means that very few details, and moreover, these are gross characteristics of the events and objects, which may be supplied by the RH.

I am not familiar with any evidence that specifically assigns dream thoughts to the RH.  Could you provide a link to the paper suggesting or supporting this perspective.

Consequently, the knowledge of the functions of the RH can shed light on the meaning and function of dreams.

I disagree; without credible evidence supporting it�s exclusive role in dream production, studying the RH�s  function will only provide evidence of its contribution to the concert of other functions, arising from the brainstem to cortex, leading to dream production.

It is shown that the prevention of rapid eye movement (REM) dreams affects mental functioning negatively, whereas dream rehearsal has positive effect.

I disagree; the studies I�ve reviewed, supporting this conclusion, make no distinctions between the effects of dreaming and the state of atonia that accompany dream sleep. There is credible evidence which suggests that dreaming without atonia does not produce restful sleep.  This is supported by studies of sleepwalking and surgical lesioning in the brainstem that releases atonia amid REM sleep.  Such evidence strongly support atonia as most primary to restorative sleep.

Non-REM dreams are more like waking state thoughts compared to REM dreams, evidently because of the involvement of LH activity during Non-REM sleep.

The studies suggesting dreaming occurs during Non-REM have been and continue to be poorly designed.  These studies do not adequately evaluate how the arousal process may contribute to dreaming and dream content.  Arousal from sleep produces functional evidence in the brain suggestive of what occurs during REM.  Further still, functional studies of Non-REM do produce results suggestive of the active functional effort associated with dreaming.

The new brain is a thin layer at the periphery of the total brain above the old brain. The new brain on the right, often referred to as the RH, develops faster in childhood compared to the LH and deals therefore with the needs of the child, which are related mainly to self-protection. The RH is known to be equipped with self-protective abilities, especially in relation to close dangers. Consequently, dreams produced by the RH of are likely to have self-protective functions and meanings.

What each hemisphere does and what spurs their development is poorly understood by mainstream researchers.  This lack of insight arises from the lack of a proper and credible foundation in brain evolution.  The evidence in evolution suggests that each hemisphere evolved to perceive, process, and store sensory information from two perspectives:  Objective and subjective.  Which hemisphere develops more rapidly is dependent on the perception perspective more vital to the newborns survival.  If the RH develops more rapidly, it is because the perceptions a newborn gathers from those responsible for its survival (objective) have the highest assimilation priority. That is because a newborn is incapable of surviving on its own.

The LH is the seat of consciousness, whereas the RH operates automatically outside consciousness and constitutes what is called the �unconscious� in relation to dreams and many other automatic responses. The RH, or the unconscious, can even oppose conscious will, evidently for realizing self-protection, as happens in the production of pain, fear, anxiety, etc., which have obvious self-protective functions when they are not excessively intense. Anything useful becomes harmful when exaggerated.

I disagree; mind is the environment of cognitive activity that arises from brain function and it is mind that produces consciousness.  The evidence in brain evolution suggests that mind arises from the thalamus; therefore, consciousness ultimately arises from thalamic function.

Rather than continue to delineate my litany of disagreements with this theory, let me add that dreaming is empirically a mental experience; i.e., dreaming occurs in a reality wholly of and within the mind.  Our understand of dream language should be contingent on understanding of the laws and logic of mental reality and how the dreaming  brain experiences and the waking brain interprets that reality.  

[alloker]

I am not familiar with any evidence that specifically assigns dream thoughts to the RH. Could you provide a link to the paper suggesting or supporting this perspective.

Peretz Lavie and Orna Tzischinsky (1985, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1422621) mention the following views and research results that support the thesis that dreams are produced by the RH:

Suggested by: Galin, 1974; Broughton, 1975; Bakan, 1976.
Research results by: Humphrey et al., 1951; Goldstein et al., 1972; Meyer et al., 1980; Gordon et al., 1982; Bertini et al., 1984; Lavie et al., 1984

Rhawn Joseph (1996 http://brainmind.com/Dreaming.html) mentions more research results that support the same thesis: Humphrey et al., 1951; Bogen, et al., 1969; Bogen, 1977; Hoppe et al., 1977; Kerr et al., 1978, 1981; Bertini et al., 1983; Hodoba, 1986; Meyer et al., 1987, etc.

Rhawn Joseph Concludes :
"Based on an extensive review of scientific studies, the overwhelming evidence indicates that whereas the brainstem activates the right hemisphere  during dream sleep [through secretion of atonia, as you say], and is thus physiologically responsible for REM (the eye movements being mediated by brainstem cranial nerve 6), the dream contents have their source in memories and impressions stored within the right half of the brain."
 
Lavie and Tzischinsky (1985) also mention the results of their own research and conclude that dreaming cannot be seen as a right hemisphere function. In reality, they tried to discover a relation between laterality in the waking state and the origin of dreams and failed. Their research is totally irrelevant to the source of dreams, because those who claim that that source is the RH do not say that this is related to laterality in the waking state. All research reports that agree with Lavie�s conclusion are faulty in various ways.

without credible evidence supporting it�s [RH�s] exclusive role in dream production, . . .

Dreams are produced by the RH, as proved by researches mentioned above, but this does not mean that no other part of the brain contributes to dreaming. Many laws of physics say that event (A) causes event (B) but do not mean that (B) is caused only by (A). (B) may be caused also by events other than (A) or other events besides (A)may contribute to the causation of (B) in various ways and various measures.

the studies I�ve reviewed, supporting this conclusion, make no distinctions between the effects of dreaming and the state of atonia that accompany dream sleep. There is credible evidence which suggests that dreaming without atonia does not produce restful sleep. This is supported by studies of sleepwalking and surgical lesioning in the brainstem that releases atonia amid REM sleep. Such evidence strongly support atonia as most primary to restorative sleep.

Sleepwalking does not belong to controversial sleep during which the body is absolutely immobile and REM dreams are produced. Brainstem lesions can prevent REM dreaming because they can prevent the activation of the RH by stopping the secretion of atonia. But this does not prove that dream thoughts are produced by atonia, although brainstem activity is necessary (a) for the activation of the RH by atonia, and therefore, (b) for the production of REM dreams.

Further still, functional studies of Non-REM do produce results suggestive of the active functional effort associated with dreaming.

This is correct but does not disprove the thesis that REM dreams are functional; on the contrary, it suggests it. Your argument is one more instance of the mistake of seeing a causal relation as an exclusive identity relation, which is explained above. More precisely, you assume tacitly that because NREM dreams are functional, REM dreams cannot be. The functionality of REM dreams is proved experimentally; what is ignored is the precise type of this function and its relation to dream content. The LH is more active during NREM sleep than during REM sleep, and LH products are evidently functional. Therefore NREM dreams are more thoughtlike than REM dreams, and their functionality is easier to see than the functionality of REM dreams. Moreover, the analogic, or metaphoric, language of REM dreams makes them more difficult to understand than NREM dreams. �Active functional effort� is associated with REM dreams as well as with NREM dreams, but the content and form of the functional effort are different during the two types of sleep.

If the RH develops more rapidly, it is because the perceptions a newborn gather from those responsible for its survival (objective) have the highest assimilation priority. That is because a newborn is incapable of surviving on its own.

This is what I wrote. You are thus admitting that the principal function of the RH is self-protection. And since REM dreams are produced by the RH, as proved by researches mentioned above, dreams have to have, or at least may have, self-protective function. You cannot escape this conclusion.

mind is the environment of cognitive activity that arises from brain function and it is mind that produces consciousness. The evidence in brain evolution suggests that mind arises from the thalamus; therefore, consciousness ultimately arises from thalamic function.

Research results show that consciousness is in the LH, but this does exclude the possibility of contributions by other parts of the brain, such as the thalamus, for example. When EEG recordings show activity only in the RH, the person says that he or she is not thinking of anything, that his or her mind is empty. The opposite is true about LH activity as evidenced by EEG recordings. Moreover, when someone is thinking consciously, his or her facial expression and especially his or her eyes expose thinking activity. In opposition to this, facial expression during RH activity betrays emotions. The fact that LH thoughts, or at least some of them, are accompanied by consciousness does not mean that the LH produces consciousness. As far as understanding the dreams is concerned, what is important is which thoughts are conscious and which are unconscious, not the source of consciousness. You are always looking for exclusivity in phenomena. You are also disregarding the fact that every statement is meaningful in a certain context.

Our understanding of dream language should be contingent on understanding of the laws and logic of mental reality and how the dreaming brain experiences and the waking brain interprets that reality.

Because dreams are produced by the RH, and the main function of the RH is self-protection, the RH, especially when it is largely freed from LH intervention as happens during REM sleep, deals with past reality with the aim of realizing self-protection. The language of dreams is concrete-analogic, or pictorial-metaphoric, because this is the cognition mode of the RH, whereas LH cognition is mainly or totally abstract-logical. The �logic of mental reality� is seeking success and survival, but this is realized logically by the LH, and analogically by the RH.

The RH does not experience the reality only in the dream state; it records reality both in the waking and sleeping states in concrete form and processes it analogically during REM sleep for realizing self-protection. Again, this does not mean that the RH does such work only during REM sleep.

ALSO, knowledge is not proved only through deduction from experimental-observational data as done in research, as you appear to believe; there is a second method. Knowledge obtained through research is enlarged, or enriched, through mental operations known as induction, generalization, extrapolation, and analogy, and the result is then tested through its consequences, meaning that its consequences are compared with the results of further research. This is the method by which the grand theories of physics have been generated and shaped the technologies and even the whole of civilization. Psychologists are not familiar with this method and even reject it as unscientific. This is why psychology is still an underdeveloped science, and the meaning and function of dreams are ignored, together with many other types of mental phenomenon, including the genesis of non-organic mental disorders and the nature of their symptoms, for example. The dream theory that I presented is extremely useful in dream interpretation, dream induction, psychotherapy, and in self-regulation in general, for example. Such uses of the theory constitute more proofs of it in addition to the proofs supplied by research mentioned above.

[DrmDoc]

 

Peretz Lavie and Orna Tzischinsky (1985, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1422621) mention the following views and research results that support the thesis that dreams are produced by the RH:

Suggested by: Galin, 1974; Broughton, 1975; Bakan, 1976.
Research results by: Humphrey et al., 1951; Goldstein et al., 1972; Meyer et al., 1980; Gordon et al., 1982; Bertini et al., 1984; Lavie et al., 1984

Rhawn Joseph (1996 http://brainmind.com/Dreaming.html) mentions more research results that support the same thesis: Humphrey et al., 1951; Bogen, et al., 1969; Bogen, 1977; Hoppe et al., 1977; Kerr et al., 1978, 1981; Bertini et al., 1983; Hodoba, 1986; Meyer et al., 1987, etc.

Lavie and Tzischinsky (1985) also mention the results of their own research and conclude that dreaming cannot be seen as a right hemisphere function. In reality, they tried to discover a relation between laterality in the waking state and the origin of dreams and failed. Their research is totally irrelevant to the source of dreams, because those who claim that that source is the RH do not say that this is related to laterality in the waking state. All research reports that agree with Lavie�s conclusion are faulty in various ways.

I agreed with Lavie, et al., that �dreaming cannot be seen as a right hemisphere function� for entirely distinct reasons.  The research Lavie quoted is deeply rooted in the presumption that dreaming is a creative process of brain function much as what occurs when the waking state brain engages daydreaming. The presumption is that if dreams are cortical creations like daydreams amid sleep and the right hemisphere (RH) is most active during this creative process, then dream content is the creation of RH activation amid sleep.  This presumption is erroneous because the dreaming brain is not engaging in a creative process; i.e., dreams are no more compositions or creations of brain function than the imagery and experiences we encounter while fully awake in our daily lives.

By excluding brain evolution from the formulation of their hypothesis and from the consideration of their conclusions, most sleep and dream researchers have failed to perceive that the dreaming brain is engaging in an interpretive process rather than a creative process amid REM sleep; i.e., dreams are interpretation rather than RH memory driven creations.  Considering this distinction: if the RH is more active amid REM sleep, that is because it is the busiest at interpreting information it is receiving from elsewhere rather than formulating imagery within its structure.  If this is true, this suggest that the information the brain receives amid REM sleep requires more RH processing than LH processing.

We know from decorticate studies by sleep and dream researchers such as Michel Jouvet and Jaime Villablanca, that the neurally isolated cortex remains inactive amid the sleep process.  There research clearly shows that cortical activation is nonexistent in the absence of a neural connection to subcortical structure.  This is consistent with the evolution of brain structure and the perspective that the activation and function of recent structures (neocortex) are dependent on the foundational activation and function of prior structures (brainstem).  This research support a conclusion that all cortical activity, including dreaming, is dependent on its substructural neural connection and the data it receives and transmits via that connection.

The evidence in brain evolution suggests that the primary function of the cortex is the perception, interpretation, and storage of information it receives via its sensory neural connections (tactical, aural, oral, olfactory, and ocular).  When the brain becomes active amid REM sleep, this evidence suggests that the brain is engaging in the processing of neural information it is receiving from activations in the brainstem amid sleep.  Much of what the brain does when we experience the sights, sounds, and sensations of conscious reality, the dreaming brain experience similarly when it is stimulated by activations in the brainstem amid the sleep process.  Our dreams are how the brain amid REM interprets the subcortical activations it perceives.

Sleepwalking does not belong to controversial sleep during which the body is absolutely immobile and REM dreams are produced. Brainstem lesions can prevent REM dreaming because they can prevent the activation of the RH by stopping the secretion of atonia. But this does not prove that dream thoughts are produced by atonia, although brainstem activity is necessary (a) for the activation of the RH by atonia, and therefore, (b) for the production of REM dreams.

My reference to sleepwalking studies show that REM without atonia does not result in restorative sleep.  This and brainstem lesioning studies show that atonia rather that dreaming is more essential to restful, neurally restorative sleep.  Atonia is the state of muscle inelasticity�perceived as muscle paralysis�which the body engages at the onset of REM.  Amid sleepwalking and when the brainstem is lesioned, muscle paralysis is release and the sleeper�s behavior appears to be in response to dreaming.  This is an unnatural state of dreaming where the musculature of the body does not experience what some perceive as paralysis.  In reality, this is not a paralytic state.  

Further still, functional studies of Non-REM do produce results suggestive of the active functional effort associated with dreaming.

This is correct but does not disprove the thesis that REM dreams are functional; on the contrary, it suggests it. Your argument is one more instance of the mistake of seeing a causal relation as an exclusive identity relation, which is explained above. More precisely, you assume tacitly that because NREM dreams are functional, REM dreams cannot be. The functionality of REM dreams is proved experimentally; what is ignored is the precise type of this function and its relation to dream content.

To correct my prior statement, functional studies of Non-REM do not produce results suggestive of the active functional effort associated with dreaming.  If non-REM doesn�t produce functional brain studies suggestive of dreaming, there must be some other explanation for those non-REM dream reports.  That explanation is provided by functional study of the brain as it cycles to wakefulness when study participants are aroused before entering REM to provide dream reports.  The brain cycles through the same levels a REM when it is aroused from non-REM prior to entering the dreaming state.  The only distinct is that this REM-like activation amid arousal is not concurrent with atonia and is, therefore, not conducive to restorative sleep.

The LH is more active during NREM sleep than during REM sleep, and LH products are evidently functional. Therefore NREM dreams are more thoughtlike than REM dreams, and their functionality is easier to see than the functionality of REM dreams. Moreover, the analogic, or metaphoric, language of REM dreams makes them more difficult to understand than NREM dreams. �Active functional effort� is associated with REM dreams as well as with NREM dreams, but the content and form of the functional effort are different during the two types of sleep.

The function evidence I�ve reviewed show a steady decline in activation of the brain as it cycles through the various stages of non-REM.  If the LH appears more active through this decline, we have to consider what information the LH is perceiving and processing.

If the RH develops more rapidly, it is because the perceptions a newborn gather from those responsible for its survival (objective) have the highest assimilation priority. That is because a newborn is incapable of surviving on its own.

This is what I wrote. You are thus admitting that the principal function of the RH is self-protection. And since REM dreams are produced by the RH, as proved by researches mentioned above, dreams have to have, or at least may have, self-protective function. You cannot escape this conclusion.

More precisely, what I am admitting is that regardless of which hemisphere becomes active amid REM, each is engaging in an interpretive process where information from the brain�s substructure is being evaluated.  My position is that either hemisphere could become dominant amid REM depending on the type of neural information reaching the brain�s hierarchy from the brainstem.  No one hemisphere, in my view, mediates dream production.

Research results show that consciousness is in the LH, but this does exclude the possibility of contributions by other parts of the brain, such as the thalamus, for example. When EEG recordings show activity only in the RH, the person says that he or she is not thinking of anything, that his or her mind is empty. The opposite is true about LH activity as evidenced by EEG recordings. Moreover, when someone is thinking consciously, his or her facial expression and especially his or her eyes expose thinking activity. In opposition to this, facial expression during RH activity betrays emotions. The fact that LH thoughts, or at least some of them, are accompanied by consciousness does not mean that the LH produces consciousness. As far as understanding the dreams is concerned, what is important is which thoughts are conscious and which are unconscious, not the source of consciousness. You are always looking for exclusivity in phenomena. You are also disregarding the fact that every statement is meaningful in a certain context.

I disagree; the research is inaccurate.  In decorticate studies of primates and other less sophisticated species, study evidence show little distinction in the behaviors of study animals.  These animal ambulate well, feed, copulate, and engage in some nest building.  These behaviors are suggestive of consciousness without the RH and LH.  If elements of consciousness persist without these hemisphere, this must suggest that consciousness arises from elsewhere in our neural structure.  

The evidence in brain evolution show that the brain began producing a mind at the stage of thalamic evolution.  The thalamus gave ancestral animals to ability to integrate multiple source of sensory information through a mental process that allowed them to engage behaviors independent of instinct; i.e., the thalamus gave ancestral animals the ability to engage in proactive rather than reactive behaviors.   The thalamus gave our animal ancestors the rudiments of thought.  When you examine the thalamus structure, it is similar to the neocortex with a right and left hemisphere and hemispheric adhesion. All sensory information, excluding olfactory, must enter the thalamus first before entering the cortex.

Because dreams are produced by the RH, and the main function of the RH is self-protection, the RH, especially when it is largely freed from LH intervention as happens during REM sleep, deals with past reality with the aim of realizing self-protection. The language of dreams is concrete-analogic, or pictorial-metaphoric, because this is the cognition mode of the RH, whereas LH cognition is mainly or totally abstract-logical. The �logic of mental reality� is seeking success and survival, but this is realized logically by the LH, and analogically by the RH.

And how does self-protection explain those dream that do not appear to involve survival elements?  If our dreams arise primarily from a self-protection centric structure, why don't our dreams always involve element that directly or indirectly relate to our self-preservation (e.g., levitation dreams, bathroom dream, sexual, etc.)?  If an idea is not consistent from dream to dream and dreamer to dreamer, doesn�t this suggest a re-evaluation of that idea?

[alloker]

I agreed with Lavie, et al., that �dreaming cannot be seen as a right hemisphere function� for entirely distinct reasons.

Your reasons are unreasonable, as exemplified below.

The research Lavie quoted is deeply rooted in the presumption that dreaming is a creative process of brain function much as what occurs when the waking state brain engages daydreaming.

The fact that dreaming is a creative process is proved by the inventions and discoveries that are known to be realized in the dream state; and the correct interpretation of dreams reveals their creativity clearly. Daydreams are produced jointly by the two hemispheres while the LH is the dominant hemisphere. Daydreams are pure wish fulfillments because of LH domination, whereas REM dreams try to realize self-protection, because this is the principal division of work between the hemispheres determined by the timing of their development. Freud claimed that everything in a dream meant imaginary wish fulfillment because he likened dreams to daydreams and to some psychotic hallucinations which are also wish fulfillments. His theory is wrong because dreams have self-protective function, unlike daydreams and psychotic hallucinations. Sleeping is a time for self-restoration and preperation to self-protection, not a time for securing new successes and gains.

Moreover, healthy persons� daydreams are always pleasurable because they are wish fulfillments, and they do not usually present frustrations, or failures, their causes, and the means of terminating them like REM dreams do. The RH operates analogically, and analogy is one of the indispensable mental operations in scientific work, as I mentioned in my previous post. During REM sleep, the communication between the hemispheres is reduced to a minimum, and the RH operates free from LH interference. Consequently, the RH becomes most creative during REM sleep through enhanced analogic processing.  

The presumption is that if dreams are cortical creations like daydreams amid sleep and the right hemisphere (RH) is most active during this creative process, then dream content is the creation of RH activation amid sleep.  This presumption is erroneous because the dreaming brain is not engaging in a creative process; i.e., dreams are no more compositions or creations of brain function than the imagery and experiences we encounter while fully awake in our daily lives.  

You identify dreams with daydreams because, like Freud, you ignore (a) the RH origin and the function of REM dreams, (b) the principal division of work between the RH and the LH, and (c) the meaning of dreams. You are repeating Freud� mistake more than a century after him.

By excluding brain evolution from the formulation of their hypothesis and from the consideration of their conclusions, most sleep and dream researchers have failed to perceive that the dreaming brain is engaging in an interpretive process rather than a creative process amid REM sleep; i.e., dreams are interpretation rather than RH memory driven creations.

How can you know this without being able to understand the precise and detailed meaning of dreams? Your opinion is baseless.

Considering this distinction: if the RH is more active amid REM sleep, that is because it is the busiest at interpreting information it is receiving from elsewhere rather than formulating imagery within its structure.  If this is true, this suggest that the information the brain receives amid REM sleep requires more RH processing than LH processing.

The new cortex of the RH is busy not interpreting information but processing information during REM sleep for enabling self-protection in the waking state, and the old cortex of the RH is certainly involved in this process. This functioning is determined by the timing of the development of the various parts of the brain.

We know from decorticate studies by sleep and dream researchers such as Michel Jouvet and Jaime Villablanca, that the neurally isolated cortex remains inactive amid the sleep process. . . . This research support a conclusion that all cortical activity, including dreaming, is dependent on its substructural neural connection and the data it receives and transmits via that connection.

This is correct but does not mean that the thoughts expressed by REM dreams (a) are produced by the LH or the old brain, (b) are interpretations rather than creations, and (c) have no rational self-protective function, as you believe. You again interpreted causation as exclusive. The old brain contributes to the production of REM dreams and of all thoughts, most probably, but this does not mean that it is the source of all thoughts, that it produces the thoughts all by itself. Research shows activity in the new RH cortex during REM sleep, and thoughts are known to be produced by the new cortex, with contributions from the old cortex.

Our dreams are how the brain amid REM interprets the subcortical activations it perceives.

The RH does not interpret information; it processes information analogically for realizing self-protection not realized consciously in the waking state. Your idea of interpretation has no basis and is a consequence of being unable to understand the meaning of dreams.

REM without atonia does not result in restorative sleep. This and brainstem lesioning studies show that atonia rather that dreaming is more essential to restful, neurally restorative sleep.

Atonia activates RH cortex and thereby makes REM dreams and restful sleep possible, but this does not mean that atonia produces the dream thoughts. I explained this earlier, but you keep repeating the same mistake of seeing any causation as exclusive causation, or identity.

Non-REM do not produce results suggestive of the active functional effort associated with dreaming.

So, you accept the fact that REM dreams are associated with active functional effort. But you claim that that effort is related to interpretation. This is a consequence of the inability to interpret dreams correctly. Research proves that REM sleep is somehow functional, and many psychologists, beginning even before Freud, noticed the problem-solving activity in REM dreams. The theory that I presented in my previous post exposes clearly and in detail the problem-solving process in REM dreams.

When it [the brain] is aroused [awakened] from non-REM prior to entering the [REM] dreaming state. . . . REM-like activation . . . is not concurrent with atonia and is, therefore, not conducive to restorative sleep.

The prevention of REM sleep prevents the secretion of atonia and therefore prevents the activation of the RH and the production REM dreams. Consequently, the problems that need to be solved in REM dreams are not solved, and therefore restorative sleep is not realized. Moreover, if the subject is awakened during REM sleep, the negative effects are increased, evidently because the memories of problems, or failures, that need to be treated are activated and left unsolved. All these facts support the self-protection theory that I presented, not the baseless idea of interpretation.

The function evidence I�ve reviewed show a steady decline in activation of the brain as it cycles through the various stages of non-REM. If the LH appears more active through this decline, we have to consider what information the LH is perceiving and processing.

According to my theory, the LH chooses during NREM sleep the failure that needs to be treated in the following REM time, because the logical LH cognition is hurt by failures more then the analogic RH cognition is, and therefore the LH knows which failure needs to be treated with priority. Moreover, the LH is more active during NREM sleep than during REM sleep and is therefore the dominant brain which can give "jobs" to the RH.  

More precisely, what I am admitting is that regardless of which hemisphere becomes active amid REM, each is engaging in an interpretive process where information from the brain�s substructure is being evaluated.  My position is that either hemisphere could become dominant amid REM depending on the type of neural information reaching the brain�s hierarchy from the brainstem.  No one hemisphere, in my view, mediates dream production.

You are using obscure or imprecise concepts such as interpretation and evaluation and talking about �my view,� because you ignore the meaning of dreams and are trying to disregard the evidence that I mentioned or is mentioned in the works that I cited. The LH does not become dominant during REM sleep; it is just freed from the domination of the LH through the reduction in the interhemispheric communication.

If elements of consciousness persist without these hemisphere, this must suggest that consciousness arises from elsewhere in our neural structure.

You keep repeating the same mistake. Research shows that RH activity is not accompanied by consciousness, whereas LH activity is or can be. This has nothing to do with the source of consciousness despite the research you mention.

The thalamus gave our animal ancestors the rudiments of thought.  When you examine the thalamus structure, it is similar to the neocortex with a right and left hemisphere and hemispheric adhesion. All sensory information, excluding olfactory, must enter the thalamus first before entering the cortex.

These do not prove that the new cortex is not the main source of thoughts in modern humans. You again made the mistake of mentioning a fact and considering it an exclusive truth. The old and the new cortexes on the right and the left have different goals and different modes of memory recording, stimulus interpretation, and reaction formation, the whole system being created by evolution in a way that serves to secure survival and development.

And how does self-protection explain those dreams that do not appear to involve survival elements?  If our dreams arise primarily from a self-protection centric structure, why don't our dreams always involve element that directly or indirectly relate to our self-preservation (e.g., levitation dreams, bathroom dream, sexual, etc.)?  If an idea is not consistent from dream to dream and dreamer to dreamer, doesn�t this suggest a re-evaluation of that idea?

All dreams seek to contribute to survival by trying to terminate harmful failures that lower the mind�s confidence in its basic abilities and threaten to ruin its health. And often such failures are repressed into the unconscious RH. A dream that presents only a failure is an anxiety dream and serves as a warning, i.e., it means: �This is your problem; don�t ignore it! Do what needs to be done!� A dream may also contain the explanation of the cause of the failure, and this serves to find a means of terminating it. Finally, a dream may also present a means of terminating the failure, when the RH can find one. A dream may or may not contain all three of these types of thought in explicit or implicit form for more than one reason. Some dreams are prompted by physical or physiological stimulations, such as sex and levitation dreams, for example, but use the occasion to treat a standing problem, or failure, in analogic thinking and language.
 
The analogies contained in a dream acquire meaning in the context created by the life experiences of the dreamer and the three types of thought that can be contained in a dream. Dreams cannot be interpreted without knowing these, except that some dream analogies are easily understandable at least roughly because they are frequently used also in the waking state. Dreams do their self-protective �job� by causing associations of ideas in the waking state even though their meanings are often not understood consciously. This is why dream rehearsal has therapeutic effect. My theory of dreams has innumerable proofs that I did not mention here. But the works mentioned above already prove that dreams are not just interpretations, whatever this means, but have important functions.

[DrmDoc]

The fact that dreaming is a creative process is proved by the inventions and discoveries that are known to be realized in the dream state�.

I disagree; such reports may merely frame dreaming as an extension of the cognitive processes associated with evaluating and resolving issues that resonate in our thoughts from our conscious experience.    

Daydreams are produced jointly by the two hemispheres while the LH is the dominant hemisphere. Daydreams are pure wish fulfillments because of LH domination, whereas REM dreams try to realize self-protection, because this is the principal division of work between the hemispheres determined by the timing of their development�.daydreams are always pleasurable because they are wish fulfillments, and they do not usually present frustrations, or failures, their causes, and the means of terminating them like REM dreams do.
You identify dreams with daydreams because, like Freud, you ignore (a) the RH origin and the function of REM dreams, (b) the principal division of work between the RH and the LH, and (c) the meaning of dreams. You are repeating Freud� mistake more than a century after him.

I believe you have misunderstood me, I do not equate dreaming with daydreaming as some researchers have. My position is that dreaming is an interpretive process, which the brain engages, at the onset of atonia in response the subcortical neural activations it perceives amid the sleep process. Although I respect Freud for his seminal perception of dreams as a window onto our psychology, I do not agree with any of his (or Jung for that matter) notions about the true nature of dreams.

By excluding brain evolution from the formulation of their hypothesis and from the consideration of their conclusions, most sleep and dream researchers have failed to perceive that the dreaming brain is engaging in an interpretive process rather than a creative process amid REM sleep; i.e., dreams are interpretation rather than RH memory driven creations.

How can you know this without being able to understand the precise and detailed meaning of dreams? Your opinion is baseless.

I know this because I actually did the research for a book I wrote (Neuropsychology of the Dreaming Brain) a couple of years ago. My research, as detailed in my book, showed that the components of sleep and dreaming, as produced by brain function, evolved in stages that conform to how our central nervous system (CNS) evolved. My investigations also showed how the process of sleep evolved in the brain before those associated with dreaming; i.e., dreaming is the outcome of the vestigial metabolic process associated with the evolution of sleep.

The new cortex of the RH is busy not interpreting information but processing information during REM sleep for enabling self-protection in the waking state, and the old cortex of the RH is certainly involved in this process. This functioning is determined by the timing of the development of the various parts of the brain.

I disagree; interpreting incoming neural information is indeed a type of mental process.  Because dream content does not always or exclusively involve waking-state self-protection issues, it cannot be exclusively define as enabling the processing or resolution of self-protection issues.  If, as you have written, some dreams have been sources of �inventions and discoveries�, such dreams are evidence that the experience is not exclusively associated with self-protection or survival issues.  Although some inventions and discoveries arising from the dream state may improve our lives, they are not always associated with issues related to our security and protection.  

You again interpreted causation as exclusive. The old brain contributes to the production of REM dreams and of all thoughts, most probably, but this does not mean that it is the source of all thoughts, that it produces the thoughts all by itself. Research shows activity in the new RH cortex during REM sleep, and thoughts are known to be produced by the new cortex, with contributions from the old cortex.

The evidence shows that the neocortex (inclusive of both RH and LH) cannot engage in any level of activation without neural input from the brainstem.  This means that both the RH and LH gets it marching orders, metaphorically, from the brainstem; i.e., the RH and LH is incapable of thought processing independent of the directives subcortical neural inputs provide.  It is the brainstem that tells the forebrain and its hemispheres what to think and what to think about.

The RH does not interpret information; it processes information analogically for realizing self-protection not realized consciously in the waking state. Your idea of interpretation has no basis and is a consequence of being unable to understand the meaning of dreams.

Self-preservation is an instinct that evolved in the brain before those structures associated with dreaming.  We know this is true because this instinct is present in the behaviors of animals with the simplest, most primitive neural structures.  The instinct to survive resides in and arises from the most primitive part of our CNS, which is the brainstem. If the RH becomes active amid REM, that activity is mediated by the brainstem.

Atonia activates RH cortex and thereby makes REM dreams and restful sleep possible, but this does not mean that atonia produces the dream thoughts. I explained this earlier, but you keep repeating the same mistake of seeing any causation as exclusive causation, or identity.

Incorrect; REM initiates at the onset of atonia, which is the state of muscle inelasticity in body.  Atonia occurs in response to the vestigial metabolic processes associated with sleep.  Sleep evolved as a means to sustain survival amid periods of food privation and rest.  As these periods lengthened, ancestral animals conserved energy by releasing their muscle tone, thus freeing additional energy for physiological and neurological systems more vital to survival.  At the onset of atonia, systems more vital to survival (heart, lungs, brainstem) experience a sharp uptake in energy usage. The arousing in the brainstem that this uptake causes activates the cognitive centers of the neocortex (RH and LH), which set about the task of assess and evaluating the neural effects of brainstem arousal.  The imagery and experiences in our dreams are how our brain perceives and interprets the effects of arousal in the brainstem amid sleep.

So, you accept the fact that REM dreams are associated with active functional effort. But you claim that that effort is related to interpretation. This is a consequence of the inability to interpret dreams correctly. Research proves that REM sleep is somehow functional, and many psychologists, beginning even before Freud, noticed the problem-solving activity in REM dreams. The theory that I presented in my previous post exposes clearly and in detail the problem-solving process in REM dreams.

My position is that dreaming only occurs during REM.  I do not consider any report of non-REM dreams as valid.

The prevention of REM sleep prevents the secretion of atonia and therefore prevents the activation of the RH and the production REM dreams. Consequently, the problems that need to be solved in REM dreams are not solved, and therefore restorative sleep is not realized. Moreover, if the subject is awakened during REM sleep, the negative effects are increased, evidently because the memories of problems, or failures, that need to be treated are activated and left unsolved. All these facts support the self-protection theory that I presented, not the baseless idea of interpretation.

You misunderstand; in brain lesioning, REM does occur but atonia does not.  In sleepwalking, a REM-like state does occur but atonia does not.  Brainstem lesioning and sleepwalking with REM does not produce restorative sleep.  Such evidence suggest that the muscle state, rather than �secretion�, of atonia is most vital to the restorative nature of sleep.  Some sleep studies suggest that the conservation of Orexin-A amid atonia contributes to the restorative effects of sleep.  Orexin-A has been shown to reverse the effects of sleep deprivation in animal studies. Orexin is produced in the brainstem and not the cortex where dream processes occurs.

You are using obscure or imprecise concepts such as interpretation and evaluation and talking about �my view,� because you ignore the meaning of dreams and are trying to disregard the evidence that I mentioned or is mentioned in the works that I cited. The LH does not become dominant during REM sleep; it is just freed from the domination of the LH through the reduction in the interhemispheric communication.

I think we both agree that whatever meaning dreams hold, that meaning is determined by the nature of brain function.  Certainly, there are situations when the right hemisphere becomes dominant amid our conscious experience.  Those of us who are left-hand dominant probably access more of our RH function than those who are right-handed.  Yet, left-hand dominant individuals are no more prone to dream-like states than those of us who are right-handed.  For those of us who are not familiar, the RH controls the left-side of the body while the LH controls the right-side.  The dominance of one side over the other suggests an imbalance of perception or a bias in the interpretive process.

If we are going to use brain function as the basis for understanding the nature of dreams, we will actually have to examine that function in detail to reach a valid conclusion. Focusing our ideas on a single hemisphere will not yield the breathe of insight, which an entire CNS provides.  For example, the neocortex (RH and LH) only becomes active in the presences of subcortical neural input.  What is distinct about this neural input amid REM that the body does not engage in gross locomotion responses?  The state of atonia, which some researchers call muscle paralysis, isn�t really a paralysis state.  Our dreaming brain does not issue gross muscle movement directives to the body in response to dream stimuli: why? The answer is provided by the minutia of brain function and the evolve nature of that function.

You keep repeating the same mistake. Research shows that RH activity is not accompanied by consciousness, whereas LH activity is or can be. This has nothing to do with the source of consciousness despite the research you mention.

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to lateralize the origin of consciousness in either hemisphere without considering the entirety of brain structure and its evolutionary route to a consciousness-producing organ.

These do not prove that the new cortex is not the main source of thoughts in modern humans. You again made the mistake of mentioning a fact and considering it an exclusive truth. The old and the new cortexes on the right and the left have different goals and different modes of memory recording, stimulus interpretation, and reaction formation, the whole system being created by evolution in a way that serves to secure survival and development.

In evolutionary terms, recent structures (neocortex) enhance the function of prior structures (brainstem).  As a consequence, prior structures function more efficiently and recent structures have no function without input from foundational, prior structures.  The function of the new structures is like the old structures putting on a thinking-cap; i.e., the rudiments of thought are their in the thalamus with a little extra brain power in the cortex for processing support.  

All dreams seek to contribute to survival by trying to terminate harmful failures that lower the mind�s confidence in its basic abilities and threaten to ruin its health�.My theory of dreams has innumerable proofs that I did not mention here. But the works mentioned above already prove that dreams are not just interpretations, whatever this means, but have important functions.

Empirically, dreams arise within a state wholly of the mind.  This suggests dreams to be a mental experience.  A less convoluted approach to understanding dream content is to interpret our dream experiences from a mental perspective according to a type of mental logic.  For example, instead of associating dream food with some issue of self-protection, one should simply drop dream as a description of the food and preface it with the word mental.  In reality, dreaming is a mental experience and what we eat within a dream is about some mental consumption.  Similarly, dream buildings become mental structures, dream floors become mental foundations, dream roads become mental paths, etc.

[alloker]

I disagree; such reports [of discovery in dreams] may merely frame dreaming as an extension of the cognitive processes associated with evaluating and resolving issues that resonate in our thoughts from our conscious experience.

These words express an imprecise and baseless opinion. Besides, cases of discovery made in the dream state show that they are not realized as non-creative extensions of waking state thoughts. And even if this were true, the dream state would still have realized creative activity by completing what was left incomplete by waking state thinking. An example of invention supplied by a dream is below.  

Elias Howe designed a complete sewing machine without a needle. He was unable to figure out a needle despite sustained effort. Those who knew him said that he looked despondent. Then he saw in a dream the shape of the modern sewing needle presented as a spear held by a savage. Howe had worked on that problem for a long time and had failed. The dream work was an �extension� of waking state thinking only in the sense that it achieved creative success where waking state thinking had failed. The dream was necessitated because Howe�s conscious waking state failure was affecting his mental state, his mental health. This is why all dreams are produced, and they create, or realize, what consciousness failed to create, or realize. Dreams deal with harmful failures that threaten to ruin mental health. Their ultimate aim is to protect mental health; and terminating failures is a means of it, because all non-organic mental disorders are caused by unbearably harmful failures, as even the most superficial survey shows.

The presentation of the needle as a spear held by a savage probably meant that the needle problem was harming Howe much and should therefore be solved and could be solved as shown.

My position is that dreaming is an interpretive process, which the brain engages, at the onset of atonia in response the subcortical neural activations it perceives amid the sleep process. Although I respect Freud for his seminal perception of dreams as a window onto our psychology, I do not agree with any of his (or Jung for that matter) notions about the true nature of dreams.

You have no proof that dreams represent interpretation; this is just a baseless opinion (position). Besides, your hypothesis of interpretation cannot expose in detail and with precision what a dream interprets and how it does that. The idea of interpretation is not only baseless but is also useless. As I explained, physics became what it is by proving hypotheses through their consequences, i.e., through their usefulness in explaining, predicting, and controlling the phenomena. You ignore this kind of proof and produce useless ideas.

You earlier said that the brainstem was the source of dreams. I proved this wrong; and you changed your position and are now talking about �atonia in response the subcortical neural activations� as the starting point of the dreaming process, to which I had no objection, contrary to what your words suggest. You changed your position (opinion) without drawing attention to it and you are trying to give the impression that I objected to something that is true, or may be true. This is not acceptable. In fact, all your thinking is of this type, because you wish to look like a scientist, whereas in reality you are trying to look learned and wise by mentioning something you know or baselessly assume and claim explicitly or implicitly that it represents the whole truth related to the subject dealt with. I say these to help you to correct your behavior, you thinking habits.

[I know this [that dreams represent interpretations] because I actually did the research for a book I wrote (Neuropsychology of the Dreaming Brain) a couple of years ago. My research, as detailed in my book, showed that the components of sleep and dreaming, as produced by brain function, evolved in stages that conform to how our central nervous system (CNS) evolved. My investigations also showed how the process of sleep evolved in the brain before those associated with dreaming; i.e., dreaming is the outcome of the vestigial metabolic process associated with the evolution of sleep.

It is obvious that all brain functions evolved in stages, as you described or otherwise; but this does not prove that dreams are non-creative interpretations that have no self-protective function, as you claim. You again mentioned something you know or think you know, aiming to give the impression that you know much and therefore everything you say must reflect the truth. This is unacceptable.

I disagree; interpreting incoming neural information is indeed a type of mental process.

I did not say that interpretation was not a mental process as you implied. I said: The RH is busy not interpreting information but processing information during REM sleep for enabling self-protection in the waking state.

Because dream content does not always or exclusively involve waking-state self-protection issues, it cannot be exclusively defined as enabling the processing or resolution of self-protection issues.

Because your idea of interpretation does not expose the detailed and precise meaning and function of dreams, you cannot know if they exclusively deal with self-protection issues or not. You replied to this by mentioning your research on the evolution of the brain without explaining how this is related to the contents, meaning, and function of dreams.

If, as you have written, some dreams have been sources of inventions and discoveries, such dreams are evidence that the experience is not exclusively associated with self-protection or survival issues.  Although some inventions and discoveries arising from the dream state may improve our lives, they are not always associated with issues related to our security and protection.

You cannot know this without knowing how to interpret dreams correctly. You again expressed an opinion without proof. Besides, dreams do not deal with every security issue. The ultimate function of dreams is to protect mental health. They try to terminate harmful failures because these are the causes of non-organic mental disorders, as mentioned above. So, dreams treat only harmful failures that lower the mind�s self confidence and threaten to ruin mental health, as can be seen from the example presented above. Another means of protecting mental health that is used by dreams is the attribution of failures to external causes.

The evidence shows that the neocortex (inclusive of both RH and LH) cannot engage in any level of activation without neural input from the brainstem.  This means that both the RH and LH gets it marching orders, metaphorically, from the brainstem; i.e., the RH and LH is incapable of thought processing independent of the directives subcortical neural inputs provide.

You again showed how much you know, but what you wrote does not disprove that the RH is the source of the dream thoughts and deals with harmful failures that are not adequately treated by the LH consciously.

It is the brainstem that tells the forebrain and its hemispheres what to think and what to think about.

This is again a baseless opinion. Which part of the brain chooses the failure that needs to be treated by the RH during REM dreaming is not clearly known. But the known role played by the old brain in memory processes indicates its contribution to that choosing process. Also, the logical LH cognition is hurt by failures more easily than the analogic RH cogniti?on is, and the LH is more active during NREM sleep than during REM sleep and is the dominant brain. Therefore the LH may be choosing a failure during NREM time and giving to the RH the �job� of treating it in the next REM time. Awakening tests support this possibility.

Self-preservation is an instinct that evolved in the brain before those structures associated with dreaming.  We know this is true because this instinct is present in the behaviors of animals with the simplest, most primitive neural structures.  The instinct to survive resides in and arises from the most primitive part of our CNS, which is the brainstem.

You keep repeating the same mistake. I did not say that the RH alone tries to realize self-protection as you imply. And there is no need to consider the evolutionary process to know this, excepting your need to show how much you know. If someone walking barefoot on the beach observes broken glass in front of him or her, he or she avoids stepping on it. This is conscious self-protection realized by, or involving, the LH. If this person fails to realize this conscious self-protection and steps on the broken glass, a reflex act will pull the foot away from the glass. And reflex acts do not involve the brain. The organism is equipped with defense mechanisms of many types.

If the RH becomes active amid REM, that activity is mediated by the brainstem.

The same mistake and the same secret aim again. I did not say that the RH is not activated by the brainstem; and this fact, even if it is the only cause of RH activity, does not disprove that REM-dream thoughts (a) are produced by the RH, (b) deal with harmful failures that threaten mental health but are not dealt with adequately by consciousness in the waking state, and (c) are creative, which is the subject of my initial post.

Incorrect; REM initiates at the onset of atonia, . . . . . . . . . evaluating the neural effects of brainstem arousal.

You keep denying or distorting what you have written, distorting or ignoring what I have written, and mentioning things that are irrelevant to the precise meaning and function of dreams. You are just trying to show how much you know.

The imagery and experiences in our dreams are how our brain perceives and interprets [!!!] the effects of arousal in the brainstem amid sleep.

This is an obscure and baseless opinion which you keep repeating despite my replies.

My position is that dreaming only occurs during REM.  I do not consider any report of non-REM dreams as valid.

Those who report dreams upon NREM awakenings must be lying if your position or opinion reflects the truth. They and the psychologists who believe them must be fools.

You misunderstand; in brain lesioning, . . . . . . . . . Orexin is produced in the brainstem and not the cortex where dream processes occurs.

I repeat. You are denying and distorting what you have written, distorting or ignoring what I have written, and mentioning things that are irrelevant to the precise meaning and function of dreams, which is the subject of my initial post. You are just trying to show how much you know.

I wrote: �You keep repeating the same mistake. Research shows that RH activity is not accompanied by consciousness, whereas LH activity is or can be. This has nothing to do with the source of consciousness despite the research you mention.�

And you replied: �It is, in my opinion, a mistake to lateralize the origin of consciousness in either hemisphere without considering the entirety of brain structure and its evolutionary route to a consciousness-producing organ.�

I am talking about what is conscious and what is not, non-exclusively; and you keep talking about the evolutionary origin of consciousness. You cannot be argued with. I will no more reply your posts.

[DrmDoc]

I disagree; such reports [of discovery in dreams] may merely frame dreaming as an extension of the cognitive processes associated with evaluating and resolving issues that resonate in our thoughts from our conscious experience.

These words express an imprecise and baseless opinion�

 


Your words provide my basis: �Elias Howe designed a complete sewing machine without a needle. He was unable to figure out a needle despite sustained effort. Those who knew him said that he looked despondent.�  

Your statement here that Elias was �unable to figure out� a needle design suggest that he was involved in a conscious thought or cognitive process, regarding a needle design, before he experienced a dream about that design.  Your statement proves that his dream was merely an extension of something he was consciously trying to �figure out.� As an extension of his waking thought processes, dreaming merely extended Elias�s mental consideration of a conscious project that consumed his waking thoughts to such a degree of mental imbalance as to remain unabated by the sleep process.

You have no proof that dreams represent interpretation; this is just a baseless opinion (position). Besides, your hypothesis of interpretation cannot expose in detail and with precision what a dream interprets and how it does that. The idea of interpretation is not only baseless but is also useless. As I explained, physics became what it is by proving hypotheses through their consequences, i.e., through their usefulness in explaining, predicting, and controlling the phenomena. You ignore this kind of proof and produce useless ideas.

My position may seem baseless to you because you may not have researched the brain as I have.  When we experience sensory data via our sensory array (ear, nose, skin, tongue, eyes, etc.), that data is interpreted by the cognitive centers (inclusive of the RH and LH) of the brain where a behavioral response is formulated and issued.  Interpretation of sensory data is a primary function of the neocortex, whether that function involves a waking or dreaming state.  Therefore, dream imagery is a product of the dreaming brain�s interpretive process.  Given this perspective, �what a dream interprets� is a legitimate question.  Understanding what a dream interprets requires a more detailed understanding of brain function.  Concisely, dream content interpret the neural effects of brainstem activations amid sleep, which the activated cortex perceives as incongruent with physical/material reality.

You earlier said that the brainstem was the source of dreams. I proved this wrong; and you changed your position and are now talking about �atonia in response the subcortical neural activations� as the starting point of the dreaming process, to which I had no objection, contrary to what your words suggest. You changed your position (opinion) without drawing attention to it and you are trying to give the impression that I objected to something that is true, or may be true. This is not acceptable. In fact, all your thinking is of this type, because you wish to look like a scientist, whereas in reality you are trying to look learned and wise by mentioning something you know or baselessly assume and claim explicitly or implicitly that it represents the whole truth related to the subject dealt with. I say these to help you to correct your behavior, you thinking habits.

Rather than engage in disparaging comments, I suggest you reread my statements.  Atonia is mediated (controlled) by the brainstem and activations in the brainstem, after it engages atonia, initiate the dreaming process.  Although atonia (muscle inelasticity) occurs during REM, brainstem activations propagate into dreaming.

It is obvious that all brain functions evolved in stages, as you described or otherwise; but this does not prove that dreams are non-creative interpretations that have no self-protective function, as you claim.

I am not claiming that dreams have no self-protective function; my position is that this self-protective function is not the exclusive or primary purpose of dreaming and that the RH is not the primary mediator of dream construction or content as your theory suggests.

You again mentioned something you know or think you know, aiming to give the impression that you know much and therefore everything you say must reflect the truth. This is unacceptable.

I don�t presume to know your mindset except by our discussion herein; however, what I know or what I think I know is based on over three decades of research encompassing multiple scientific disciplines inclusive of neuropsychology, psychology, neurophysiology, paleontology, biology, and cross-species analysis.  

I did not say that interpretation was not a mental process as you implied. I said: The RH is busy not interpreting information but processing information during REM sleep for enabling self-protection in the waking state.

Interpreting information, which is a primary function of the cortices, is inclusive of what the brain does when it is processing information.

Because your idea of interpretation does not expose the detailed and precise meaning and function of dreams, you cannot know if they exclusively deal with self-protection issues or not. You replied to this by mentioning your research on the evolution of the brain without explaining how this is related to the contents, meaning, and function of dreams.

Without the details of my perspective, I believe many of us are capable of knowing that a dream about chasing a butterfly through an open field on a sunny day, for example, has nothing to do with some self-protection issue; i.e., not every dream is an appeal to our sense of self-preservation.  Nevertheless, the brainstem activations that precipitate dreaming is not inclusive of sensory information from our environment.  Our dreaming brain perceive this distinction and responds to brainstem activations in REM as originating from within its neural structure.  Simply, the dreaming brain interprets brainstem activations in REM as mental experience.  As perceptions of mental experience, the imagery in our dreams primary characterize mental effects, which are best understood by prefacing that imagery with a mental description.  In reality, dreams are faux physical/material characterizations of mental effects.  In my prior response, I gave an example of how this perspective applies (mental food, mental structures, etc.)

�.dreams do not deal with every security issue. The ultimate function of dreams is to protect mental health. They try to terminate harmful failures because these are the causes of non-organic mental disorders, as mentioned above. So, dreams treat only harmful failures that lower the mind�s self confidence and threaten to ruin mental health, as can be seen from the example presented above. Another means of protecting mental health that is used by dreams is the attribution of failures to external causes.

I disagree; this may be true of your dreams because this idea seems to deeply influence your mindset.  If dreams are mental creations, as you seem to insist, then their construction and content will be influenced by the mindset of the dreamer.  What many of us believe to be proved by our dream content may merely be our waking ideas perpetuated into dreaming by the depths of our conscious mindset.

The evidence shows that the neocortex (inclusive of both RH and LH) cannot engage in any level of activation without neural input from the brainstem.  This means that both the RH and LH gets it marching orders, metaphorically, from the brainstem; i.e., the RH and LH is incapable of thought processing independent of the directives subcortical neural inputs provide.

You again showed how much you know, but what you wrote does not disprove that the RH is the source of the dream thoughts and deals with harmful failures that are not adequately treated by the LH consciously.

What I know is provided by the research evidence I�ve studied and that evidence show dreaming is not lateralized in either hemisphere.  The evidence suggests that dreaming is a collaborative process encompassing both hemispheres.
 

It is the brainstem that tells the forebrain and its hemispheres what to think and what to think about.

This is again a baseless opinion.

Again, your opinion may be rooted in an incomplete study of brain function and how the brain evolved.   A detailed study of how the separate structures of our central nervous system evolved and work in concert to produce mind, consciousness, and dreaming could provide functional insights you may not have fully considered in formulating your theory.

You keep repeating the same mistake. I did not say that the RH alone tries to realize self-protection as you imply.

What I have clearly stated in prior comments is that the RH evolved to perceive, interpret, and respond to life experience from an objective perspective.  I have tried to convey is that this hemisphere propensity for perceiving and interpreting life experience from opposing perspectives explains why it may be more active in infancy.   The survival instinct arise from the brainstem and, in infancy, survival is primarily dependent on others; therefore, the RH may be more active in infancy because of its sensitivity to perceptions suggesting how the infant is perceived or received by its caregivers and social environment.  Survival is mediated by the brainstem, whereas, the perspective of survival with the most impact (whether objective or subjective) determines which hemisphere is activated.  

�.there is no need to consider the evolutionary process to know this, excepting your need to show how much you know.

Your assessment of what my needs may be is curious.  Judging from your theory posting, your assessment may merely be projection.  However, a foundation in any field of study requires some knowledge of its history.  If you are basing your theory on brain function, you should have some knowledge of brain history and how that history relates to your theory.  From what I know of brain history, your theory requires addition investigation.

I am talking about what is conscious and what is not, non-exclusively; and you keep talking about the evolutionary origin of consciousness. You cannot be argued with. I will no more reply your posts

Well, I guess that leaves me with the final word.  If a position is valid, it should be defended with evidence that cannot be as easily dismissed as some expressed herein.  Simply disagreeing and labeling a perspective pointless does not support a weak position.  What you have labeled as an effort to �show how much you know�, was an effort to provide insight into the available research that could either support your theory or take it in a more cogent direction.  I certainly wish you well and hope you continue to develop your ideas.

[alloker]

It is evident that the LH as well as the RH seeks to solve one�s problems and to realize self-protection and success. It is when the logical LH fails to do that after it tries and reaches the threshold of disorder or becomes disordered that the analogic LH cognition seeks self-protection free from LH intervention.

Dreams are creative because RH cognition which produces them is creative; and the source of RH�s creativity is its analogic mode of cognition. Deductive logical LH cognition cannot produce new knowledge in addition to what is already learned through perception, because deduction only makes explicit what is implicit in existing knowledge obtained through perception. Bertrand Russell stated this fact strongly. In opposition to this, RH cognition can generate new knowledge by performing on existing knowledge operations called analogy, generalization, induction, etc. Russell stated this fact too, and this means that RH cognition is creative, whereas LH cognition is not. However, knowledge created in this way is hypothetical and needs to be tested deductively by the LH. This is done in two ways: (a) in research, by deducing the hypothesis from data obtained through experimentation and obsevation, and (b) in theoretical work, by deducing not the hypothesis but some consequences of it from data obtained through experimentation and observation. The source of creativity is the RH even in the waking state, and the creations of the analogic RH cognition have been the starting points of the grand theories of physics and many other creative waking state mental processes, as exemplified below.

"If anyone presses a stone with a finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse will (so to speak) also be drawn back equally toward the stone, for the rope, stretched out on both ends, will urge the horse toward the stone.� This is what Newton wrote, and through analogy, he assumed that the Earth was attracting the Sun with the same force with which the Sun was attracting the Earth. It is not possible to prove this through direct measurement; but Newton used this idea in deducing the law of gravitation, which is proved through it consequences, i.e., by its usefulness in explaining and predicting celestial phenomena.

Maxwell was impressed by the limited analogy, or symmetry, that existed between the terms related to the electric and magnetic fields in the empirical laws of electromagnetism and enlarged this analogy by hypothetically adding to those equations a term that is analogous to an existing term that did not have an analogue. The resulting set of equations is known as the electromagnetic theory and is proved through it consequences as explained above.
 
Planck introduced the concept of quantum into physics by assuming, through analogy with the structure of matter, that energy came in discrete quantities.

The observed waves on the surface of water and in the vibrating strings facilitated, through analogy, the discovery of sound waves, electromagnetic waves, and matter waves. The basic equation of the quantum theory was created through analogy with the equation of vibrating strings, by modifying that equation. Piaget found that analogy was always the first stage of the total cognition process. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions, which means also the genesis of grand theories, were initiated by paradigm shifts, or the adoptions of a new models, through analogy or generalization, we can say. According to Newton, all discoveries are routed in generalization through induction, as exemplified above. Mental operations called analogy, induction, and generalization can be seen as various aspects of the same operation; and analog processing is the mode of cognition of the RH which operates outside consciousness and transfers its products to the conscious LH through the available channels.

All these mean that conscious waking-state effort to solve a problem continues in the REM state but the cognition mode changes and becomes more creative. Moreover, some failures to solve a problem are repressed into the unconscious RH in various degrees of efficacy, and therefore not only the cognition mode but also the memory bank used in solving in such problems is not continuous between the LH and the RH because the RH can reach the repressed information that is unavailable to the LH.

Scientific investigation always begins with the conception of hypotheses. �Usually some hypothesis is a necessary preliminary to the collection of facts [research], since the selection of facts demands some way of determining relevance. Without something of this kind, the mere multiplicity of facts is baffling� (Bertrand Russell). The origin of hypotheses is often explained using obscure concepts such as intuition, inspiration, creativity, stroke of genius, gift from God, etc. The reason for this is that hypotheses are products of analogical cognition, as exemplified, and are therefore products of the analogical RH cognition. And because the RH operates outside consciousness, the origin of hypotheses is ignored by most people. In fact, some people believe that some dreams come from God and others come from the devil.

It has been found that 10-20% of REM awakenings do not result in dream reports. This means that REM sleep has a function other than helping consciousness to terminate harmful failures in the waking state. Some dreams expose this function by treating cognition failures. For example, a childhood dream of Freud explained the expression of sexual excitement that he had observed on his mother's face as the expression of being ill. Jung had a dream that explained the male sex organ through an analogy. Such dreams suggest that REM dreaming may serve to structure reality analogically as the first stage of the total cognition process and may produce dreams when the conscious failure to understand had been harmful. The analogical structuring of reality by REM dreams is in fact proved by the increase in the duration of REM sleep caused by new learning.

The dream about chasing a butterfly through an open field on a sunny day can be Interpreted analogically as follows, assuming that the dreamer felt happy during that dream scene: "Success and happiness are not easy to attain, but you can succeed if you try hard enough; the world is not as bad as you think." If the dreamer experienced anxiety during the butterfly chase, the message may be: "You have aims that are difficult to attain; this is your problem." This is a warning message which does not propose a solution. In both cases, the dreamer must have hurt deeply by failing to realize success and happiness. Of course, the dreamer's life experiences must be known for understanding the correct and precise meaning of a dream. Interpreting a dream is like translating a text from one language to another, that is, from abstract-logical language to concrete-analogical in the case of dream texts.

The real target of my criticisms is the mentality of psychologists who consider the unconscious irrational and nonfunctional and therefore fail to understand the products of the unconscious. Psychologists also reject the theoretical method of scientific investigation without trying to understnd it. These are the causes of the failure to understand dreams, the symptoms of inorganic mental disorders, and many other products of the unconscious, which are not objectively observable and some of which are not even subjectively knowable.

I wish you well.

[DrmDoc]

I think the core of my disagreement with many established and accepted dreams theories is that many are based on imprecise or erroneous information.  Most notably imprecise are theories about the separate tasks of the right and left hemisphere rooted in hemispheric ablative surgery and brain injury study. 

The established ideas about the separate tasks of the RH and LH, as rooted in superficial study results, are that the RH mediates creativity, where as, the LH mediates logic.  The predominance of left-handedness (indicative of RH dominance) among artists and entertainers seems to support such RH study results.   I consider such results superficial because they do not explain why the separate hemispheres gravitate to a specific function; i.e., they do not provide a basis for why the RH and LH appear to engage in the seemingly separate functions of creativity and logic.

The bilateral nature of brain structure should logically infer that the function of one hemisphere mirror the function of the other; however, study results suggest that their separate functions reflect polar opposites.  The supposed creativity of the RH is viewed as the polar opposite of the supposed logical LH.  However, the RH creativity and the LH logic are merely the outcome of their separate functions rather than their implicit function.  What is it about the sensitivity and functional nature of the separate hemispheres that their processes produce results suggestive of either creativity or logic?  The answer is that each hemisphere engages in the same (mirror) function from a perspectives that is opposite of the other.  In simpler terms, perspective is the chicken, creativity and logic are the eggs.

Perspective, relative to brain function, is about perceiving, processing, and responding to sensory information from opposite points of view.  Although we may all have expressed points of view, to the individual there is only two: Subjective and Objective.  Subjective describes how the individual perceive himself and his environment in isolation from the expressed perceptions of environmental and social sources.  Objective describes how the individual believes he is perceived and received by environmental and social sources.  The subjective perspective is like evaluating one’s self from a reflection in a mirror; whereas, the objective perspective is akin to evaluating one’s self from the opinions others express.

The RH is most sensitive to the objective aspects of life experience.  Its creative propensity arises from its ability to perceive and interpret experience from opposing perspectives or viewpoints.  The LH is most aligned with the subjective aspects of life experience because it is most sensitive to the direct impact of life and how we individually feel about its effects to the exclusion of all outside opinion.  Functionally, the RH processes indirect sensory information; whereas, the LH processes direct sensory information. 

The effects of life experience may have either a direct (LH) or indirect (RH) impact on our survival, which is why self-preservation cannot be lateralized in a single hemisphere.  Issues involving the preservation of one’s wellbeing are priorities of both the LH and RH.  When we encounter such issues, they are assessed for both their direct and indirect impact.  Similarly, the brainstem activations that precipitate dreaming are evaluated for both direct and indirect effects by our cortical hierarchy amid the sleep process.  Consequently, amid the sleep process, both hemispheres become active in pursuit of their separate functional imperatives.  Dreaming and dream content are the result of a functionally collaborative effort.
 



 

[alloker]

Your idea of �imprecise or erroneous information� is just baseless concerning many discoveries related to brain functions. Lateralization theories use, in addition to �hemispheric ablative surgery and brain injury study,� EEG recordings, lateral eye movement (LEM) tests, neural, mental, and behavioral development studies, etc. I personally performed LEM tests on subjects of many nations. I found that Southern and Eastern peoples, children, and women are more right-brained than Northern and Western peoples, adults, and men. More generally, persons living in security and comfort are more left-brained than others, as determined by the need for protection. However, this rule is more valid for groups of people than for individuals.

Research has definitively proved the lateralization of very many brain functions. But this does not mean that everything that needs to be known about lateralization is discovered. You again confused �some� with �all,� as you always do. For example, despite everything that has been discovered, it is still thought that it is not known why there are two brain hemispheres and why functions are lateralization, as you mentioned. I see several reasons for this.

First. It is known that the LH is more vulnerable than the LH. The reason appears to be that logical thinking by the LH can draw harmful consequences from one or a few experiences of harmful failures, and these can make healthy thinking impossible, as exposed by the thinking and behavior of mentally disordered persons and by the fact that all non-organic mental disorders are caused by unbearably harmful failures. In opposition to this, analogical LH cognition can function healthily as long as it finds in its past a sufficient amount of success on which it can base its decisions. Therefore it is safer to keep logical and analogical modes of cognition localized in separate parts of the brain.

Second. Abstract logical thinking appeared last in the species and develops last in the human individual. The development of free will and consciousness follows the same pattern of development. Free will and consciousness are inseparable, because consciousness is always accompanied by the necessity of making a choice, and when there is no need to make a choice, human functioning is automatic-unconscious. RH functioning is automatic-unconscious because its main function is to realize self-protection when survival is at stake. This means that evolution has not entrusted the organism solely to free will and consciousness but has backed them up with mechanisms of self-protection which operate automatically when consciousness an free will fail. For this reason, it is again safer to keep analogic cognition free from interference by conscious logical free will at least at certain times by separating these functions physically. For example, interhemispheric communication is reduced to a minimum during REM sleep, it is lowered in repressors, and mentally disordered persons exhibit thoughts that appear to be produced by the analogic RH thinking.

Third. Abstract, logical, conscious, and free-willed cognition and behavior appear to be the latest creations of evolution in the species and develops last in the human individuals. Therefore  it should be expected to find this mode of functioning physically separated from the more primitive but more robust analogic-automatic functioning. In fact, this sequence of development is found also in other areas of reality. For example, the music is a function of analogical RH operation; but experienced musicians are found to use also their logical-digital LH in making music. Sound recording and replaying technology too developed in the same order. Digital computers are a late invention, but the use of models is an old method and can be considered primitive analog computers. Talking about �perspective� in explaining lateralization is pure verbalism with no knowledge content.

I have written more than once that the LH as well as the RH seeks to realize self-protection. But the basic goal of the RH is to realize self-protection, meaning the termination and prevention of especially very harmful failures, whereas the LH, which is most active in persons living in secure environments, can tolerate some failure and harm for realizing success and gain elsewhere, as we all know from daily experience. In other words, the conscious LH seeks principally to raise the level of success and gain in all areas of activity, as known from daily experience. In opposition to this, the automatic RH tries principally to prevent the lowering of that level in any area of activity in a measure that threatens to ruin mental health, even for securing successes and gains in other areas of activity, as exposed by the products of the unconscious. This difference between the goal hierarchies of the RH and the LH is misinterpreted as conflict between consciousness and the unconscious.

[DrmDoc]

Your idea of �imprecise or erroneous information� is just baseless�

Baseless?  Consider your contradictions:

I personally performed LEM tests on subjects of many nations. I found that Southern and Eastern peoples, children, and women are more right-brained than Northern and Western peoples, adults, and men. More generally, persons living in security and comfort are more left-brained than others, as determined by the need for protection.[/b] However, this rule is more valid for groups of people than for individuals.

Above, your comments infer that �the need for protection� arises from the �left-brain�.  However, according to your theory:

The RH is busy not interpreting information but processing information during REM sleep for enabling self-protection in the waking state.

The RH does not interpret information; it processes information analogically for realizing self-protection not realized consciously in the waking state.

The new brain on the right, often referred to as the RH, develops faster in childhood compared to the LH and deals therefore with the needs of the child, which are related mainly to self-protection. The RH is known to be equipped with self-protective abilities.

If �security and comfort� is a determinant of �left-brained� individuals self-protection need, how it that processing of �self-protection� arises from the RH (right-brain)?  

My position is that although creativity and logic seems to arise from separate hemisphere, these qualities actually arises from both; i.e., both the RH and LH engage in creative and logical functions as distinguished by their separate objective and subjective functional perspective.  The drive for self-preservation arises from subcortical (below the RH and LH) function.  Although the sub-cortex generates our survival instincts, processing the sensory associated with that information remains a priority of both hemispheres, right and left.  

Consider this perspective: whatever creative projects we might engage, some applications of logic must be applied to that project to bring it to fruition.  Essentially, such would be the creative application of logic.  Relative to application of logic, Einstein used what he called thought experiments to envision applications of his mathematical reasoning to time and space.  The collaboration between the RH and LH requires that each speak, metaphorically, the others creative and logical language.  This means that each hemisphere has the ability to engage in creative and logical functions.  In application of these functions, each has a role in processing the priorities arising from influences impacting our self-preservation instinct.  Relative to dreaming, each hemisphere has an equal role in the processing and generation of dream content.

If processing self-preservation information is the posited ultimate priority of the supposed creative RH, then our survival rest upon the function of what could be consider the most whimsical, least reliable aspect of our thought processes.  Wouldn�t the issues impacting our wellbeing be best resolved by the supposed secure and logical thought processes of the LH?  



 

[alloker]

 Above, your comments infer that �the need for protection� arises from the �left-brain

 
Persons living in security and comfort are more left-brained than others because security makes self-protection less needed, and therefore those living in security have less developed and less active right brain which principally seeks to realize self-protection. You are incapable of understanding this because your pathological yearning to look intelligent and learned blocks your intelligence selectively. If your mind were as weak as it seems to be in relation to this discussion, you would reach that age.

*If �security and comfort� is a determinant of �left-brained� individuals self-protection need, how it that processing of �self-protection� arises from the RH (right-brain)?*  

�Security and comfort� is not caused by the brain only or even principally. The environment plays the principal role in allowing human development and creating security and comfort. If you compare the landscape and history of Afghanistan with those of your own country you may understand who needs self-protective RH cognition. All great men suffered much in their childhood, and this boosted their creative and self-protective RH activity. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Newton, and Einstein are the most famous examples. Newton and Einstein naturally had active left brains like all Westerners, and suffering activated also their right brains. You must have heard that suffering enhances creativity. The invention of the sewing machine by Howe is another example of this fact. However, RH creativity produces great results only if it is supplemented by logical LH activity, just as LH logic produces great results by being fed by RH creativity.  

My position is that although creativity and logic seems to arise from separate hemisphere, these qualities actually arises from both.

It is again your baseless �position� against scientific evidence. There is no �seems� concerning the lateralization of logic; and your concept of creativity is imprecise, as explained below.

 Both the RH and LH engage in creative and logical functions as distinguished by their separate objective and subjective functional perspective.

Again obscure and imprecise concepts and thoughts designed to make you look intelligent and learned; and your claim that the RH engages in logical activity is simply wrong.

 The drive for self-preservation arises from subcortical (below the RH and LH) function.  Although the sub-cortex generates our survival instincts, processing the sensory associated with that information remains a priority of both hemispheres, right and left.

 

One of the tactics that you are using to look intelligent and learned is to mention known facts and imply that only you know them. The old brain is also called the animal brain and naturally seeks self-protection or is the source of the �survival instinct.� But the thoughts that serve to realize self-protection and survival are produced by the new brain on both sides, each using its special abilities. Also, the RH and the LH have different goals, or strategies, in relation to realizing survival. The RH seeks principally to terminate and prevent failures and harms, whereas the LH tries principally to realize successes and gains of all kinds, as I wrote before.  Also, the RH deals with current failures and harms and with close dangers, whereas the LH is also capable of dealing with remote and indirect dangers because it can foresee consequences using logic.

 Consider this perspective: whatever creative projects we might engage, some applications of logic must be applied to that project to bring it to fruition.  Essentially, such would be the creative application of logic.

You are confused about the meaning of creativity. What psychologists call a �creation� is a new idea that constitutes the starting point and also the most important and the most creative step in the realization of something new and useful. Such creativity is a product of the analogic RH cognition, which is most active when mental health is at stake and LH interference is reduced to a minimum, as I explained. LH contribution, on the other hand, is involved in bringing the project to �fruition,� as you say. Moreover, because the LH principally seeks to realize success and gain, it conceives of great projects and adopts high goals. But RH creativity is necessary for solving the most difficult problems, as exemplified in Howe�s invention of his sewing machine. Although LH products can be called creations, creativity has different meaning concerning LH and RH products.
 

The collaboration between the RH and LH requires that each speak, metaphorically, the others creative and logical language.

This is again a baseless �opinion� or �position.� It is evident that the brain operates most fruitfully when the RH and the LH and all other parts of the brain communicate and cooperate as established by evolution. But this does not mean that all parts of the brain speak all languages that exist in the brain. For example, the conscious LH does not understand the concrete-analogical language of dreams produced by the RH. But nevertheless, dreams influence waking-state cognition and behavior. One proof of this is that dream rehearsal produces useful effects and even facilitates psychotherapy which seeks the protection of mental health. It appears that the concrete-analogic dream thoughts of the RH influence waking-state LH thinking by activating the concrete memories of some past experiences and causing associations of ideas. Something like this probably happens in relation to the waking-state thoughts of the RH. But, it is not necessary to know pecisely how the various parts of the brain communicate to know certain things about the lateralization of functions.

In the opposite direction, when the LH produces abstract-logical thoughts in the waking state, the memories of concrete events that are associated with those thoughts can activate the same memories in the RH and thus start the needed RH processes. Denying the differences that are found to exist between the RH and the LH may only serve to make one to look smart to people who are not familiar with such subjects.

 Relative to dreaming, each hemisphere has an equal role in the processing and generation of dream content.

Do you look smart or what when you deny the scientific evidence respected by almost all psychologists concerning the source of dream thoughts?

 If processing self-preservation information is the posited ultimate priority of the supposed creative RH, then our survival rest upon the function of what could be consider the most whimsical, least reliable aspect of our thought processes.  Wouldn�t the issues impacting our wellbeing be best resolved by the supposed secure and logical thought processes of the LH?

Again obscure words: �posited ultimate priority.� Analogic RH cognition is better equipped for dealing with close dangers compared to logical LH cognition. This is a proven fact. The principal goal of the RH is to realize self-protection because of the timing of its development. This is another proven fact. But this does not mean that survival is solely the responsibility of the RH. You again confused causality with identity and exclusivity. Everyone knows that consciousness too seeks self-protection, as I wrote several times. It is when consciousness fails to realize sufficient self-protection that the RH steps in most conspicuously.
 
The LH can fail for various reasons such as: (a) very high creativity may be needed; (b) the LH may prefer to busy itself with securing new successes and gains and may therefore tolerate certain failures and harms; (c) there may be no time for conscious-logical LH processing; and (d) failures and harms hurt LH cognition more that they hurt RH cognition, and they are therefore repressed into the RH; consequently, the LH cannot do its self-protection work in relation to such failures and harms.

BESIDES, the LH checks all RH products logically concerning their remote and indirect consequences when there is time for that and develops those products to generate the final solutions. The LH and the RH appear to cooperate in various stages of this total process. In short, all parts of the brain contribute in their own ways to the realization of success and survival. But the contributions of the unconscious, analogic, creative, and self-protective products of the RH need to be emphasized because the contributions of the LH are consciously known. It is the ignorance of the role of the LH that makes psychology an underdeveloped science incapable of helping close to a billion humans who need psychological help. It is admitted in the DSM that the etiologies of non-organic mental disorders are not known, dreams are not sufficiently understood, etc.

I tried to clarify these facts for the benefit of all, and I will write no more. You have the stage to display your �positions� which expose your wisdom and knowledge.

 

[SWM]

i am very much enjoying this debate it would be a shame if it lapsed into further arguments against the person.