On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but
that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other
things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing
to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene).
These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a
genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend
over backward to mistake it for anything else.
If you say so...
But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in
order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most
dangerous
ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the
subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you
conscious of, but everithing.
You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us
so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the
more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are
fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously.
You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and
Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is
not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural
selection and evolutionary biology.
What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used
to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take.
It's all reverse engineered story telling.
There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but
only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a
call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in
action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and
various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have
a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why.
For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being
"for" protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than
making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone
had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories
of what advantage the stripes gave.
Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body
need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams).
Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we
have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some
action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action
is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat "performs" the
dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of
the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with
hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!).
Bruno
Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's
evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory
there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity
before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the
related area of how the brain takes action to support learning -
particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are
studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities
like that.
There may be a more general correspondence....I'd be surprised to
hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific
kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are
ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place.
There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto
the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure
the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing
damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future.
In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not.
I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an
impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as
this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many
possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be
tested already in various soft and hard ways.
For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities
are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for
a number of days, will began to pass out more and more. They don't
return to normal given a good nights sleep. They actually have to
make up for the whole accumulation of lost REM sleep.
No problem with this, but I don't see the point.
In addition to that, there seems to be a lot of work now to show
mental fatigue can be task specific...if you've been working with a
specific kind of mental challenge, you will fatigued in that
challenge.But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you
will fell much fatigued. Hence "a change is as good a rest". A lot
has been done to rule out psychological drivers. The fatigue then
starts showing up more and more quickly with each next changed
activity, until we begin to feel tired and sleepy.
Denied REM sleep, we start to carry that same fatigue over to the
next day. There's evidence I believe that higher mammals (not
exclusively) eventually die, if REM sleep denial continues.
In addition, dream states themselves - which we all have - are not
remembered, and are not like being awake at all. Things have
different meanings. Things happen in disjointed sequencing, or
physically morph, what was a person can become a can of fish and
that may not be a problem in the dream...things can add up in dreams
that on waking simply fall away from us....probably because our
conscious structures he way to represent the meaning arranged that
way.
All of that together does not point to your idea that this is simply
our conscious selves carrying on through the night. It points to the
presence of physical structures that are interconnected but also
individually associated with specific kind of mental activity and
conscious thought. Physical because seen as pathways, they can only
be used a certain number of times before beginning to break down.
Furthermore, that this physical wearing down, cannot be fixed and
replenished as we go along. Not in areas that are also conscious as
well. The REM appears to involve repair and maintenance works on
these sort of physical structures. Like railway repairmen on the
tracks at night.
No problem, but I don't see why this would contradict my saying. You
lost me.
It could well be, that we experience a dream because that repair
work, although functionally serving a crucial maintenance service,
nevertheless twangs the strings that generate the physical reality
of inner experience.
That is where the evidence - all together - points, at this current
time.
But it does not add a iota of doubt on the LaBerge-Dement experience.
On the contrary all the data fits well in place.
The reason I can see that and you can't, is because you dollop large
assumptions onto things.
Which one? (I was not even assuming comp!).
And the reason you do it, is because you need to support pre-fixed
notions what consciousness is, that did not come from a process
involving any kind of study of the brain, or serious thought about
the brain.
?
On the contrary, I assume that consciousness is able to manifest
itself through a brain in virtue of that brain to work like a machine.
(But not here, where I was just describing Dement and LaBerge on
dreams, to assess the dream-lucidity phenomenon). But computationalism
gives a key role to the brain. Indeed "Conscience and Mécanisme"
contains a full chapter on brain and dreams.
Instead, you ignored the brain completely -
I guess you have not studied my work. The whole "yes doctor" part of
comp is based on a transformation of the brain, keeping its
functionality intact at some level of description.
which happens to involve some of the greatest mysteries of science -
ignored it completely in a process that nevertheless claims to have
solved it....to the extent you still hardly bother with the
evidence in the brain....except apparently that which can help your
argument.
You lost me completely. You look like talking to opponents of comp,
which often dismissed the brain rôle.
And you claim that as a standard in science.
I don't do that, simply. You refer to something you imagine, not to
anything I wrote.
Karl Popper claimed he had solved science in a process that totally
ignored science, instead concentrated only on the
speculations ....usually themselves with histories largely or
sparsely connected with science. But at least Popper labelled it
philosophy. At least he did that.
He was a philosopher, I am not.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
