The River of Dreams

Back to Discussions Page

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/2000 10:16AM

This is going to be longish. It's also a rare serious e-mail from me, so try not to run in fear. It's largely philosophical in nature. All I can say is to remind you that one of the most dangerous forces in the universe is the bored red giant.

It all started with a nice little bit of weird dreaming I was having in the latter part of sleeping last night/this morning, just before waking up. Pooh had recruited a bunch of us into some community college choir production, and the choir director insisted on teaching us a great deal of complicated stuff about the mathematics and history of music before practicing the songs. Myself, Pooh, Bard, Jester, and Teddybratt were all in the class, and by the end of the class I was stuck trying to figure out how to ditch this thing without pissing off my close friends who were suffering through this as well. By this point I had shuffled into that semi-conscious yet still dreaming state. That's when the thought hit me that woke me up and sent my brain into a tizzy all morning. "I can ditch the class because the class, the choir, and my friends don't really exist. They are merely extensions of my will because I'm dreaming."

This would have started a nice period of lucid dreaming, which generally involves...well, more on that later. Sadly it woke me up and sent my brain for the next 40 minutes into this whole "nature of dreaming" tangent, which is what I'm writing down now. Your thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Except the inevitable "Dude, seek professional help." I'll respond to that now. D-U-H-!!!!!

The first is the Freudian psychoanalytic theory. Freud argues that dreams are disguised representations of repressed subconscious desires. In the dream, the symbolic representation of these desires allows for unconscious gratification of these desires, so they do not intrude on the waking life.

The second is the activation-synthesis model, proposed by J. Alan Hobson and Robert W. McCarthy in 1977. They noticed that during sleep an area of the brain known as the pons, which is located just behind the eyes, generates neural impulses that stimulate the eye movement known as REM. The signals from the pons also reach the forebrain, which relates emotions to thoughts. The idea behind the activation-synthesis model is that the pons generate electrical impulses, which trigger the forebrain to generate image and emotion, during sleep. Hence the tie between REM and dreaming.

The third is the housekeeping hypothesis, put forth by Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for the co-discovery of DNA. Their theory is that dreaming is a biological necessity. The electrical impulses fired forth by the pons have the purpose of finding and eliminating any bizarre or senseless neural connections that accidentally developed during the previous days learning and experience. According to the hypothesis, this is why a sleep deprived individual will have bizarre thoughts and perceptions. (I think we've had enough late night Denny's conversations to know that this does happen.) The housekeeping hypothesis fails to explain recurring dreams however.

The fourth accepted psychological theory is the off-line hypothesis. Jonathan Winson believes that dreaming is a mechanism for the creation of long-term memory, and are essential for the formation of our psyche, a "psychological survival kit." This theory is based on the fact that theta waves, a type of brain wave, are found in most animals only when the fight or flight reaction is triggered, when exploring a new area, and when in a REM state.

I'm going to add to this a number of other theories that have less grounding in scientific dogma. I believe that they our possibly valid and true, especially based on the Magic principle (not the card game)...science or technology which is sufficiently advanced past a society's level will be viewed by that society as supernatural or magic. There's the entertainment theory. Imagine having a personal holo-deck, with such complete immersion that you not only don't know that this isn't real, you tend to accept thing that might break the laws of physics or the cause and effect principle. It can be argued that that is exactly what dreams are.

There's the prophet theory. Dreams are messages from God. Since the scientific explanation of an omnipotent God is beyond the mortal ken, I won't speculate further on this theory.

Finally, there's a metaphysical belief that I'll call the Tel'Aren'Rhiod theory, as I am a pimp for the Wheel of Time. During sleep the psychic entity which controls our physical bodies, referred to commonly as the soul or spirit, leaves the world of reality for an astral realm. In this realm the laws of nature are not the same as our own, and our control over this realm is based largely on our awareness level. Too much awareness, however, is a bad thing, as our minds our psychologically conditioned by modern society to not truly accept the existence of this world, and so our recognition of this reality for what it is will instantly transport us back to our bodies. Certainly there are a large number of variations on the Tel'Aren'Rhiod theory, and it starts to cross the realm between science and religious dogma, so it's a touchy subject too.

I may well be missing some other common beliefs, but that's what I've got. That, and some facts I do know about dreaming. Dreaming occurs during REM sleep. When young men enter puberty, some begin to have erotic dreams that can go so far as to cause physical orgasm. (Is this possible for women as well?) Events and new discoveries during the day do often find their way into my dreams. During dreaming, the body enters a paradox state of excitement and rest. Heart rate, breathing, and other autonomic functions increase, as if the body's fight or flight response had been triggered. However, a state called atonia occurs which makes it almost impossible for a REM sleeper to move. (BTW, sleepwalking occurs mostly in non-REM sleep. Go figure.) I think atonia is very important, as it is our natural instinct to react to stimuli with physical action, even if that action is merely speech. The stimuli in the dream world could have disastrous results if we reacted in the physical world, and in some cases could be far more dangerous than ordinary somnambulism.

A word on lucid dreaming. I have had personally experience more than once with remaining unconscious and in the dream state after I had realized fully that I was in a dream state. I know that it is possible to bend or break the laws of reality through lucid dreaming, as well as control the actions of other characters in your dreams. It's very difficult for me to maintain a lucid state without waking up however, and it seems to be most prevalent just before waking up. Perhaps I have had some lucid dreams earlier in the night that I have forgotten.

If we can control our environment in a lucid dream, then are we not controlling the environment in a non-lucid dream as well. If this is the case, then is a dream than nothing more than the twisted reality of an insane god, the dreamer.

Venerable Pooh: 03/18/2000 10:55AM

Let me see if I have your question right, you want to know if (since, you have had lucid dreams) the dreamer is indeed a "god" in the universe of his mind?

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/2000 11:02AM

No, my actual question is what is the nature and purpose of dreaming. I don't think any of the theories I've cited cover the whole answer. However, this is a pretty complex question - I'm mainly just looking for discussion. But if you want to answer the question of the dreamer's god-hood, feel free.

Venerable Pooh : 03/18/2000 11:52AM

(Note: As these conversations are generated on e-mail, occasionally bits of responses are lost due to an amount of editing done by the respondents. It is for this reason that the full content of the reply may not be present. For this reason a portion of the response will also be a note from the respondent responsible.)

Looking at the theories you've listed, I don't see why more than one of them couldn't apply (with the exception of Freud's theory. The man was a kook). [Portion found in Bard's reply]

Stuff deleted to keep this from getting unbearably long...
Poohey writes... [JRG's edit note]

Even the first few months after birth "REM" sleep is a very large part of an infants life, but they haven't had any real "past experiences" to base any sort of entertainment (then again, you can keep a child occupied for hours with a pot and a spoon).[Portion found in JRG's reply]

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/2000 12:51PM

I have to disagree with this. The idea that infants don't have any past experiences to deal with is just not true. From the moment the child gains sentience they begin processing information. It is a proven fact that a fetus in the womb learns to recognize his mothers voice. This sort of recognition can only occur in the child's developing cerebrum. The child will learn to recognize other sounds. Then comes birth. The concept of light, of vision, of color. Of breathing air and drinking nutrients instead of receiving them through the umbilical cord. Gradually associating the face of the parents with the sound of the parents. And a whole new world to explore and discover. By comparison, your day might be more interesting to the average adult than say [Jester and Teddybratt's child], but the truth is that she is having a lot more new experiences than you are, on a daily basis. You really just have to look at an infant's constantly darting eyes to know this. And it is new experiences, not long past experiences, that must be ingrained into the psyche as a defense mechanism, under the off-line hypothesis.

Besides, babies are cute.

Venerable Pooh: 03/18/2000 1:23PM

OK, granted. Still, Within the womb (outside of the obvious vocal recognition) the child has very little variety in whatever experiences it has. Day 1 of recorded memory, very warm and wet, comfortable, heard moms voice-very soothing. Day 2 of recorded memory, very warm and wet, heard moms voice-very soothing, comfortable. Day 3 of recorded memory, had a dream about days 1 and 2. still very warm and wet, very comfortable today, mom unusually quiet today. ETC.... Now, we know that babies are in REM sleep a lot (like 97% of the time), it can't just be making all the dreams for entertainment on it's past experiences, something else must be going on. I would venture a guess that it may be "programming" the mind during all of this downtime, which follows neatly with my idea that dreams are mostly a part of system maintenance on the brain, but, I'm not a doctor, so I could just be smokin' my own weed.

Bard: 03/18/2000 2:01PM

Hello, all. I've finally awoken from my long slumber. Yesterday was a blast. You were all sorely missed. More on that later.

Freud was indeed a kook. So am I. Does it then follow that all of my ideas should be discounted? Hopefully not. I've had a couple of good ones along the way.

Dreams. A topic that has been bounced around the globe since shortly after the concept of language and communication was invented. One could say that the Internet we currently use to send these emails back and forth is the digital dream of our entire race. There's as many theories, it seems, as there are dreamers.

Are we really looking for one, all encompassing explanation? Do we want to know what they really are, or why they really happen? I think there's room for all of the theories Jolly cited. Different ones apply at different times.

I've had dreams so bizarre that they could only have been caused by random neural firing. I've had a few that involved pummeling several different people - an obvious case of unconscious fulfillment of repressed desires. ( By the way: Sorry, Jolly. )

If it's one single explanation we're looking for, try this one on for size: Dreams are the Tarot of the Unconscious. Tarot cards are frequently used in a misguided attempt to foretell the future. What they're actually good for is focusing the users capacity for symbolic logic. In other words, the symbology used on the cards, coupled with their alleged meaning, takes on meaning and significance in the mind of the user. Nothing magical has really happened, except that perhaps a segment of your mind long dormant has been flexed.

I see dreams in a similar light. The symbols and images and emotions (perhaps the result of random synaptic action) that we remember in the morning take on whatever meaning we ascribe to them. Case in point: I had a nightmare on Thursday night. Weird one. Dreamt that Parts of me were phasing in and out of existence. Not painful, not unpleasant, just weird. Then, the whole of me started to drift into some other world. At the last second, I noticed that I was leaving my mouth behind.

Okay, bizarre fragments, right? Sounds kinda weird and random. Thing is, the meaning and emotions I attached to the dream, even as it was happening, were enough to make me break through the atonia Jolly mentioned, and start screaming. This woke Guencat, who was kind enough to wake me, and hold me while I was shaking.

So what did it mean? I have my own ideas. Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/00 2:03PM

The main problem I have with your argument, [Pooh], is a problem I have with most of the scientific ones. I cannot believe that dreaming is a purely biological function. If a cerebral process like dreaming is mere biology and brain chemistry, then thinking must be as well. To make this statement reduces the human condition to being a vaguely self aware sack of meat, controlled strictly by the balance of chemicals in the brain. If the thoughts I am having right now are controlled by the chemicals in my brain rather than the will of my consciousness, then the logical continuation of that thought is that there is no consciousness, there is no spirit, there is no soul. Thus, when our body dies, without a spirit, there is clearly no afterlife or continuation of spirit. Atheism must become the order of the day. And this flies in the face of my fundamental religious belief - the mathematical odds against life and sentience spontaneously occurring are so high that the existence of life and sentience is proof not only of God's existence, but of His hand in our creation.

Concepts like wet, warm, and comfortable are simply accepted as the status quo. However, I think experiences like "Hey, what are these finger-things on the end of my stump-hand doing there. They were just nubs a few days ago..." might be a little more revolutionary than "Mmm...tried the new chicken-fried chicken and Plooey's the other day." And if it's programming of the mind being done, why do we continue to require the same amount of REM sleep for most of our adult life? And finally, just where is this programming coming from? The DNA?

Venerable Pooh: 03/18/2000 2:41PM

Jolly, I would first like to state "I believe in God". Not that it means much in this discussion. Second, Adults do not have the same amount of REM time as infants and preborns. When I said 97% I meant that they were in the REM state 97% of a 24hour day not an 8hour sleeping period, would that I were so lucky to be asleep that much.

Also, I don't recall stating anything about Who would be doing the programming, although there is a sticky point of debate. For some time a lot of people believed "tabula rasa" (blank slate, no information), but then a perfectly logical argument was presented that stated there must be something inborn without which learning could not take place (I suppose it could be called a "learning instinct"). If you compare this with a computer, I believe you could call it the BIOS. The BIOS is pretty much the primary program that allows you to load the operating system program. You cannot run anything without the BIOS. The difference between the BIOS and the operating system is that the BIOS is hardwired into the hardware and the operating system is stored in the long term memory.

So, forgive me for turning the human race into a bunch of biological computers, but the comparison of brain to computer is nothing new, and the more that we learn about AI, the closer we come to "I" or "RI"(intelligence or real intelligence) and how it works. When man can duplicate a dream in a Computer, he is that much closer to figuring out his own dreams.

I'm sorry, this has become WAY too philosophical. How about them Suns?

FaerieCrack: 03/18/2000 2:35PM

There is another theory (as I am sure there are many). It is one that I have heard many times before, however it was put into the most acceptable terminology-- as perplexing as it may seem-- in an episode of X-files. In the immortal words of Fox Mulder as said by Dana Scully, "Dreams are the answers to questions we have not yet learned how to ask."

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/2000 3:09PM

My apologies Pooh, I did not intend to question your faith in God. Actually, I was counting on it to make my point. You have a fundamental religious belief as well, and its obvious to people who know you that you're not an atheist.

I don't disagree with you about the differences of sleeping habits between an infant and a 20 year old. I'm pointing out the lack of difference between a 20 year old and a 60 year old. Both require similar amounts of REM.

I follow the concept of the "BIOS" being hardwired into the DNA. Perhaps you can explain where the soul/spirit fits into your biological computer model?

Oh, and the Suns will make the playoffs, despite having lost Tom Gugliotta for the year. However, you can pretty much hand the NBA championship to the LA Lakers this year. War Shaq Daddy!

Venerable Pooh: 03/18/2000

[from FaerieCrack's reply]

The "soul"/"spirit" connection could be considered your consciousness itself, that which gives you your direction. Since very little is known about or even understood about what consciousness is, I usually leave it out of my reckoning. I don't know what it is, or how it fits into the running of the brain, but I do know that it is there, and plays a part (possibly a large part).

Bard: 03/18/2000 2:10PM

[in response to Pooh's << Concepts like wet, warm, and comfortable are simply accepted as the status quo. >>]

Not if you've only just begun to experience such things for the first time.

Jolly Red Giant: 03/18/2000 2:45PM

Actually, they are. Until you experience the difference. A fish does not appreciate wet until yanked out of the water. A child who has never experienced cold and bright cannot know that temperature and light intensity are variable. Air pressure is only noticed on a sensory level by humans when it changes. This is why birth amazes me...how can the childs' mind deal with so many changes at once?

FaerieCrack: 03/19/2000 2:38PM

Just out of curiosity,[Pooh]... You say that you will leave consciousness out of your reckoning because little is understood, however we are having a huge philosophical discussion about unconsciousness, i.e. dreams. Is this not an oxymoron? (and no I'm not biting your head off, I just think that if you are going to think about one, ya might as well think about the other. After all, they are more interrelated than infancy and adulthood.

Bard: 03/19/2000 2:58PM

Bold words. Back them up, if you can. I find that my conscious and unconscious minds are so frequently unrelated in their operation that they could as easily inhabit 2 different bodies. The progression from infancy to adulthood is much easier to understand, frightening though that may be.

Venerable Pooh:

Pooh made 1 final response in this discussion, but it has become lost due to some problems with his e-mail system. Many comments by Venerable Pooh have been lost due to this same problem, but if these can be recovered, the full text will be placed within this discussion.