 |
Neuropsychology Central
Neuropsychology Discussion Topics for Professionals and the Public
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Maerd wrote: | | This doesn't contradict to my theory. Instead, in my view, it fits my theory perfectly. |
However, some contradictions do seem to persist. For example:
| Maerd wrote: | 1.Declarative memory -- conscious memory;
Procedural memory – non-conscious memory;
Procedural memory – is created through conscious experience when we awake;
Human memory – an associative data network
2. Thus, when processing memory during sleep, a logical sequence should be
Always start from declarative memory processing first;
Procedural memory can only be processed after related declarative memory is processed first;
3. As a result, sleep (for a normal person) always starts from non-REM sleep (processing declarative memory) first, then, followed by REM sleep (processing procedural memory); As a result, non-REM sleep is more concentrated in the first half night of sleep, while REM sleep is more concentrated in the late half night of sleep. |
If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization or increased brain function. Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory than any other memory processing in sleep. If such active mentation occurs in non-REM, as you have theorized, we should fine more brain activity in non-REM than in any other stage of sleep.
In functional studies of non-REM, we do not find evidence of active or increased brain function; we find, in non-REM, evidence that it is the least active stage of sleep—and this is a contradiction to your theory. Furthermore, if dreaming is a conscious function, as you have suggested, there should be more incidents or evidence of dreaming in non-REM than REM—because non-REM is the stage you have associated with the conscious memory processing relatable to conscious function.
| Maerd wrote: | REM without atonia is like someone is shaking you violently while you sleep in the REM sleep stage. The consequence is you can not sleep well (the need for procedural memory processing is not completed…
Different with main skeletal muscle systems, the activation of small skeletal muscle systems, such as rapid movement of eyes in REM sleep, doesn't disturb a sound sleep. So, to sleep well, our brain only needs to block these signals that affect our sleep. |
Does this affirms your idea that atonia was evolved for REM sleep?
| Maerd wrote: | | If a theory remains in my folder, that means I still could not find a way to disprove it yet. My folder was full of theories before; now most of them were gone (disproved). As I said in my previous post, to disprove a theory we only need to find ONE fact that doesn't fit into it. I'm always trying to test the remaining theories in my folder and looking for new possible answers (theories). |
How does your theory answer the idea of a conscious function occurring predominantly during a phase of sleep devoted to a non-conscious mental function? Shouldn’t a conscious function (dreaming) occur predominantly during the conscious memory-processing phase of sleep (non-REM) rather than paradoxical sleep (PS)?
| Maerd wrote: | | To program motor memory, movement of eyes is not necessary. In my view, if the rapid movement of eye affected our sleep, our brain would block motor commands from reaching to the eye muscle too. |
If eye movement is not necessary to motor memory programming, then movement of the eyes shouldn’t happen for that reason. Isn’t this some evidence that motor memory programming may not be why the eyes move in PS?
| Maerd wrote: | | Let's put all theories of function of sleep aside...Now, assume that, for some reason that we don't know yet, brain generates motor commands in REM sleep and sends it to the muscle system (evidenced by gross body movements in REM sleep without atonia), as a result, the sleep process is disturbed. According to the evolution theory - "survival of the fittest", a mechanism has to be evolved to block these motor commands that affect a sound sleep. That's why atonia arrived. |
This is a theory, is it not? This theory assumes that atonia was evolved in the brain after those brain structures that generate motor commands in REM sleep. In my theory, atonia was evolved in brain structure before REM producing structures. The evidence is provided by Jouvet’s experiments that showed animals engaging and disengaging atonia in the absence of the REM producing structures above the MET. If atonia was evolved for REM, shouldn’t MET animals be incapable of engaging atonia without REM producing brain structures?
| Maerd wrote: | | First, your explanation suggests that you believe that the movement commands are generated by dreaming… |
Like the mental imagery of a comic pratfall that generates a smile, dreaming can generate similar efferent neural activity leading to muscle responses; i.e., mental experiences can cause physical reactions.
| Maerd wrote: | | …and the atonia occurred as a result of our brain (tegmentum) blocks the dreaming commands from reaching the muscle systems. |
We know our dream experiences are not real experiences in physical reality when we awake from dreaming because physical sensory experiences invoke specific neural activity. Our tegmentum evolved with the neural systems (tactile, taste, and auditory) specifically associated with real physical experience (MYEL thru MET) and before those brain structures capable of producing mental (dream) experience (MES thru TEL). As a result, our tegmentum is only responsive to the specific neural activity that accompanies true physical experience.
An intact and healthy tegmentum doesn’t block the efferent commands of the dreaming brain; it simply remains dormant and doesn’t respond to any neural activity that does not bear the sensory hallmarks of real physical experience. Simply, dream activity does not generate the neural key that switches-on the active muscle systems of the body.
| Maerd wrote: | | This explanation is similar with the assumption from mainstream that the function of atonia is to prevent dreamers from acting out of their dreams. |
In my model of brain evolution, atonia was evolved to serve MET function. MET function is served by remaining in an atonic state through REM sleep. Atonia is not about preventing a dreamer from acting-out dream content; essentially, atonia during dream sleep is about a part of our CNS that remains oblivious and unresponsive to the neural activity of another part.
| Maerd wrote: | | This is, however, very different to your theory that atonia is for energy conservation. |
If you can envision the primitive state of our CNS before it evolved its REM producing structures, then my theory about atonia does apply. My theory is about the first appearance of atonia in neural structure and how atonia originally served preexistent animals. I said that atonia evolved in our neural structure before REM producing structures because, as Jouvet proved, atonia engages and disengages in the absence of REM producing structures.
| Maerd wrote: | | Second, if the brain knows that the movement commands have no "markers of physical experience", why are eye-movements related commands allowed reaching the eye muscle? |
The tegmentum and the neural systems that execute eye movement are not the same. As you are aware, atonia and eye movement are executed by separate brainstem structures. Atonia, in my brain model, evolved in the structures associated with gross body movement; while eye movement evolved in the brain structures associated with mentation. Dreaming activates the muscle systems of the eyes because those systems evolved concurrent with the desynchronous brain activity associated with conscious mentation and dreaming.
| Maerd wrote: | | I have expressed my disagreement, in our prior discussion, about your theory of brain evolved from MET, MES, DIEN to TEL. Your assumption simply suggested that the MET structure for modern human is identical to the MET structure for the ancient animals without the evolution of succeeding structures (i.e., MES, DIEN and TEL). I don't think you have any evidence to support that. |
It seems you may have forgotten important aspects of our prior discussion. Please, allow me to refresh your memory:
If our CNS (inclusive of brain structure) evolved from a primitive state, my view is that we should find some evidence or remnant of that state in contemporary structure. One way to find such evidence is to compare our neural structure to the structure of existing life forms that approximate the primitive state of human ancestry. The keyword here is approximate; logically, we should only expect the primitive elements of our neural structure to be an approximate of our neural heritage rather than its “identical” reflection.
Although some essential aspects of our brain structure and function appear to retain elements of their primitive heritage, the neural structure of our brain has evolved through the utility of those elements. For example, the neural nature of our primitive ancestry suggests that their CNS evolved to receive some form of visual sensory before evolving eyes and the capacity to command eye movement. What probably began as a cluster of photosensitive cells, joined to nerve ganglia, congealed a neural network of dedicated afferent and efferent eye circuitry that changed brain structure. As our primordial ancestors became increasingly dependent on visual sensory, they evolved structures capable of greater visual acuity (eyes) and a neural command network capable of focusing and directing that acuity (oculomotor nerves). Therefore, we can no more expect the primitive elements of our neural structure to be identical to the animals that approximate human ancestry than we can expect modern humans to be identical to the apelike branch of our ancestry. What we can expect—through a comparative analysis between living species and human ancestry in the fossil record—is an approximation in our brain structure of the neural qualities and attributes our ancestry may have possessed.
| Maerd wrote: | | I see no reason for our animal ancestors to stop this amazing function, especially, when they still maintained eye-movements during sleep. Why didn't they just open their eyelids so they could see the whole world? Especially, with open eyelids, they had nothing to lose but everything to gain! |
If you can, for just a moment, set aside your view of sleep conditions for contemporary animals and imagine an animal that has learned how to burrow to safety from predators or has learned there is safety in numbers. Now, imagine this animal becoming accustomed to resting without physical threat. After the decline of dinosaurs, isn’t it conceivable that the ancestors of mammals became accustomed to resting in their burrows without imminent survival threats? With the demise of our mammal ancestors’ primary predators, what need had they to remain continuously alert while resting in the safety of their burrows?
If the purpose of resting was to conserve energy until an animal’s survival needs demand otherwise, how restful would resting have been with unnecessary visual stimulation? Couldn’t animals have learned that closing their eyes amid resting was more restful than keeping them open? Is it relevant to survival to maintain constant vigil unnecessarily?
| Maerd wrote: | | If sleep is only to conserve energy, I would believe sleep has no present-day advantage as we can simply having more meals instead of wasting one third of life to conserve some useless body energy (particularly when many modern human are heavily overweighed that they have to eat diet food and waste some of their precious waking time to go to gym to burn these extra energy). |
Clearly, separating your idea of present-day sleep and its surrounding circumstances from what sleep may have been to early animals in the beginning isn't easy. It took millions of years for sleep to evolve as a means to conserve energy between feeding cycles likely among Ediacaran and Cambrian animals—animals very different from ourselves. Do you honestly believe that recently developed conveniences, by comparison, can undo millions of years of evolution?
Although we can eat 24 hours a day, we have not evolved to engage such behavior; we have evolved behaviors according to the survival demands placed upon our animal ancestors and, as it appears, their survival demanded that they evolved some physiological means to conserve energy between feeding cycles. The contemporary brain—with its nearly limitless access to sustenance—cannot reverse millions of years of its evolution and remove those parts of its structure specifically created to survive its limited access to sustenance and other circumstances enveloping its early evolution.
| Maerd wrote: | | Also, I believe it has significant present-day advantage to have the ability to monitor our environments while asleep. I'm sure we all can find a lot of beneficial ways to enjoy this special function. |
For sleep to become the restful state we experience today, our animal ancestors had to learn that sleep is more restful without unnecessary visual stimulation. Although humanity, with its modern brain components, can think of several advantages to visual monitoring amid sleep at present, those advantages were likely not the consideration of our animal ancestors.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Maerd
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrmDoc wrote: | If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization or increased brain function. Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory than any other memory processing in sleep. If such active mentation occurs in non-REM, as you have theorized, we should fine more brain activity in non-REM than in any other stage of sleep.
In functional studies of non-REM, we do not find evidence of active or increased brain function; we find, in non-REM, evidence that it is the least active stage of sleep—and this is a contradiction to your theory. Furthermore, if dreaming is a conscious function, as you have suggested, there should be more incidents or evidence of dreaming in non-REM than REM—because non-REM is the stage you have associated with the conscious memory processing relatable to conscious function. |
Again, this fits my theory well.
Imaging human brain has two processor-systems: one for conscious (declarative) memory and the other for non-conscious (motor/procedural) memory. Let's name them the C-processor and NC-processor respectively. During non-REM sleep, the C-processor processes declarative memory, but the NC-processor is only in an idling state. During REM sleep, the NC-processor processes procedural memory while dreaming occurs in C-processor. I'll list the activities that occurred in all three states as below:
1). Waking state – C-processor is activated; NC-processor is also activated;
2). Non-REM sleep – C-processor processes declarative memory; NC-processor is almost not activated;
3). REM sleep – C-processor is activated (dreaming); NC-processor processes procedural memory.
Thus, the activation levels for all three states should generally follow this sequence:
Waking >/= REM sleep > non-REM sleep.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Does this affirms your idea that atonia was evolved for REM sleep? |
Yes, muscle atonia in REM sleep was evolved for REM sleep. However, the ability to disassociate our main skeletal muscle systems from the motor command center was not only evolved for REM sleep, as we also need it for our waking time too. For example, we have the ability to dance in a day-dreaming state with no real body movement.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | If eye movement is not necessary to motor memory programming, then movement of the eyes shouldn’t happen for that reason. Isn’t this some evidence that motor memory programming may not be why the eyes move in PS? |
Wrong logic. "Not necessary" doesn't lead to "shouldn't happen".
| DrmDoc wrote: | | This is a theory, is it not? This theory assumes that atonia was evolved in the brain after those brain structures that generate motor commands in REM sleep. |
This is not a theory of FUNCTION OF SLEEP. It is a theory of atonia.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | In my theory, atonia was evolved in brain structure before REM producing structures. The evidence is provided by Jouvet’s experiments that showed animals engaging and disengaging atonia in the absence of the REM producing structures above the MET. If atonia was evolved for REM, shouldn’t MET animals be incapable of engaging atonia without REM producing brain structures? |
Wrong interpretation of Jouvet's experiments. Please don't mix REM with REM (paradoxical) Sleep. REM is about eye movement in sleep, while REM sleep is a sleep stage. One can stop REM by destroying eye muscles while REM sleep remains.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | If our CNS (inclusive of brain structure) evolved from a primitive state, my view is that we should find some evidence or remnant of that state in contemporary structure. One way to find such evidence is to compare our neural structure to the structure of existing life forms that approximate the primitive state of human ancestry. The keyword here is approximate; logically, we should only expect the primitive elements of our neural structure to be an approximate of our neural heritage rather than its “identical” reflection. |
In my view, the problem for your theory is exactly because of this word: "approximate". No one has any clue about exactly how much the structure of existing life forms approximates with the primitive state of human ancestry, since no modern human has ever had a chance of seeing an ancestry human brain (with brain structure attached). All we can say is PROBABLY is/isn't based on some fossil record without brain structure.
| DrmDoc wrote: | Clearly, separating your idea of present-day sleep and its surrounding circumstances from what sleep may have been to early animals in the beginning isn't easy. It took millions of years for sleep to evolve as a means to conserve energy between feeding cycles likely among Ediacaran and Cambrian animals—animals very different from ourselves. Do you honestly believe that recently developed conveniences, by comparison, can undo millions of years of evolution?
Although we can eat 24 hours a day, we have not evolved to engage such behavior; we have evolved behaviors according to the survival demands placed upon our animal ancestors and, as it appears, their survival demanded that they evolved some physiological means to conserve energy between feeding cycles. The contemporary brain—with its nearly limitless access to sustenance—cannot reverse millions of years of its evolution and remove those parts of its structure specifically created to survive its limited access to sustenance and other circumstances enveloping its early evolution. |
Evolution is not a one-way-train that only adds new additions to our brain structures. It also eliminates the structures that become disadvantage to our well-being. In my view, it takes much less time to undo a function than to evolve it.
Anyway, I'll express some of my thoughts about your theory as below:
1). the functions of REM, atonia, sleep etc. are different at present, comparing with their original purposes when they were first evolved, as you claimed: "whatever sleep may be for us at present, how it began and what form it took in the beginning was most assuredly not our idea of what sleep is today".
2). Thus, no one can prove/disprove your theory by studying our animal ancestors as no one can find an animal ancestors with the brain structure attached in the modern time.
3). And, no one can test your theory by studying modern beings because (a) no modern beings have identical brain structures as their animal ancestors; (b) what the function was evolved for may not be the function that we observe today.
Conclusion: your theory can be neither proved nor disproved forever. So, believe it or not, it is up to the readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maerd wrote: | Imaging human brain has two processor-systems: one for conscious (declarative) memory and the other for non-conscious (motor/procedural) memory. Let's name them the C-processor and NC-processor respectively. During non-REM sleep, the C-processor processes declarative memory, but the NC-processor is only in an idling state. During REM sleep, the NC-processor processes procedural memory while dreaming occurs in C-processor. I'll list the activities that occurred in all three states as below:
1). Waking state – C-processor is activated; NC-processor is also activated;
2). Non-REM sleep – C-processor processes declarative memory; NC-processor is almost not activated;
3). REM sleep – C-processor is activated (dreaming); NC-processor processes procedural memory.
Thus, the activation levels for all three states should generally follow this sequence:
Waking >/= REM sleep > non-REM sleep. |
What is your response to this portion of my previous reply:
| I wrote: | | …if dreaming is a conscious function, as you have suggested, there should be more incidents or evidence of dreaming in non-REM than REM—because non-REM is the stage you have associated with the conscious memory processing relatable to conscious function. |
There should be equal or greater reports of dreaming in non-REM than in REM in dream studies, if your theory of C-processing in non-REM is valid. Further still, how does your theory address dreaming in non-REM without the desynchronous brain activity associated with paradoxical sleep? Do you believe the desynchronous activity of paradoxical sleep is not related to dreaming as well?
| Maerd wrote: | | Yes, muscle atonia in REM sleep was evolved for REM sleep. However, the ability to disassociate our main skeletal muscle systems from the motor command center was not only evolved for REM sleep, as we also need it for our waking time too. For example, we have the ability to dance in a day-dreaming state with no real body movement. |
Your example does not seem to support your idea of atonia being evolved for waking time because the muscles of the body remain in a tonic state even while daydreaming. With normal brain function, atonia does not occur during any other states of brain function other than paradoxical sleep. The distinction between your example and atonia in paradoxical sleep is that non-movement while daydreaming is a conscious choice governing tonic muscle responses while atonia is an unconscious brain function that releases muscle tone.
| Maerd wrote: | | DrmDoc wrote: |
If eye movement is not necessary to motor memory programming, then movement of the eyes shouldn’t happen for that reason. Isn’t this some evidence that motor memory programming may not be why the eyes move in PS? |
Wrong logic. "Not necessary" doesn't lead to "shouldn't happen". |
Is it logical that a system evolved for the efficient use of energy would expend such energy needlessly? Isn’t eye movement during paradoxical sleep needless according to your perspective?
| Maerd wrote: | | This is not a theory of FUNCTION OF SLEEP. It is a theory of atonia. |
Isn’t your theory of atonia crucial to your theories regarding the function of sleep? How does one discuss atonia without its sleep implications?
| Maerd wrote: | | Wrong interpretation of Jouvet's experiments. Please don't mix REM with REM (paradoxical) Sleep. REM is about eye movement in sleep, while REM sleep is a sleep stage. One can stop REM by destroying eye muscles while REM sleep remains. |
If you will review my comments, you will see that I made no statement regarding the destruction of eye muscles to stop REM. My comments were about atonia being produced by brain function without the structures associated with REM. I suggest that you review Jouvet’s findings again. In experiments transecting mesencephalic and superior structures—the separation of REM producing structures—from the metencephalon, Jouvet produced animals capable of engaging and disengaging atonia. Again, if atonia was evolved for REM, as you believe, such animals as Jouvet’s experiments produced would have been incapable of engaging atonia without a connection to their REM producing structures.
If I may further add, REM is indeed eye movement in sleep but it is not a stage of sleep. As you know, the stage of sleep in which REM occurs is paradoxical sleep (D-sleep).
| Maerd wrote: | | In my view, the problem for your theory is exactly because of this word: "approximate". No one has any clue about exactly how much the structure of existing life forms approximates with the primitive state of human ancestry, since no modern human has ever had a chance of seeing an ancestry human brain (with brain structure attached). All we can say is PROBABLY is/isn't based on some fossil record without brain structure. |
Pardon, I thought your concern involved the word “identical.” Nevertheless, when exploring the prehistory of human brain structure we will always have the problem of “PROBABLY is/isn’t” because that is the nature of prehistory. Since no one alive today was there to witness it, we have to rely on the clues prehistory provides. To deny some evidence because we were not there to witness its origin does not invalidate the evidence.
| Maerd wrote: | | Evolution is not a one-way-train that only adds new additions to our brain structures. It also eliminates the structures that become disadvantage to our well-being. In my view, it takes much less time to undo a function than to evolve it. |
However, you were not referencing some disadvantage to our well-being. Closing the eyelids during sleep evolved as an advantage to the restful nature of sleep.
| Maerd wrote: | Anyway, I'll express some of my thoughts about your theory as below:
1). the functions of REM, atonia, sleep etc. are different at present, comparing with their original purposes when they were first evolved, as you claimed: "whatever sleep may be for us at present, how it began and what form it took in the beginning was most assuredly not our idea of what sleep is today".
2). Thus, no one can prove/disprove your theory by studying our animal ancestors as no one can find an animal ancestors with the brain structure attached in the modern time.
3). And, no one can test your theory by studying modern beings because (a) no modern beings have identical brain structures as their animal ancestors; (b) what the function was evolved for may not be the function that we observe today.
Conclusion: your theory can be neither proved nor disproved forever. So, believe it or not, it is up to the readers. |
This is obviously your assessment because you disagree with the evidence I have provided. I think I have presented a reliable and cogent view of the sleep and dreaming process and how they likely evolved. Also, I believe I have provided more than sufficient support for my views through the fossil record and comparative studies we have discussed. Clearly, you have very strong personal views with which you do not care to part. My intent by this discussion was to offer a perspective that will enhance rather than discourage the views other hold. It is my hope that this is what the reader will conclude from our discussion.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc
Last edited by DrmDoc on Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maerd
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrmDoc wrote: | | There should be equal or greater reports of dreaming in non-REM than in REM in dream studies, if your theory of C-processing in non-REM is valid. |
Definitions of dreaming have ranged from the broadest "any mental activity occurring in sleep" to the narrower one which Dr. Hobson group preferred: "mental activity occurring in sleep characterized by vivid sensorimotor imagery that is experienced as waking reality despite such distinctive cognitive features as impossibility or improbability of time, place, person and actions; emotions, especially fear, elation and anger predominate over sadness, shame and guilt and sometimes reach sufficient strength to cause awakening; memory for even very vivid dreams is evanescent and tends to fade quickly upon awakening unless special steps are taken to retain it". I don't know which one you prefer. However, since you used the broadest definition in your question (by assuming dreaming can occur as a result of declarative memory processing), I'll follow the broadest definition to assume that dreaming is "any mental activity occurring in sleep" for this reply.
Theoretically, there should have roughly equal chance of occurrence of mentation in both non-REM sleep and REM sleep. But, when dealing with dream-recalls, there should be less reports of dreaming (defined as mentation) in non-REM sleep than in REM sleep after the following consideration:
1). Not all conscious related mentations are ready to be recalled as dreams. For example, we are more ready to recall mentations with a visual and auditory form, and less ready to recall mentation with non-visual/auditory forms (such as tactile, olfactory, gustatory, thought-like etc.) (while dreams in REM sleep are mainly in a visual and auditory form).
2). During non-REM sleep, the C-processor is assigned for declarative memory processing. The conscious brain system is not available to synthesize conscious info's at will. It is kind of like been forced to "watch" it in a sideline. As a result, the recalls are, in most cases, not a story-like vivid-dream, rather more thought-like (while we know that the dream-recalls from REM sleep awakening are more likely vivid dreams). This makes it harder to recall mentaions from non-REM sleep than from REM sleep.
This explains the findings of an average REM recall rate of 81.8% compared to an average rate for non-REM of 42.5% (according to a review result by Hobson's group).
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Further still, how does your theory address dreaming in non-REM without the desynchronous brain activity associated with paradoxical sleep? Do you believe the desynchronous activity of paradoxical sleep is not related to dreaming as well? |
Since mentation occurs through all three states from waking, non-REM sleep and REM sleep, the activation of brain conscious systems should not play any significant role to the change of brain EEG results. My understanding is that the desynchronous brain activity associated with paradoxical sleep mainly reflects the activation levels of brain acetylcholine neurons. I believe that cholinergic neurons play a major role in brain motor activities.
Waking – acetylcholine (high) – desynchronous EEG
Non-REM sleep – acetylcholine (low) – synchronous EEG
REM sleep – acetylcholine (high) – desynchronous EEG
| DrmDoc wrote: | | However, you were not referencing some disadvantage to our well-being. |
Laying on bed and doing nothing for about 25 years of human life (assume a 75 years of average life span), and if sleep is mainly a inherited habit and does not serve an absolutely vital function for human, then it is the biggest disadvantage/mistake the evolutionary process has ever made!
| DrmDoc wrote: | | My intent by this discussion was to offer a perspective that will enhance rather than discourage the views other hold. |
First, I'm very sorry if any of my replies discouraged your views. My intention, however, is to encourage you to think more and think deeper so you can create a true theory.
In my own case, I always invite people to comment, challenge, and even critique my views. I believe that different opinions can help me to think more and test my theory in a way that I have never thought of. If there is a hole in my theory, I would prefer someone to point it out for me as early as possible, so I can modify/fix it sooner, instead of holding a defect theory and thought that the mission is completed.
So, if anyone wants to challenge my theory, you are very welcome to do so. Any I'll appreciate anyone who can disprove my theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maerd wrote: | | Definitions of dreaming have ranged from the broadest "any mental activity occurring in sleep" to the narrower one…I don't know which one you prefer. However, since you used the broadest definition in your question (by assuming dreaming can occur as a result of declarative memory processing), I'll follow the broadest definition to assume that dreaming is "any mental activity occurring in sleep" for this reply. |
If you will recall:
| I wrote: | | If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization or increased brain function. Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory… than any other memory processing in sleep. |
In your prior description, you made no distinction of declarative memory as relating to “any mental activity occurring in sleep.” However…:
| Maerd wrote: | Theoretically, there should have roughly equal chance of occurrence of mentation in both non-REM sleep and REM sleep. But, when dealing with dream-recalls, there should be less reports of dreaming (defined as mentation) in non-REM sleep than in REM sleep after the following consideration:
1). Not all conscious related mentations are ready to be recalled as dreams. For example, we are more ready to recall mentations with a visual and auditory form, and less ready to recall mentation with non-visual/auditory forms (such as tactile, olfactory, gustatory, thought-like etc.) |
Your comments here suggest that there is a distinction between the recall of visual and non-visual dream experiences. As you may know, dream-recall is not just memory of visual experience; it is also memory of tactile, olfactory, gustatory, and thoughtful experience. Therefore, there should be no distinction between the recall of visual and non-visual/auditory dream experiences; i.e., whether dreams involve visual or non-visual experiences, there should still be an equal or greater number of reports of dreaming during NREM even when dreaming involves perceptions other than visual. If I might add, the exclusion of visual and auditory experiences from C-processing in NREM seems somewhat contrived with no reasonable explanation for their exclusion from NREM but not from REM.
From another perspective, I believe you know as well as I that non-visual/auditory forms of perception (tactile, olfactory, and gustatory) do cause internal visualization and particularly increased mentation, which is evidenced by increased levels of desynchronous EEG activity in the brain. Although your comments above attempt to explain the lack of visualization in NREM, they do not explain why the NREM brain does not generate the desynchronous activity suggestive of the active mentation one might associate with declarative memory or “C-processing” as you have described.
| Maerd wrote: | | 2). During non-REM sleep, the C-processor is assigned for declarative memory processing. The conscious brain system is not available to synthesize conscious info's at will. It is kind of like been forced to "watch" it in a sideline. As a result, the recalls are, in most cases, not a story-like vivid-dream, rather more thought-like (while we know that the dream-recalls from REM sleep awakening are more likely vivid dreams). This makes it harder to recall mentaions from non-REM sleep than from REM sleep. |
If I now understand correctly, NREM involves the “thought-like” processing of non-visual/auditory experience. Again, this seems another convenient explanation without a reason why the conscious brain is “forced to ‘watch’” from the sideline during NREM but not forced to do so during REM.
| Maerd wrote: | | This explains the findings of an average REM recall rate of 81.8% compared to an average rate for non-REM of 42.5% (according to a review result by Hobson's group). |
If your theory of NREM “thought-like” C-processing experiences is valid, Hobson’s group would also have report no visualization experience during his study of NREM dreaming; they would have report dreams involving only “tactile, olfactory, and gustatory” type dream experiences: Did they?
Also, on what functional evidence of dreaming did Hobson’s group rely?
| Maerd wrote: | | Since mentation occurs through all three states from waking, non-REM sleep and REM sleep, the activation of brain conscious systems… |
Does this suggest your belief that desynchronous brain activity is evidence of “the activation of brain conscious systems”?
| Maerd wrote: | | …should not play any significant role to the change of brain EEG results. My understanding is that the desynchronous brain activity associated with paradoxical sleep mainly reflects the activation levels of brain acetylcholine neurons. I believe that cholinergic neurons play a major role in brain motor activities. |
It’s misleading to imply that desynchronous brain activity is nothing more than increased neurochemical production without explaining its association with dreaming and that diminished levels of such production is not accepted evidence of any form of dreaming, visual or non-visual. Nevertheless, active mentation in NREM would be suggested by either sustained or increasing acetylcholine production rather than low.
| Maerd wrote: | | Laying on bed and doing nothing for about 25 years of human life (assume a 75 years of average life span), and if sleep is mainly a inherited habit and does not serve an absolutely vital function for human, then it is the biggest disadvantage/mistake the evolutionary process has ever made! |
Repeatedly, I have tried to explain how sleep is more than an inherited habit; it is an evolved function of our central nervous system’s primitive structures. Habits can be changed; evolved functions cannot. Although the attributes that served our animal ancestors millions of years ago may have little use today (e.g., tonsils and appendix), this does not suggest that they were or are a mistake of evolution.
| Maerd wrote: | | First, I'm very sorry if any of my replies discouraged your views. |
You misunderstand; nothing you have said has discouraged my views. The tone of your previous reply gave me the impression that you believed I was trying to discourage your views. My comments were to let you know that this was not my intent.
| Maerd wrote: | | My intention, however, is to encourage you to think more and think deeper so you can create a true theory. |
And, as I have previously written, it is my intent to encourage you to think more critically about the content of your references and conclusions.
| Maerd wrote: | | In my own case, I always invite people to comment, challenge, and even critique my views. I believe that different opinions can help me to think more and test my theory in a way that I have never thought of. If there is a hole in my theory, I would prefer someone to point it out for me as early as possible, so I can modify/fix it sooner, instead of holding a defect theory and thought that the mission is completed. |
Although I commend your efforts, you seem unwilling to modify your views even when they cannot be proven, I quote:
| Maerd wrote: | | So, please don't ask me to prove my theory, cause I most likely can not. Finding a piece of evidence that supports my theory doesn't prove my theory, rather, it only moves my theory one more step towards the "right". |
As for whether my views are valid, I encourage you to cite those portions you continue to find invalid and why you find them invalid so that we might “think deeper.”
P.S: You'll be delighted to know that I will be discussing evolution and the dreaming brain during next week's Dream Time radio show with Robert Hoss on Voice America. Here is a link where you will find a full notice of the program:
http://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/bb2005/viewtopic.php?t=2139
I look forward to taking your call.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maerd
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrmDoc wrote: | | If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization or increased brain function. Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory… than any other memory processing in sleep. |
Again, I have a difficult time to follow your reasoning. I'll split your question to several parts and respond to them separately.
You wrote: "If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization…"
Yes, non-REM reports do involve evidence of visual imagery. I know your theory reject the possibility of non-REM dreams. Your theory is, however, contrary to findings from sleep/dream studies.
"When Kleitman, Aserinsky, and Dement studied the two phases of sleep, REM and non-REM, they also studied the relation of these phases to dreaming. They awakened subjects during REM and non-REM sleep and asked them to describe any dreams they were having. Dreams were far more likely to be recalled when subjects were awakened from REM sleep (74% or more of awakenings) than from non-REM sleep (less than 10% of awakenings). This led many to believe that dreaming occurs exclusively during REM sleep (the non-REM reports were dismissed as recall from earlier REM sleep) and that the physiological basis of dreaming would soon be discovered. This expectation has not been realized. Although REM sleep is the phase from which dreams may be most reliably elicited, REM sleep is not necessary for dreaming. In almost all later studies, the frequency of non-REM dream recall is higher than in the earliest studies; in some studies as high as 70%. Many dream reports are elicited on awakenings from non-REM phases that occur before the first REM phase of the night, indicating that these dream reports do not represent recall from REM periods earlier in the night. In fact, dream reports have also been elicited from subjects at the onset of sleep and from subjects lying quietly awake in a darkened room. Although reports of non-REM dreams tend to be shorter, less vivid, less emotional, and more coherent than reports of REM dreams, there are no qualitative differences between REM and non-REM reports of the same length. Thus, a major difference between REM and non-REM dreams is that the former tend to be longer."
Quoted from A. Rechtschaffen and J. Siegel, Sleep and Dreaming. In: Principles of Neuroscience. Fourth Edition, 936-947, 2000
You also wrote: "If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve … increased brain function."
"Increased", compare to which brain function? I have no clue about this question.
You also wrote: "Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory… than any other memory processing in sleep."
Without any evaluation of "brain activity associated with declarative memory" in "any other memory processing in sleep", your reasoning of "we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory … than any other memory processing in sleep" is not valid.
If you intended to ask for evidence of declarative memory processing in non-REM sleep, then any report of mentation from non-REM sleep can be used as evidence. However, these reports neither prove nor disprove declarative memory processing occurred in non-REM sleep.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | there should be no distinction between the recall of visual and non-visual/auditory dream experiences; i.e., whether dreams involve visual or non-visual experiences, there should still be an equal or greater number of reports of dreaming during NREM even when dreaming involves perceptions other than visual. |
Comparing two scenarios of perceptions during sleep, assuming one group of sleepers perceived nothing except a smell of roses-like, the second group perceived nothing except a visual image of a rose garden, now wake up both groups and ask if they dreamed (or if anything went though their mind). My prediction is that the second group will more likely claim that "yes, I dreamed (flowers, roses, garden, etc.)" than the first group.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | If I might add, the exclusion of visual and auditory experiences from C-processing in NREM seems somewhat contrived with no reasonable explanation for their exclusion from NREM but not from REM. |
You misread my response. I didn't exclude "visual and auditory experiences from C-processing in NREM" sleep. Both visual and auditory experiences are conscious experiences and will be processed during NREM sleep in my theory.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | From another perspective, I believe you know as well as I that non-visual/auditory forms of perception (tactile, olfactory, and gustatory) do cause internal visualization and particularly increased mentation, which is evidenced by increased levels of desynchronous EEG activity in the brain. |
Can you show me the evidence that "non-visual/auditory forms of perception …" do cause "… increased levels of desynchronous EEG activity in the brain"?
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Although your comments above attempt to explain the lack of visualization in NREM, it does not explain why the NREM brain does not generate the desynchronous activity suggestive of the active mentation one might associate with declarative memory or “C-processing” as you have described. |
Based on what evidence (or logical reasoning), do you assume declarative memory processing has to be associated with the desynchronous activity?
| DrmDoc wrote: | | If I now understand correctly, NREM involves the “thought-like” processing of non-visual/auditory experience. Again, this seems another convenient explanation without a reason why the conscious brain is “forced to ‘watch’” from the sideline during NREM but not forced to do so during REM. |
Both NREM reports and REM reports involve mentation of "thought-like". According to studies from Foulkes and Rechtschaffen, the difference is that NREM reports contain thought-like mentation and representations of current concerns more often than REM sleep reports.
The belief that the conscious mind is "forced" to watch from the sideline during NREM sleep is a direct inference of the assumption that the function of NREM sleep is for declarative memory processing. Since declarative memory processing in NREM sleep is a hardwired brain function in my theory, the occurrence of memory processing is out of control of conscious mind during NREM sleep.
As to REM sleep, I only assumed that the function of REM sleep is for procedural memory processing. So, the conscious brain system (in my theory) is free to "roam" during REM sleep.
| DrmDoc wrote: | If your theory of NREM “thought-like” C-processing experiences is valid, Hobson’s group would also have report no visualization experience during his study of NREM dreaming; they would have report dreams involving only “tactile, olfactory, and gustatory” type dream experiences: Did they?
Also, on what functional evidence of dreaming did Hobson’s group rely? |
I have never claimed that all NREM reports are "thought-like". Memory created from visual experience belongs to declarative memory. Your inference was incorrect.
According to Hobson, "In regard to qualitative features, Antrobus (1983) reported that when judges rated 154 REM and NREM reports for their relative "dreaminess" (using scales based on "visual imagery, bizarreness, hallucinatory quality and storylike quality"), they correctly identified 93% of the reports as either REM or NREM, indicating that REM dream reports were much more dreamlike than NREM reports. Similarly, Foulkes & Schmidt (1983, p. 276) concluded that "REM reports are likely to be significantly more dreamlike qualitatively (e.g., in character density, setting clarity) than typical NREM" reports, even when elicited after only five minutes of stage REM."
As to your last question, I suggest you to re-read (as I recommended this article to you before)
Dreaming and the Brain: Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Conscious States, by J.A. Hobson etc. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(6), 2000.
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.hobson.html
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Does this suggest your belief that desynchronous brain activity is evidence of “the activation of brain conscious systems”? |
No.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | It’s misleading to imply that desynchronous brain activity is nothing more than increased neurochemical production without explaining its association with dreaming and that diminished levels of such production is not accepted evidence of any form of dreaming, visual or non-visual. Nevertheless, active mentation in NREM would be suggested by either sustained or increasing acetylcholine production rather than low. |
Where does this "misleading" come from? I did not say it in a tone like: more than sufficient evidences prove … Instead, I clearly stated that as "My understanding is …" What's wrong with personal belief? If you think my understanding is incorrect, then please correct me with evidence (or logical reasoning). You really confused me!
As to your statement "Nevertheless, active mentation in NREM would be suggested by either sustained or increasing acetylcholine production rather than low", can you tell me why acetylcholine production has to be "either sustained or increasing" for active mentation to occur? Any evidence to support your statement? Anyway, I suggest you to read this article before post your reply:
"Low acetylcholine during slow-wave sleep is critical for declarative memory consolidation"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/7/2140
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Repeatedly, I have tried to explain how sleep is more than an inherited habit; it is an evolved function of our central nervous system’s primitive structures. Habits can be changed; evolved functions cannot. Although the attributes that served our animal ancestors millions of years ago may have little use today (e.g., tonsils and appendix), this does not suggest that they were or are a mistake of evolution. |
Wrong, evolved function can also be changed by evolutionary process.
If sleep was only a function that "served our animal ancestors millions of years ago" and "may have little use today", it is surely the BIGGEST MISTAKE the evolutionary process has ever made!
| DrmDoc wrote: | | You misunderstand; nothing you have said has discouraged my views. The tone of your previous reply gave me the impression that you believed I was trying to discourage your views. My comments were to let you know that this was not my intent. |
I'm glad everything is OK for you.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | And, as I have previously written, it is my intent to encourage you to think more critically about the content of your references and conclusions. |
Thank you for your intent.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | Although I commend your efforts, you seem unwilling to modify your views even when they cannot be proven |
Which view of my needs to be modified? The view of "please don't ask me to prove my theory, cause I most likely can not"? What's wrong with that? I was just honestly to tell you that my theory is only a THEORY, not a fact. I did not pretend my theory having been proved. Instead, I made it clear that my theory can be disproved if it failed in a test.
| DrmDoc wrote: | | As for whether my views are valid, I encourage you to cite those portions you continue to find invalid and why you find them invalid so that we might “think deeper.” |
Since your theory is not testable by the modern evidences, I have no more questions about your theory.
| DrmDoc wrote: | P.S: You'll be delighted to know that I will be discussing evolution and the dreaming brain during next week's Dream Time radio show with Robert Hoss on Voice America. Here is a link where you will find a full notice of the program:
http://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/bb2005/viewtopic.php?t=2139
I look forward to taking your call. |
Unfortunately, I will not be available for the radio show as I'll be away from my computer for next two weeks. However, I'll check that link later to see if a replay is available.
Anyway, I wish you good luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maerd wrote: | Again, I have a difficult time to follow your reasoning. I'll split your question to several parts and respond to them separately.
You wrote: "If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve some evidence of active internal visualization…"
Yes, non-REM reports do involve evidence of visual imagery. I know your theory reject the possibility of non-REM dreams. Your theory is, however, contrary to findings from sleep/dream studies.
"When Kleitman, Aserinsky, and Dement studied the two phases of sleep, REM and non-REM, they also studied the relation of these phases to dreaming. They awakened subjects during REM and non-REM sleep and asked them to describe any dreams they were having. Dreams were far more likely to be recalled when subjects were awakened from REM sleep (74% or more of awakenings) than from non-REM sleep (less than 10% of awakenings). This led many to believe that dreaming occurs exclusively during REM sleep (the non-REM reports were dismissed as recall from earlier REM sleep) and that the physiological basis of dreaming would soon be discovered. This expectation has not been realized. Although REM sleep is the phase from which dreams may be most reliably elicited, REM sleep is not necessary for dreaming. In almost all later studies, the frequency of non-REM dream recall is higher than in the earliest studies; in some studies as high as 70%. Many dream reports are elicited on awakenings from non-REM phases that occur before the first REM phase of the night, indicating that these dream reports do not represent recall from REM periods earlier in the night. In fact, dream reports have also been elicited from subjects at the onset of sleep and from subjects lying quietly awake in a darkened room. Although reports of non-REM dreams tend to be shorter, less vivid, less emotional, and more coherent than reports of REM dreams, there are no qualitative differences between REM and non-REM reports of the same length. Thus, a major difference between REM and non-REM dreams is that the former tend to be longer."
Quoted from A. Rechtschaffen and J. Siegel, Sleep and Dreaming. In: Principles of Neuroscience. Fourth Edition, 936-947, 2000 |
Here’s where the critical part of reviewing your references applies:
Question: Did these studies include an assessment of the arousal process associated with obtaining NREM dream reports? For example, did they include an assessment of the length of time between the end of NREM and the point of arousal where a report of dreaming could be rendered?
Question: Were there any functional studies of the arousal process? If so, what were their results? Did these studies evaluate whether the brain in NREM cycles through REM equivalent functional levels during the arousal process?
Question: Did these studies include an assessment of the affect of the arousal process on NREM dream reports? For example, did they assess how arousing the sleeper during NREM contributes to the content of their dreams?
With our emotions aside for the moment, did any of the research Rechtschaffen and Siegel reviewed evaluate whether NREM dream reports were a result of the arousal process?
| Maerd wrote: | You also wrote: "If declarative memory is conscious memory, then its processing in sleep should involve … increased brain function."
"Increased", compare to which brain function? I have no clue about this question. |
Of course you do; isn’t conscious memory associated with conscious brain function? What level or type of brain activity is generally associated with conscious brain function?
| Maerd wrote: | You also wrote: "Because of the totality of our conscious mental, emotional, and physical experiences, we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory… than any other memory processing in sleep."
Without any evaluation of "brain activity associated with declarative memory" in "any other memory processing in sleep", your reasoning of "we should logically find more brain activity associated with declarative memory … than any other memory processing in sleep" is not valid. |
If a=b and b=c, then a=c: this is a basic algebraic equation and the basis I use for much of my logical thinking. Although dream study isn’t algebra, the logic still applies. If declarative memory equals conscious memory and conscious memory involves the totality of conscious experience, then declarative memory should involve the totality of conscious experience. By further extension, if declarative memory involve the totality of conscious experience and conscious experience involves a highly active brain, then declarative memory should also involve a highly active brain. If the later does not occur, then our assumption about declarative memory may be invalid.
| Maerd wrote: | | If you intended to ask for evidence of declarative memory processing in non-REM sleep, then any report of mentation from non-REM sleep can be used as evidence. However, these reports neither prove nor disprove declarative memory processing occurred in non-REM sleep. |
Then these reports are not and cannot be used as evidence. Essentially, your comment suggests that you have no evidence to support your views.
| Maerd wrote: | | Comparing two scenarios of perceptions during sleep, assuming one group of sleepers perceived nothing except a smell of roses-like, the second group perceived nothing except a visual image of a rose garden, now wake up both groups and ask if they dreamed (or if anything went though their mind). [b]My prediction is that the second group will more likely claim that "yes, I dreamed (flowers, roses, garden, etc.)" than the first group. |
Not if you quantify your question to the first group with a truthful description of dreaming as also involving non-visual perceptions; i.e., not if you tell the first group that sensory experiences during sleep are also dream perceptions. The perception of dreaming as only involving visual experiences is not the perception we should have as investigators of this all-inclusive perceptual experience.
| Maerd wrote: | | You misread my response. I didn't exclude "visual and auditory experiences from C-processing in NREM" sleep. Both visual and auditory experiences are conscious experiences and will be processed during NREM sleep in my theory. |
However, you implied that low reports of NREM dreams could be related to a lack of visual and auditory dream experiences during NREM.
| Maerd wrote: | | Can you show me the evidence that "non-visual/auditory forms of perception …" do cause "… increased levels of desynchronous EEG activity in the brain"? |
What evidence do you need other than your own reasoning. Conscious brain function involves levels of desynchronous activity and non-visual/auditory experiences stimulate our thoughts, emotions, memories, and imagination. Therefore, is the idea that non-visual/auditory experiences stimulate desynchronous brain activity truly that unreasonable?
| Maerd wrote: | | Based on what evidence (or logical reasoning), do you assume declarative memory processing has to be associated with the desynchronous activity? |
Desynchronous brain activity is strongly associated with a consciously active brain and, by your own admission, declarative memory involves the conscious learning process that forms conscious memory. Therefore, declarative memory processing should be specifically associated with desynchronous brain activity.
| Maerd wrote: | | Both NREM reports and REM reports involve mentation of "thought-like". According to studies from Foulkes and Rechtschaffen, the difference is that NREM reports contain thought-like mentation and representations of current concerns more often than REM sleep reports. |
Did Foulkes and Rechtschaffen offer an explanation for this distinction? How did they explain the more though-like mentations of NREM?
| Maerd wrote: | | As to REM sleep, I only assumed that the function of REM sleep is for procedural memory processing. So, the conscious brain system (in my theory) is free to "roam" during REM sleep. |
Isn’t procedural memory processing a function inclusive of the motor cortex and isn’t our cortical brain system—conscious, motor, or otherwise—inexorably linked? How its that our brain can engage dreams involving motor skill and not have use of our motor cortex where our motor skills are stored and processed? If procedural processing is isolated from our conscious brain system during dreaming, how is it that we are able to elicit our motor memories while dreaming?
| Maerd wrote: | I have never claimed that all NREM reports are "thought-like". Memory created from visual experience belongs to declarative memory. Your inference was incorrect.
According to Hobson, "In regard to qualitative features, Antrobus (1983) reported that when judges rated 154 REM and NREM reports for their relative "dreaminess" (using scales based on "visual imagery, bizarreness, hallucinatory quality and storylike quality"), they correctly identified 93% of the reports as either REM or NREM, indicating that REM dream reports were much more dreamlike than NREM reports. Similarly, Foulkes & Schmidt (1983, p. 276) concluded that "REM reports are likely to be significantly more dreamlike qualitatively (e.g., in character density, setting clarity) than typical NREM" reports, even when elicited after only five minutes of stage REM." |
If “memory created visual experience belongs to declarative memory” and “Non-REM sleep = C-processor processes declarative memory,” then NREM should logically produce more “dreamlike” visual experiences than REM especially if REM primarily involves NC-processor processing procedural memory. Doesn’t Hobson’s reference contradict your theory?
| Maerd wrote: |
| DrmDoc wrote: |
Does this suggest your belief that desynchronous brain activity is evidence of “the activation of brain conscious systems?” |
No. |
Then your answer seems a contradiction. My original question regarded desynchronous brain activity and your reply appears to reference that activity as “activation of brain conscious systems.”
| Maerd wrote: | | Where does this "misleading" come from? I did not say it in a tone like: more than sufficient evidences prove … Instead, I clearly stated that as "My understanding is …" What's wrong with personal belief? If you think my understanding is incorrect, then please correct me with evidence (or logical reasoning). You really confused me! |
I believe it is disingenuous to claim an understanding as stated when the content of your comments overall clearly suggests your familiarity beyond that understanding. Therefore, I will withdraw from this discussion with one final comment to those who may have followed our discourse:
Should you have doubts about whether any of the ideas or thoughts I have shared are testable or have been tested, I invite you, the followers of this discussion, to share those doubts here should your interest in this journey of understanding remain.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello All
As an epilogue to this discussion, I was thinking about how our understanding of brain evolution could contribute to the development of artificially intelligent machines. Ideally, the design and programming of such machines should approach that of human brain structure and function. If for reasons other than our technological inadequacies, truly intelligent machines may be years away because we are approaching their development through a perspective of the brain that does not consider its evolution. Human intelligence arose from the combined contribution of successive neurological adaptations influenced by the survival needs of ancestral animals over millions of years. If we desire to construct machines truly capable of humanlike intelligence, shouldn’t we predicate their design—if not their programming—on those crucial steps in brain evolution leading to human intelligence?
Because the brain is a product of very precise steps in its evolution, any effort to emulate how the brain learns and develops should be inclusive of those steps. From what we know of how the brain likely evolved, our very first step towards intelligent machines should involve the development of their afferent subsystems; specifically, the development of those subsystems that will deliver palpable information into the processing centers of these machines.
Those sensory subsystems capable of detecting physical (palpable) stimuli were likely the first to evolve in the brains of ancestral animals because such systems are what we find in the most primitive parts of the contemporary brain. In the myelencephalon of the contemporary human brain, we find afferent neural systems that deliver taste and tactile sensory information into brain structure. In intelligent machines, taste and tactile equivalent subsystem would be those that would activate the processing centers of these machines whenever they are tactilely stimulated. Evidence in the contemporary brain suggests that tactile sensory detection assumed a different form with the evolution of the metencephalon.
Contiguous with the myelencephalon, the metencephalon evolved those afferent neural systems capable of detecting the indirect perception of potentially tactile sensory through the detection of minute changes in air pressure. What we know as sound sensory detection is merely a sophisticated from of tactile perception. With the distinction sound sensory detection brings to intelligent machines, tactile stimuli processing could be categorized as either direct (physical stimuli) or indirect (sound stimuli). Tactile stimuli should be given the highest processing priority and such processing should initially evoke an assessment of the potential threat to the physical status of the machine. This threat assessment process should also initiate a visual equivalent recognition process.
The construction of visual equivalent subsystems should lead to the development of a sensory hub equivalent to what we find in the human brain through the function of the thalamus. This sensory hub should be capable of integrating divergent sensory data; i.e., it should be capable of assigning data cues that link incoming visual sensory with tactile sensory. These data cues are what the mechanized thalamus will summon to recall the entirety of a sensory experience and compare what it recalls to incoming sensory data. Instead of filing or storing incoming sensory data in its congruous form, the data should be sorted and stored by the details of its sensory type with the key data links that will pull together the divergent sensory. For example, the visual characteristics of hair would be stored by its distinct attributes such as length, textural appearance, color, shape, etc. Along with each attribute, a data link such as “hair” would be store with each to bring the separate attributes together to form the perception of hair in the brains of intelligent machines. The distinction in this type of processing would be that each attribute would be store without respect for their overall connection. For example, hair can be black as well as a coffee pot. Therefore, the color black may be stored with enumerable unique data links, which the mechanized brain will summon in response to appropriate stimuli.
This theorized construction of an artificially intelligent machine isn’t nearly complete without the drive, emotion, and conscience that make human brain function unique. There is evidence in the brain, suggested by its evolution, that these last three components may be essential to the design of our intelligent machine. However, their discussion is for another time. I welcome your interest.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SonDaVid
Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Consciousness had the makings of a vehicle but did not have the necessary components to properly manifest or transport through the physical. This is represented by the most primitive component of our CNS, the myelencephalon. As our CNS evolved, consciousness gained the capacity to reach new levels of expression and achievement through the physical. These are my thoughts, I welcome yours.
_________________
pasadena bootcamp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrmDoc
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree; I believe I've expressed a similar view elsewhere in this discussion.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marygoss
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
enjoyed the discussions. Thanks
_________________
marygoss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bettymorris
Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Evolution can explain the amount of brain devoted to a particular task.
Evolution can even explain how the vast array of animal behaviours came into being. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
