Under your theory, Dreams should never, ever give any type of beneficial information to the Dreamer. They should never have meaning behind them. Your theory also fails to account for the idea of Recurring Dreams. Why would the same associations remain in a random generation of input?
I see the Brain/Mind theory much easier to accept now (I used to think the same way you did, until I simply did more study into what we think we know). The more ‘deactivated’ the Brain becomes, the more the Mind (Spirit/Soul/Self) simply takes over…as one fades away, the other becomes stronger.
Of course, you cannot test my ideas in a Laboratory.
Faulty logic. Why not? The liver and lungs are meant to do what? Support the Brain. The bodies sole purpose is to provide protection and support for the Brain, not the other way around. A Body without an active Brain can be electrically stimulated (reflexes), but does that mean it’s alive? The Brain gives ‘life’, personality, individuality to each Body. Without the Brain, the Body is nothing more than a mass of flesh. Quite the contrary, I think the Brain is the ultimate proof there’s something behind the scenes.
A good example: I had a Lucid Dream where I experienced colors and textures I’ve never seen in this Life/Reality. Ever. I can’t even find words for them simply because none exist.
If my Brain was simply going over old associations (it cannot recieve new input in a state where no input is coming in) I should not be able to do this.
How did my Brain create it’s OWN input and new experiences? Where is this new input coming from in a state where the Brain is only in a position to re-create and re-form old known associations?
Yes, that is the main edge of it : creativity. Unlike mechanicistic explanation mind is highly creational even in imagining things.
That alone is enough to point something is missing in whole input output story.
Inteligence is unpredictable.
Pav, you’ll have to change the title of this thread in "The mental code theory (longs posts) It definitely breaks all the records !
Ego Tripping : First of all, I’m happy to see that Pav’s theory makes you think so much ! It must be a worthy theory, otherwise you wouldn’t have spend so many time to try to disprove it…
If I resume what you said, your point of view is that “the Brain is the filter and the Mind the receiver/organizer.” Pav’s theory is just about how the brain filters (and stores) information. So I don’t understand why you seems to believe it could contradict your idealist philosophy. It has nothing to do nor with the way that brain collects information, neither from which channel it collects it. So, it has nothing to do with what you call the Mind, it just describes the filter functioning.
From my own experience, I know that we can (during dream or waking state) gather information which don’t obviously come from our senses or memories. Call it ESP or the Mind, as you want. Laberge’s points out that ESP is more likely to happen during dreams.
In parapsychic studies, it’s said that during precognitive dreams, information can be distorted as in normal dreams. That’s mean that ESP are subject to the brain filter, and I suppose you won’t disagree with that.
About this point, I’ve to notice that I disagree with pav when he says that “his theory doesn’t leave place for shared dreaming”. As I said, his theory has nothing to do with the way the brain collects information. If you believe telepathy is possible during waking life, it could be also possible during a dream. And if you don’t believe in ESP, it doesn’t matter how the brain could be organized (mental-code-based or database-like), you’ll consider that shared dreaming is impossible.
Yet, an important point you seems to have misunderstood.
In the post I pointed out, you could have read that :
I hope it answers to your question.
Another point must be clarified before we can go further :
In biological and artificial (computer) neural networks, information is stored in the neurons, not as “raw data” (as a database could do), but as reactions. Each neuron is a specialized cell which can propagate an electrochemical signal. When a neuron is activated, it fires an electrochemical signal which crosses the synapses to other neurons, which may in turn fire. A neuron fires only if the total signal received at the cell body from the dendrites exceeds a certain level (the firing threshold).
So the information is stored as a firing threshold. The computational property is actually an emergent property of hundreds or thousands of neurons cooperating to produce the processing power of the brain. For instance, they can recognize forms, so it means that the form has not to be stored as a memory, but as an “association”, the consequence of the cumulated reactions of a set of neurons.
Moreover, there are some mistakes in your assumptions about dream :
REM dreaming is considered the most elaborate or ‘true’ form of dreaming, especially with regards to the intense level of activation in the brain. Electroencephalograph patterns for REM sleep are much like those during wakefulness, and include many fast beta-rhythms. It may even be that the brain works harder during REM sleep than when awake.
Once this has been clarified, I will answer to your questions :
From the activity of the forebrain receiving random signals from the brain stem.
This theory doesn’t implies your conclusion at all. Recent advances in neural network research shows that they can be imaginative and creative. When submitted to random input (when “dreaming”), new associations are found to be formed which are available to process unexpected occurrences. For instance, if biological or artificial NN have learnt to recognize the letter B and K, they can “dream” the R letter.
Possibly, same answer than above. Moreover, I said that vividness is not a consequence of memories, but of the more attention your paid to a perception content.
Nothing in this theory could lead you to this conclusion. As a NN works upon the principles of association, some associations can be more likely to appear when the NN is randomly bombarded. A thought, an image, an emotion can be activated more often than desirable, revealing a problem of the psyche.
Same answer than above.
Eventually, remember that I said this theory doesn’t take in account (in my opinion; it’s perhaps not Pav’s opinion) the sources of the information. One of the possible source during dreams is the random inputs of the brain stem. I never said that other sources are impossible.
“They suggested that dreaming consists of associations and memories elicited from the forebrain (the neocortex and associated structures) in response to random signals from the brain stem.”
So now the Brain Stem is sending the signals to control Dreaming?
I mean, everyone has their own beliefs and reasons for believing said beliefs. In my experience, this explanation is ludicrous for reasons I’ve listed above.
As far as the idea of “vividness”, that was not the question; how does my mind create seemingly BRAND NEW sensory input that is obviously not previously recognized? The known associations I had in my Brain could not account for these new forms of “code.” The Brain Stem can only send signals it’s recieved from the Brain as the Brain Stem cannot directly observe anything…everything it recieves has once passed through the Brain, so nothing I recieve in a Drean should ever be “new” or not previously recognized/observed/logged. So your (and Pav’s) explanation doesn’t even touch on ideas such as these.
The REM Sleep only shows that the Brain believes exactly what it’s seeing to the point where the Body believes it as well. But this still does not explain exactly where the Brain is receiving all this convincing information from (the brain stem doens’t account for LD’s or even OBE/NDE for that matter). This does however, prove that our Dream reality and Waking reality make no difference to the Brain.
But yah, I also come from a perspective that’s been radically changed over the past 4 years, so I suppose I do come off strong. I agree, Pav’s theory is EXTREMELY well thought out and complete, and I don’t mean to sound like I’m putting it down. I suppose it hits close to home beccause I had (literally) almost the identical theory before I was, how you say, awakened (that sounds pompous, but I assume you know what I mean) It’s like aruging/debating with a previous version of myself so it’s intruiging.
We all believe what we must to get us by…I choose to believe the Brain is not the seat of Consciousness or Dreams for that matter, but that’s also for a multitude of reasons and beliefs that encompass my views.
So with that said, hats off to Pav and all those who participated. I choose to concede simply because I realize that it’s a bit moot to continue, we can’t change each others minds and if I keep trying I feel I’m going to come off too much as a ‘know-it-all’. I enjoy bounderies and the respect of those bounderies. Cheers.
I agree with you about the fact that during NDE’s, brain seems to be totally disactivated. So this brain theory doesn’t explain at all how information can be perceived (and memories of the events stored) in this state.
In my opinion, this fact doesn’t disprove the “mental code” theory, but it relativizes its usefullness and narrows the field of its applications.
As for consciousness, it is a mystery and I believe it will be rather hard to find its location, too.
Cheers
hmm… how did they measure brain activity during NDE’s? did they almost kill someone while doing an EEG?
and even if the brain is not measurably active during NDE’s, how come people wake up and say that they saw theire whole lives flash in front of them?
wether it’s at 55GHz speed or 5Hz, the brain processes a lot of info. it’s well known that we change our memories with the passage of time, and “erase” some aswell.
but according to some hypnotherapeuts(spl?) we store everything we’ve experienced since our first breath!
and pav was right about something.
the vision to set as an example,
the eyes capture light frequencies and stuff, and the “info” is sent to our brain that interprets it. - i think colorblind people, don’t have problems in they’re eyes, they have a minor problem in they’re brains!
and it’s a fact that our brain creates all the reality that we experience in our dreams, none of it is “real”.
except when the phone rings maybe, that the brain interprets the sound identifies it as a phone and then creates a dream phone to justify the “real” phonering.
BIG UPS to PAV, I enjoyed reading your theory a lot! I think you’re going far when it comes to exploring the mind!
It definitely breaks all the records !
