(...Continued
From Common Dream Misconceptions Pt 1)
Little wonder then that these
poor creatures began to demonstrate aggressive behaviour -
who wouldn't? In reality, it would seem that dreams may even
be a sort of luxury. Evidence suggests that we do not need
to dream at all. There are some modern anti depressant drugs
which disprove 'the need to dream' claim beyond all doubt.
Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOs) abolish REM sleep completely,
yet long-term recipients of these drugs display no adverse
affects whatsoever.
Moreover, 'the need to dream'
theory led to another misconception. In response to this hypothesis,
Evans and Newman* put forward the idea that dreams served
a purpose similar to that of a computer - taking unnecessary
data 'off line'. In fact, there was nothing new about this
idea - it was first put forward during the last century by
the Frenchman Robert.
Nevertheless, it was just
the thing the world of the scientific sceptic had been waiting
for. With very little thought they latched onto it like limpets.
At last, they had something with which to fight certain unpopular
branches of psychology, and their influence remains strong
to this day. However, these same sceptics are wildly wrong!
To assert that all dreams
are merely serving the purpose of sorting through unwanted
data is a narrow approach in the extreme. Why should we dream
of alien landscapes, of ancient times, of murder, rape and
pillage, if our sleeping brains are merely executing a sorting
process?
Where does the phenomena of
hypnagogic and hypnopompic imagery fit into this theory? How
does it explain false awakenings, lucid dreams and sleep paralysis?
And why do some people suffer from recurring nightmares which,
emotionally, can linger for days, weeks, months and, occasionally,
years after the dream?
In addition, dreams are susceptible
to contamination by external stimuli. For example, you could
indeed be dreaming of something that reflected the previous
day's routine events. However, if, while you were dreaming,
a car backfired (in real life), your dream would be likely
to change to incorporate this sound - perhaps to visions of
a gunshot during a bank raid. How then, would this fulfil
the criteria for a dream consisting of sorting through and
discarding unwanted data. Clearly, this hypothesis is left
high and dry - dreams serve numerous purposes, many of which
remain unknown.
Another mistaken belief is
that dreams are over in a flash, a split second. This theory
was put forward under more realistic and credible circumstances.
A Frenchman by the name of Maury experienced a lengthy dream
in which he found himself being led to the guillotine for
execution. The moment Maury dreamt that the blade fell across
his neck, he awoke to discover that his bed had collapsed
- part of it across his throat.
Quite reasonably, Maury speculated
that because the dream had been of extended duration, its
entire contents must have been experienced within a split
second. So reasonable was this deduction that it gained ground
among the establishment in psychology and remained as the
'accepted theory' until the 1970s.
During his sleep laboratory
experiments with lucid dreams Dr Keith Hearne routinely wired
up his subjects to an electroencephalograph (EEG), which accurately
monitored and distinguished between the brain-wave activity
of slow wave sleep (SWS) and that of rapid eye movement (REM),
when dreams are experienced.
Upon monitoring the onset
of dreams until their conclusion, then waking dreamers and
questioning them, he established that dreams occur in real
time. In other words, if your dream seems to last about a
minute, then a minute would have passed in the material, waking
world.
Unfortunately, we will never
be able to establish if Maury's bed had been sounding warning
creaks long before it collapsed. Neither can we ascertain
whether it had collapsed for some time before he woke up.
Perhaps it wasn't the first time this had happened to the
bed?
Another popular misconception
is that people can, in response to a REM sleep dream, scream,
lash out, or even attempt to throttle their sleeping partner.
Often, we may witness sequences on television, where the viewer
is taken inside a character's dream, to be shown subsequently
that he or she is writhing around in bed, or perhaps attacking
his or her partner. In fact, this is impossible.
We all know that these things
can happen during sleep, but they are SWS occurrences, not
a result of REM sleep dreams. During SWS people might sleep
walk, talk, experience night terrors or bruxism (teeth grinding).
However, if you awaken somebody from this state, he or she
will have little or no memory of dreaming. Moreover, the following
morning, the subject will be unable to recollect anything
about it.
If, though, you wake people
from REM sleep, they are likely to recall a dream. Perhaps
in the dream the individual was trying to throttle his or
her partner, but the physical body would have failed to respond.
The reason for this is simple: except for the eyes and essential
musculature, breathing, heartbeat and so forth, the body is
totally paralysed in REM sleep.
Anyone who has watched a cat
or dog dreaming will be aware that, apart from slight twitching
of the limbs and face, the animal does not move, and humans
are no different. The reason for this paralysis is thought
to be to prevent us from acting out our dreams. After all,
can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if such actions
were possible? There would be something akin to anarchy on
the streets as people attempted to fly by hurling themselves
from windows. Maybe some would be engaged in imaginary battles,
fleeing from monsters, or driving vehicles at speed. Even
worse, what scenarios could result from sexual dreams?
This leads to perhaps the
most curious theory of all, which still remains to be proven.
Most scientists assert that this inability to move whilst
in REM sleep has resulted through evolution. Again, little
thought has gone into this idea, which ignores evidence to
the contrary.
It is accepted that things
do indeed evolve - the living proof is out there. Evolutionists
maintain that, through random accidents of nature, now and
again, a species will be more adept at survival. These genes,
therefore, are the ones which become predominant and supersede
all others - a reasonable argument.
However, it is obvious that
they haven't given much thought as to how REM sleep paralysis
has managed to cross the species divide - as stated earlier,
cats and dogs, plus many more species are subject to muscular
immobility.
The evolutionist might argue
that this gene became predominant before the species divide
- while we were still low-order animals in the sea. The thought
of worms and other similar basic forms of life experiencing
dreams is interesting if not unrealistic. However, the most
powerful argument against the evolutionist theory remains
the fact that many other animals, including dolphins, do not
experience REM sleep paralysis. Where does that leave us?
Authors Details: David
F. Melbourne Web
Site
David F. Melbourne, who lives on a remote Scottish island,
has been studying dreams for 25 years and is known all
over the world for his accurate dream interpretations.
Apart from the general public, he has analysed dreams
for celebrities and famous authors, all of whom have
admitted a high degree of accuracy. |
More Information in our Dreams Section
|
