Common Dream MisconceptionsPart 2

Common misconceptions about sleep and dreams

 

(...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?