3 ms·

Dreaming is a by-product of neurotransmitter cleansing. Any effects we gain from dreams are secondary. This theory is what might be considered a "narrative" or

Dreaming is a by-product of neurotransmitter cleansing. Any effects we gain from dreams are secondary. This theory is what might be considered a "narrative" or post-hoc causal explanation to make it seem as if a by-product is a function of evolution. This is bad science. For a real explanation https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7916906/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7916906/ To explain how science tries this retrofitting trick, see Daniel Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will. Science is beset by tricksters like Hoel who find their audiences in technologists. See Allan Hobson's The Dream Drugstore for a non-psychological explanation (his is a neurobilogical one).

JoeAltmaier 1y ago
That seems to ignore any survival/fitness advantages to dreaming. Which would make dreaming a true function of evolution. Right?
- marshfram 1y ago
  A true function is outside its narrative effects, you're describing a narrative, not a correlational effect in science. Are you trained as a scientist or as a technologist to seek causes and effects. As a scientist, the very "function" you're describing could easily be perceived as non-survival, as keeping our attention on things we should be ignoring. Hoel's theory is par to idealized. He's not seeing the impairing role of what he is describing. Hoel is fundamentally a technologist hiding behind the skirts of science, employing functionalism when it's been long discarded: "Functionalism is fundamentally a theory of communication. The story of the mutation within functionalism from an organics to a technics of communication within the primate body is a story of semiotic theories and technologies" Haraway To summarize, a functional description or analysis like Hoel's is an argument about the technology of dreaming, not its organic role in the brain. It's not science. His is an extractive theory, "how do we use dreams separate from their organic relationship to mental states"?

JoeAltmaier 1y ago

That seems to ignore any survival/fitness advantages to dreaming. Which would make dreaming a true function of evolution. Right?

marshfram 1y ago
A true function is outside its narrative effects, you're describing a narrative, not a correlational effect in science. Are you trained as a scientist or as a technologist to seek causes and effects. As a scientist, the very "function" you're describing could easily be perceived as non-survival, as keeping our attention on things we should be ignoring. Hoel's theory is par to idealized. He's not seeing the impairing role of what he is describing. Hoel is fundamentally a technologist hiding behind the skirts of science, employing functionalism when it's been long discarded: "Functionalism is fundamentally a theory of communication. The story of the mutation within functionalism from an organics to a technics of communication within the primate body is a story of semiotic theories and technologies" Haraway To summarize, a functional description or analysis like Hoel's is an argument about the technology of dreaming, not its organic role in the brain. It's not science. His is an extractive theory, "how do we use dreams separate from their organic relationship to mental states"?