Dream Subliminals

Originally posted by Mike_A
I think you’re making far too many assumptions.

Your most problematic one is that we are capable of assimilating outside stimuli, in a meaningful way, while asleep. Experimental evidence shows that this only occurs when we are about to wake up which explains your Yankees “dream”.

Really? Did you read the opening post?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but one of my main points regarding the assimilation of recent experience into memory...with regards to the dream process...is that all of the previous day is not necessarily going to be situated in the same associational chain of synaptic communication (I really am an amateur so please excuse some terminology).

What that means is that the highly reactive/emotive experiences will have a higher chemical priority and by default will lessen the intensity of other memories. As well, memory gets allocated by sensory perception.

There is a reason why dreams are highly visual...because the majority of our brain is focused on the visual sense. An easy comparison to prove this point is the MRI of a dolphins brain; dolphins are more focused on audio. Why? Because the medium they live in is more conducive to the transmission of sound rather than sight.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Even if it were possible you are also assuming there are means by which someone can present a stimulus without using anything detectable by our senses.

Again...please review the opening post. I think the last link provided shows just how many patents there are for the presenting of stimulus that is virtually undetectable.

That is actually kind of a given in this thread, not a contention.

I however do propose that given comprehension that there are ways to retroactively detect such influences...though we may as a species be in the formative stages of such.

Originally posted by Mike_A
You’re also claiming that dreams are a process of allocating experience to memory which is not true. There is some evidence to suggest that dreams do have a part to play in memory consolidation but as far as I’m aware this relates to semantic not episodic memory.

So what is semantic memory? Again, the opening post...every bit of information is given a chemical signature. That incudes semantic. Early in our lives, in today's society, learning is very episodic. Who is to say that this association doesn't continue throughout one's life?

Originally posted by Mike_A
I think you’re over estimating the effects of conditioning, for example operant (instrumental) conditioning requires some form of reward or punishment to occur following a certain behaviour.

Conditioning is inherent and a basic point, in my opinion, to the extent that it is an assumed component. The various ways one can be conditioned is a great sociological concern but as a point in this thread is almost regressive.

Originally posted by Mike_A
To what extent do you think subliminal stimuli can effect us?

A great deal...especially if intent were there.

reply to post by MemoryShock


I thought you were arguing that we can be unconsciously influenced while we are asleep?

Your hypothesis seems to be summarised by the paragraph...

See, if subliminals are given to an individual during the dream process then it would supposedly follow that these subliminals would piggy back to the associative allocations of experience (I actually have issue with the time frame of this process; I think that subliminals in the dream process would be considered experience by the brain and won't necessarily be involved in the 'download process' until the next dream cycle) and inflect the memory of experience if the subliminals were custom tailored to induce a specific and consistent emotive reaction.

This is completely unsupported conjecture.

Why would it follow that subliminal stimuli would piggy back on existing memories as they are encoded?

I just don't know where you're getting half of your stuff from; for example the majority of our brain is focused on the visual sense? Memory is allocated by sensory perception? Not according to any of the literature I've read!

Elsewhere your posts are very confused for example “What that means is that the highly reactive/emotive experiences will have a higher chemical priority”. What does that mean? It sounds authoritative but doesn't actually make any sense from a psychological perspective; what's a "chemical priority"?

Where is the evidence for anything that you have said about dreams and subliminal influencing?

Again...please review the opening post. I think the last link provided shows just how many patents there are for the presenting of stimulus that is virtually undetectable.

A patent doesn't mean anything, I could patent a machine for communicating with ducks telepathically if I had the money and inclination but it wouldn't add any validity to the claim that we can't talk to ducks with our minds.

So what is semantic memory? Again, the opening post...every bit of information is given a chemical signature. That incudes semantic. Early in our lives, in today's society, learning is very episodic. Who is to say that this association doesn't continue throughout one's life?

Semantic memory consists of discrete pieces of information such as names, facts, figures etc. Episodic memories are experiences.

You were claiming that “dreams are a process intended to allocate recent experience into associative long term memory” whereas current research suggests that dreams may have a role in encoding semantic memory and not episodic.

As for early learning it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. Young children show far greater semantic memory than episodic, probably due to immaturity of areas of the brain associated with consolidating episodic memories.

Conditioning is inherent and a basic point, in my opinion, to the extent that it is an assumed component.

Again, I don't know what you're saying in that sentence, do you know what I mean by operant conditioning? As I said, conditioning cannot take place while we are asleep due to the need to recognise some form of reward or punishment, or a relationship between two stimuli.

I just don't think you've presented any evidence to support what you are suggesting and the existing evidence (eg Simon & Emmons, 1956) show that you are almost certainly wrong.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
I thought you were arguing that we can be unconsciously influenced while we are asleep?

I am. The dream process is certainly implicated in the downloading of experience to memory. I am not the only one saying that. As well, it seems pretty obvious that something happens during the unconscious state as it is a biological necessity. Since the indivisdual is comprised of a physiological system more or less designed to take in stimulii from the environment, why would it follow that the unconscious state negates such a function?

How many times does a new mother wake immediately when her infant wakes up and cries at night?

I am admittedly not a professional and my schooling is nil in this area...but I am not just posting random links and suppositions...
to be summarised by the paragraph...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
See, if subliminals are given to an individual during the dream process then it would supposedly follow that these subliminals would piggy back to the associative allocations of experience (I actually have issue with the time frame of this process; I think that subliminals in the dream process would be considered experience by the brain and won't necessarily be involved in the 'download process' until the next dream cycle) and inflect the memory of experience if the subliminals were custom tailored to induce a specific and consistent emotive reaction.

Originally posted by Mike_A
This is completely unsupported conjecture.

Why would it follow that subliminal stimuli would piggy back on existing memories as they are encoded?

It isn't necessarily unsupported conjecture. I may not have laboratory conditions but it does follow that experience encountered will be then placed upon the pathway to memory. As I said above...I have issues with the timing...but consciousness denotes unconsciousness and the cycle is physiologically routine...

Originally posted by Mike_A
I just don't know where you're getting half of your stuff from; for example the majority of our brain is focused on the visual sense? Memory is allocated by sensory perception? Not according to any of the literature I've read!

I get most of my ideas from observation. I don't purport to place myself on the level of our vaunted philosophers (those who explained reality without university...who more or less invented the need for university) but I will step upon their shoulders. With an as objective perspective as possible, one can indeed extrapolate...given some basic informations.

And if you don't think that the visual sense is first in the hierarchy of sensory percepotion then I would ask of you the following:

When was the last time you consciousally remembered a smell?

Originally posted by Mike_A
Elsewhere your posts are very confused for example

Granted. I have a very disorganized thought process and what makes sense to me is at times difficult to convey in words. But the disjointed expression is not a valid basis for discounting my thoughts...

Originally posted by Mike_A
“What that means is that the highly reactive/emotive experiences will have a higher chemical priority”. What does that mean? It sounds authoritative but doesn't actually make any sense from a psychological perspective; what's a "chemical priority"?

Thank you. I posted a less than perfect post to get questions like this.

Chemical priority is the physiological inflection given to an experience/instance/memory, in context to the concerns/desires of an individual. What we can assume is that there are basic functions that an individual requires for the day to day operation of the physiological vessel. Air, Water, Food and social interaction. Given the first three, social interaction becomes the most important consideration. Social Interaction, in my opinion, will also influence the amount of attention placed on cognitive inquiry (different people have different "chemical priorities).

So what I mean when I say "Chemical priority" is that the experiences that are most closely identifiable to the concerns of an individual will likely be given the most "attention" during the dream process.

Try giving a world class swimmer a book on pole vaulting and then challenge him to a race in the 100 meter butterfly. Chances are, the race will hold more of a "chemical priority" then the book on pole vaulting.

Where is the evidence for anything that you have said about dreams and subliminal influencing?

Where is the evidence against it?

I stated that I am an amateur. I look around me and I observe. I suppose. This makes sense to me and while I don't have laboratory conditions I am confident enough to present my thoughts to this discussion forum. For the purposes of discussion. I might be wrong. Hell, in my opening post I admitted to feeling that I am missing a few points. I am not dictating belief here. I am presenting for discussion.

There is a difference...

Originally posted by Mike_A
A patent doesn't mean anything, I could patent a machine for communicating with ducks telepathically if I had the money and inclination but it wouldn't add any validity to the claim that we can't talk to ducks with our minds.

Who is to say that the patents presented couldn't be used to speak with ducks "telepathically"? And talking to ducks "telepathically" is possible if they are implanted. Gaining their comprehension is a whole different story...

Originally posted by Mike_A
Semantic memory consists of discrete pieces of information such as names, facts, figures etc. Episodic memories are experiences.

I know what semantic memory is. But how does the physiological process identify semantic memory? My point that early childhood is a semantic memory as episodic memory bears repeating...

Originally posted by Mike_A
You were claiming that “dreams are a process intended to allocate recent experience into associative long term memory” whereas current research suggests that dreams may have a role in encoding semantic memory and not episodic.

My personal opinion is that the distinction is individual and even temporal within the individual. A scholar is going to have different parts of the brain firing than a factory worker. The difference is physical/mental routine.

Originally posted by Mike_A
And the whole “information is given a chemical signature” thing, since when? Where did you get that from? It's pseudo-science completely unrelated to the real world study of memory.

Umm...So information in the brain is comprised of what then...

Originally posted by Mike_A
Again, I don't know what you're saying in that sentence, do you know what I mean by operant conditioning? As I said, conditioning cannot take place while we are asleep due to the need to recognise some form of reward or punishment, or a relationship between two stimuli.

Interesting thought...and yes I do know what Operant Conditioning is. But what I was attempting to say was that if the 'downloading' of information is a process of allocating recent experience to memory based on association than the foundation of conditioning is already there for most adults. Hence, the foundation of association could be used to inflect subliminal interaction. The implicit recognition of positive/negative reward/punishment is already there.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I just don't think you've presented any evidence to support what you are suggesting and the existing evidence (eg Simon & Emmons, 1956) show that you are almost certainly wrong.

1956 eh? Please post the link so I can be sure what you are referencing and I would gladly acknowledge how wrong I am based upon my familiarity with Simon & Emmons.

And all evidence arose from supposition. I am not stating fact here. I am presenting my thoughts based on how I interpreted the information I encountered (both semantic and episodic...or subjective/objective). I merely presented a basis for discussion. Thanks for enriching it...

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

I just don't think you've presented any evidence to support what you are suggesting and the existing evidence (eg Simon & Emmons, 1956) show that you are almost certainly wrong.

How is it going to help the thread to make the author "right" or "wrong" as something constructive to the goal of the OP? The OP clearly shows the desire to debunk some ideology, so your attempt to take it more to a personal level and tout "almost certainly wrong" just derails the thread (if not already OT).

I simply don't understand why Mike_A was not able to keep the support/criticism to the opinions made in the OP (and by others) -- instead of criticism made more personal. I'm left with guesses to how that so-called evidence debunks anything other than it being paperweight.

I agree with the OP to raise the bar.

reply to post by MemoryShock

The dream process is certainly implicated in the downloading of experience to memory. I am not the only one saying that.

As I have said this is related to semantic memory not episodic as you suggested.

As well, it seems pretty obvious that something happens during the unconscious state as it is a biological necessity. Since the indivisdual is comprised of a physiological system more or less designed to take in stimulii from the environment, why would it follow that the unconscious state negates such a function?

“Something” is a very broad term so to assume that means what you are saying is more than jumping the gun.

As for negating the function of receiving stimuli I didn't say we can't process stimuli, I said that we can't assimilate a stimulus in a meaningful way which is what would be required for much of what you are saying.

A mother waking up because of the sound of a crying child is not the same as implanting new concepts while asleep.

I may not have laboratory conditions but it does follow that experience encountered will be then placed upon the pathway to memory.

It may seem intuitive but it doesn't mean its true. Memory is not a conveyor belt whereby every experience or fact learned is placed in a line to be processed one after another.

But that doesn't address my criticism. I understood from your post that you meant that a subliminal stimuli would piggy back on an existing memory as it was being encoded. Why?

And if you don't think that the visual sense is first in the hierarchy of sensory percepotion then I would ask of you the following:

When was the last time you consciousally remembered a smell?

That is incredibly simplistic!

What exactly is a hierarchy of senses and how do you sort them? If you think vision is so important because it is most available in your memory then I would invite you to talk to someone who lacks proprioception! I know I'd rather be blind.

But the fact is that in terms of the amount of brain that is devoted to vision is not greater than either the somatosensory or auditory cortices.

Granted. I have a very disorganized thought process and what makes sense to me is at times difficult to convey in words. But the disjointed expression is not a valid basis for discounting my thoughts...

I don't mean to criticise the presentation of your thoughts, what I meant was that the concepts that you are talking about and the terms don't make sense in the context you place them.

So what I mean when I say "Chemical priority" is that the experiences that are most closely identifiable to the concerns of an individual will likely be given the most "attention" during the dream process.

Ah ok, but the term “chemical priority” doesn't mean anything in the psychology of memory (or at least I've not come across it); this is what I meant by confused.

Where is the evidence against it?

As I said research suggests that we cannot assimilate new information in a meaningful way while we are asleep.

There are a few exceptions that allow very simple actions to be carried out but swatting your hand in response to a mild electric shock doesn't seem to be the kind of thing you are talking about (hence my question about what you think subliminal stimuli can influence us to do).

But how does the physiological process identify semantic memory?

What do you mean? It's not really a matter of the brain saying “ok what type of memory is this? Ok send that one to the hippocampus, that one goes to the amygdala” etc. It's more a question of why does semantic memory go through this route and episodic another and that I don't know but nevertheless they do. And dreams are, possibly, involved with semantic memory which are not experiences.

My point that early childhood is a semantic memory as episodic memory bears repeating...

You'll have to rephrase that.

My personal opinion is that the distinction is individual and even temporal within the individual. A scholar is going to have different parts of the brain firing than a factory worker. The difference is physical/mental routine.

That may be your opinion but the evidence suggests that you're wrong.

Umm...So information in the brain is comprised of what then...

That's just it, it's not that well understood yet but you are coming to conclusions due to these assumptions.

But I've removed that from my post as I think I may have misunderstood exactly what you meant.

what I was attempting to say was that if the 'downloading' of information is a process of allocating recent experience to memory based on association than the foundation of conditioning is already there for most adults. Hence, the foundation of association could be used to inflect subliminal interaction. The implicit recognition of positive/negative reward/punishment is already there.

Could you provide a detailed example, saying what effect you would aim to have on the person (for example, influence them to go out and buy a new Ford or whatever you are suggesting is possible), how you would do it and explaining the exact processes involved (conditioning, priming, whatever).

As for the Simons, Emmons paper I don't think there's a free copy online, you could look on Google scholar but I think you'd have to pay for it.


reply to post by dzonatas


lol How is it personal to say that there's no evidence or that existing evidence suggests that he's wrong? I'm so sorry to have offended your fragile sensibilities and in the future I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut and let you all skip along believing whatever makes you feel all warm and cosy/excited and paranoid (delete as applicable).

Originally posted by Mike_A

Originally posted by MemoryShock The dream process is certainly implicated in the downloading of experience to memory. I am not the only one saying that.

As I have said this is related to semantic memory not episodic as you suggested.

Where is the distinction, chemically, between semantic and episodic memory? I think the terms are convenient for communication but I seriously doubt that modern day science (even the uber Black Ops folk) have what it takes to measure this. As such...extrapolation and supposition are useful tools.

Please start providing supporting links for your contentions.

Originally posted by Mike_A
“Something” is a very broad term so to assume that means what you are saying is more than jumping the gun.

"Something" is exactly why we are discussing this. Noone knows for sure.

Originally posted by Mike_A
As for negating the function of receiving stimuli I didn't say we can't process stimuli, I said that we can't assimilate a stimulus in a meaningful way which is what would be required for much of what you are saying.

I disagree. If subliminals are constructed towards the emotive then there will be an impact. Assimilation, cognitiely, is not what I am purporting here.

Originally posted by Mike_A
A mother waking up because of the sound of a crying child is not the same as implanting new concepts while asleep.

Aww...but it does provide an easy to reference foundation for the segue between unconsciousness and consciousness...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I may not have laboratory conditions but it does follow that experience encountered will be then placed upon the pathway to memory.

Originally posted by Mike_A
It may seem intuitive but it doesn't mean its true. Memory is not a conveyor belt whereby every experience or fact learned is placed in a line to be processed one after another.

Please don't be obtuse. If memory exists (and there is noone to contend that) then it does follow that there is a physiological process to the creation and retention of it.

But that doesn't address my criticism. I understood from your post that you meant that a subliminal stimuli would piggy back on an existing memory as it was being encoded. Why?

Actually, if you had read my post correctly, I said I had issue with the timing. I think that it doesn't piggyback nprecisely because a directly applied subliminal will be interpreted as experience by the brain (in my opinion). The subsequent processing to memory would occur later.

But...the association of experience is still there and would likely inflect said subliminal. To whatever degree.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
And if you don't think that the visual sense is first in the hierarchy of sensory percepotion then I would ask of you the following:

When was the last time you consciousally remembered a smell?

Originally posted by Mike_A
That is incredibly simplistic!

What exactly is a hierarchy of senses and how do you sort them? If you think vision is so important because it is most available in your memory then I would invite you to talk to someone who lacks proprioception! I know I'd rather be blind.

Wonderful. To determine the complex one must fundamentalize. Are there issues with the strategy? Absolutely. But Visual and Auditory stimulii take up the greater part of our consciousness. Shall I provide those links?

Originally posted by Mike_A
But the fact is that in terms of the amount of brain that is devoted to vision is not greater than either the somatosensory or auditory cortices.

I love that you brought up somatosense. It is huge!! As it is roughly the sense that determines where the individual and the external differentiate. And the reality of such in social situations (a touch) is huge in NLP circles for the anchoring of an instance.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Ah ok, but the term “chemical priority” doesn't mean anything in the psychology of memory (or at least I've not come across it); this is what I meant by confused.

It's mine own terminology. Expansion may be relevant at this point and I am thinking further...

Originally posted by Mike_A
As I said research suggests that we cannot assimilate new information in a meaningful way while we are asleep.

Awww...but what of long term application?

Which actually implicates Operant Conditioning.

Would you think that Subliminal Operant Conditioning is possible if a applied from birth and given such a specific intent?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
But how does the physiological process identify semantic memory?

Originally posted by Mike_A
What do you mean? It's not really a matter of the brain saying “ok what type of memory is this? Ok send that one to the hippocampus, that one goes to the amygdala” etc. It's more a question of why does semantic memory go through this route and episodic another and that I don't know but nevertheless they do. And dreams are, possibly, involved with semantic memory which are not experiences.

I contend that this process is not entirely understood. Hence my contention that semantic memory can be associated with episodic memory.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
My point that early childhood is a semantic memory as episodic memory bears repeating...

Originally posted by Mike_A
You'll have to rephrase that.

Learning is an experience. In childhood, learning is the experience.

Associations exponentiate from there...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
My personal opinion is that the distinction is individual and even temporal within the individual. A scholar is going to have different parts of the brain firing than a factory worker. The difference is physical/mental routine.

Originally posted by Mike_A
That may be your opinion but the evidence suggests that you're wrong.

Really?

Are all men created equal? And if they are...do all men have the same experience? And if they so, do all men interpret exactly the same way?

Come now...that is absurd and my assertion is not an opinion in that respect...

Originally posted by Mike_A
Could you provide a detailed example, saying what effect you would aim to have on the person (for example, influence them to go out and buy a new Ford or whatever you are suggesting is possible), how you would do it and explaining the exact processes involved (conditioning, priming, whatever).

No. Because the point of this thread is for comprehension...not to encourage manipulation

Originally posted by Mike_A
As for the Simons, Emmons paper I don't think there's a free copy online, you could look on Google scholar but I think you'd have to pay for it.

I can't afford it. Perhaps melatonin could help here. I would be most appreciative...

I tried to find that link Mike mentioned. I found a book that seemed to say whatever was in the paper was not fully reproducible. You can read the text here if you think I misread it:

Hypnosis: developments in research and new perspectives‎ - Page 175-176

Otherwise, here is the search I did (where that book is at since unable to link here):

google book search

I think the 1956 studies are considered "classic" and, like earlier dispositions many by those earlier schools of thought, either have been rethought, reclassified, or are just outdated compared to modern contexts and terminology.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by dzonatas]

I'm still perusing the Simon Emmons link but I think I know the problem with their findings...in my uneducated opinion...

After considerable exploratory work (IS), the present experiment was designed to study the effect of presenting material at different levels between wakefulness and deep sleep on the ability of Ss (a) to respond to it immediately, and (b) to recall it later upon awakening. It was hypothesized that learning during sleep was improbable.

The problem is likely subjective on the part of the experimenters.

They were looking for immediate results...something that can't be predicted from such. Explicit comprehension comes from context to the individual. Not the experimenter.

Again...in my humble opinion.

Edit to add - A big Thank You to Melatonin for the links...

[edit on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:56:01 -0600 by MemoryShock]

Can I just mention one experience I've had that was bizarre to say the least. I don't know if the experience would be akin to "lucid" dreaming (which I've heard about, but don't know how to do it) or if it was something else entirely.

Anyway I was staying in an apartment and went to bed (which faced the wall while on my left was the window/balcony and on the right the cupboard) and towards early dawn I guess it was, I opened up my eyes sleepily and crawling on the wall in front of me was this huge spider (the size of a tarantula) and I freaked out and wriggled in fright and as I did it crawled along the cieling. And then I jumped up out of bed and focused on the spider to see where it would go next and it just disappeared on the spot!

I don't take drugs or drink alcohol and I didn't eat or drink anything that could make me hallucinate like this that I know of. I cannot recall if I saw a tiny spider during the day outside on the balcony or just cobwebs on the pillars or whether I watched a movie that had a "scare factor" with spiders in the storyline and this translated into my subconscious--I don't know, but doubt it too.

I've discussed it with others and besides the jokes (e.g. "what did you eat/drink that night?") the overall consensus was that my subconscious or dream state or "third eye" was possibly still "open" when I woke up half asleep and saw the spider and then closed itself when I fully woke up and the spider disappeared.

Also, I am of the belief too that our environment or external stimuli can and does affect us even when we are asleep and can translate into our dreams subliminally. Besides the other examples others have given I recall one time when I was a teen and it was the middle of the night during summertime and I had the windows open and I was dreaming that there was a mosquito buzzing around near my ear--which BTW I hate and usually spurs anybody out of the deepest sleep to kill the damned creature before it strikes--and so I woke up sleepily and lo and behold discovered that there was no mosquito around at all. And it was in fact the faint sounds of a motorcyclist riding on the highway nearby.

reply to post by MemoryShock

Where is the distinction, chemically, between semantic and episodic memory? I think the terms are convenient for communication but I seriously doubt that modern day science (even the uber Black Ops folk) have what it takes to measure this. As such...extrapolation and supposition are useful tools.

It’s not a question of finding a chemical distinction between the two, there may be one or there may not be one. However what we do know is that in terms of dreams the evidence only suggests that semantic memories are encoded in this manner.

It’s difficult finding direct links for you because this is largely derived from offline sources, mainly journals. The best I can do is give you a reference in this case “Sleep, Learning, and Dreams: Off-line Memory Reprocessing” (Stickgold, Hobson, Fosse, 2001)

But you are the one making the claims here, you are saying that dreams are involved in the consolidation of experience as memory but you haven’t provided any evidence of that.

If memory exists (and there is noone to contend that) then it does follow that there is a physiological process to the creation and retention of it.

But not in the manner you seem to think. You are pronouncing a process that exists only in the context of this thread.

Actually, if you had read my post correctly, I said I had issue with the timing. I think that it doesn't piggyback nprecisely because a directly applied subliminal will be interpreted as experience by the brain (in my opinion). The subsequent processing to memory would occur later.

But it is all conjecture, what are you basing this on? What’s the use of making these claims without grounding it in known science? It’s no good just saying “in my opinion”.

Wonderful. To determine the complex one must fundamentalize. Are there issues with the strategy? Absolutely. But Visual and Auditory stimulii take up the greater part of our consciousness. Shall I provide those links?

I never said they didn’t, you claimed that the majority of our brain is devoted to the visual sense which is not true.

I love that you brought up somatosense. It is huge!! As it is roughly the sense that determines where the individual and the external differentiate. And the reality of such in social situations (a touch) is huge in NLP circles for the anchoring of an instance.

What does that have to do with what you were claiming? Again the majority of the brain is not devoted to vision and you can’t place it in any hierarchy based on the fact that it makes up the greater part of your conscious experience.

Would you think that Subliminal Operant Conditioning is possible if a applied from birth and given such a specific intent?

It doesn’t matter when you start the process, the methodology and results you are suggesting wouldn’t work in the manner you have detailed.

I contend that this process is not entirely understood. Hence my contention that semantic memory can be associated with episodic memory.

What do you mean by associated? A piece of information in semantic memory can be associated with an experience in the sense that one can make you think of the other but that doesn’t help your case nor does it change the fact that, as far as we know, dreams are only involved with semantic memory consolidation.

But either way, an area not being understood does not lend wait to any given hypothesis. It’s especially dubious to use such an unfounded contention as the basis for yet another claim.

Learning is an experience. In childhood, learning is the experience.

In a simplistic way yes but when you talking about the differences in episodic and semantic memory then it’s irrelevant.

Are all men created equal?

All men are born with generally the same brain structure and those that aren’t confirm what is known about the roles of each discreet organ.

You are suggesting that some people process memory in radically different ways, based on experience, which is contrary to what is observed (see the reference earlier). If you are going to make such claims then you must have evidence.

There is none that would support the idea that experience can cause one person to process episodic memory in dreams and another to process semantic memories in the same way.

No. Because the point of this thread is for comprehension...not to encourage manipulation

I’m asking because it would help my comprehension of what it is you are claiming could/does happen. Maybe I’m overestimating the effects you are saying could happen, but I won’t know if you don’t give an example.

The risk is minimal, if you’ve figured it out you can be fairly sure other people have too.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

But it is all conjecture, what are you basing this on? What’s the use of making these claims without grounding it in known science? It’s no good just saying “in my opinion”.

It appears that was an attempt to ask for a more pure form of a hypothesis.

No. Because the point of this thread is for comprehension...not to encourage manipulation

I’m asking because it would help my comprehension of what it is you are claiming could/does happen. Maybe I’m overestimating the effects you are saying could happen, but I won’t know if you don’t give an example.

However, if examples are given before a pure hypothesis, then somehow they are seen as mere opinion, which is stated as "no good."

There is some circular-thinking there that can be easily avoided, so we can progress/evolve!

Are all men created equal?

All men are born with generally the same brain structure and those that aren’t confirm what is known about the roles of each discreet organ.

People have the capability to grow similar brain functionality. That is grow as in normal human cell growth. That does not mean they will have the same brain structure.

Some people are more visual, others are more auditory. To say that these types of people have the same brain structure is to deny adaptive processes.

I think these other threads on depression provide some of the needed evidence that further extend the adaptive processes (that even continues throughout the lifetime):

Depression: An Adaptive Evolutionary Trait?

It just seems to contradictory to expect the same exact brain structure for each human body. We can expect similar brain functionality even if the structure is completely unique (just to state this point).

reply to post by cameraobscura


Ack! Your post really freaked me out. I have been having this experience off and on for ten years. I used to think it must be caused by a "floater" in the eye that my subconscious is interpreting as a spider but many many times I have remained calm and just watched the spider. I *think* I am wide awake at the time. I'm aware of noises/activity elsewhere in the house but if I look away from the spider and then look back, it's gone. I have even slowly climbed out of bed and crept over to the wall to see it close up. It always disappears into a corner before I get there. It feels intensely real.

reply to post by dzonatas

It appears that was an attempt to ask for a more pure form of a hypothesis.

It was an attempt to ask for MS to pick a side, either use science and make sure opinions are grounded in science or not but in that case don’t try to present them as scientific.

However, if examples are given before a pure hypothesis, then somehow they are seen as mere opinion, which is stated as "no good."

I’m not saying that an example would constitute evidence or anything I just want one so I can get a better grip on what it is he is claiming can or does happen.

People have the capability to grow similar brain functionality. That is grow as in normal human cell growth. That does not mean they will have the same brain structure.

Some people are more visual, others are more auditory. To say that these types of people have the same brain structure is to deny adaptive processes.

I think these other threads on depression provide some of the needed evidence that further extend the adaptive processes (that even continues throughout the lifetime):

Depression: An Adaptive Evolutionary Trait?

It just seems to contradictory to expect the same exact brain structure for each human body. We can expect similar brain functionality even if the structure is completely unique (just to state this point).

I don’t think you’ve quite got what I was saying.

There are a number of points to make clear; the physical structure of each discreet organ can be somewhat different from person to person; people can differ in where, physically some areas are located (e.g. language areas); areas that are most often used can become more developed than others and in some extreme cases parts of the brain can provide compensatory functionality for losses in other areas.

However, what I am saying is that if you took a group of healthy people you wouldn’t find that one processes visual information through the primary motor area, another through the pons and yet another through the corpus callosum.

Similarly, the physical organs that are used in the process of consolidation for each memory type is not different from person to person based on what experiences they have had. This is what MS asserted.


But this is all getting very far from the point. MS made claims about influencing behaviour through the presentation of subliminal stimuli while the subject is asleep. I want to know the exact process by which this happens and what evidence there is to suggest that it can happen in the way that he describes and have the results he claims.

Originally posted by Mike_A
... MS made claims about influencing behaviour through the presentation of subliminal stimuli while the subject is asleep. I want to know the exact process by which this happens and what evidence there is to suggest that it can happen in the way that he describes and have the results he claims.

Anecdotal - I avoided casual/uncontrolled exposure to media for decades as part of a 'spiritual retraining' exercise - made a HUGE difference in my dreams and way my mind works.

Some important stuff - illuminates processes that inform neuromarketing (subliminal advertising), with evidence:

Secrets of Neuromarketing | Useful Commute Podcast

From Neuro-Marketing: Straight to the Brain:
In 2001, "The Brighthouse Institute for Institute for Thought Sciences" gave birth to the BrightHouse Neurostrategies Group, the first neuromarketing company, based in Atlanta. In 2005, neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield told the Institute of Direct Marketing how marketing can create new neuronal networks in the brain. Critics say using neuroscience to directly manipulate the brain is unethical and will be used to control our thinking, and voting too.

How It Works:

Neuromarketing Do We See What We Think?

Neuromarketing Brain Branding

Neuromarketing the New Marketing

Nader Group Slams Emory for Brain Research

Advertisers probe brains, raise fears

Hidden persuasion or junk science?


About Neuromarketing:

Wiki

PBS

reply to post by cybertroy

And all this brain/memory stuff. I mean if you remember a past life, which some people do, I would say the brain is a pretty insignificant memory device. I would say the mind isn't really a part of the brain.

Based on what exactly? Some people remember past lives? Whats going on here?

reply to post by soficrow


The anecdote doesn't show anything in relation to the OP's claim since it involved your waking state as the main contributor to your thoughts. The OP is talking about influencing people while they are asleep.

The same with neuromarketing. I am not disputing the effects of priming or conditioning or mental associations, they are well studied and understood phenomena.

What I am disputing is the ability to use these methods to significantly influence a person while they are asleep in the manner the OP claims.

Originally posted by Mike_A
The risk is minimal, if you’ve figured it out you can be fairly sure other people have too.

Precisley why I created this thread.

I've looked over your post several times and will provide a more detailed commentary soon. I have provided some groundwork for discussion and further analysis. I have encountered links that I need to digest further though.

There is basis for this. Whether or not Dream Subliminals are effective...well...my personal experience refutes current application.

Thank you for your patience.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Thank goodness I'm not the only one to have experienced something so surreal! I actually experienced it again a second time, but this time in my own bed as I was looking up at the curtain upon waking and this time I saw maybe 4-5 of them ontop of the curtain railing moving around on each other--and (this time remaining calm) again they all disappeared.

But, seeing that I'm not the only one to have had such an experience it makes you wonder what in the world is going on in our minds at the time?!

Originally posted by MemoryShock
They were looking for immediate results...something that can't be predicted from such. Explicit comprehension comes from context to the individual. Not the experimenter.

After I thought about this for a bit, the main question that I still have is at what point exactly is it known the subjects transition between the teachable and the unteachable states. I think this point hasn't been established except to broadly declare someone in a consciously awake or unconsciously dream state. With such broadly defined areas of conscious, either one way or the other, any evidence or experiments have also been so bluntly categorized.

Consider how any overlap between the two states are quickly labeled as hallucinations. This means the experimenters have considered dreams (even daydreams) as something totally different than imagination and hallucinations.

That main question I have above leads further into questions about how is it possible people can learn by imagination but not by dreams (as claimed by some). Meditation has been used to help induced daydreams to consciously think about solutions to problems, and this has always been used to teach oneself answers to questions they have had. To lob that into a hallucination I tend to think is bit of religious act, even if it's an atheist act that denies any consciousness/conscience beyond a physical brain. It appears people often disagree about how it is possible (i.e. subliminal, imagination/dreams) not because of information or evidence presented by science itself but more so because of religious beliefs that are presented as 'facts.'

How these facts are weighed, individually, I don't doubt affects the interpretation of these experiments, and I don't doubt, how they are weighed, affects even just the comprehension of them without further experimental evidence or before any evidence. (Maybe in other words, scientific prediction continues to vary on this topic yet some consider it solid.)

Am I alone with this somewhat conclusive thought or is it similar (based on this thread)?

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by soficrow

 

The anecdote doesn't show anything in relation to the OP's claim since it involved your waking state as the main contributor to your thoughts.

No - I stopped sleeping with a radio or TV on, and it made a HUGE difference in terms of how my waking thoughts/moods/etc were influenced.

The OP is talking about influencing people while they are asleep.

The same with neuromarketing. I am not disputing the effects of priming or conditioning or mental associations, they are well studied and understood phenomena.

I suspect there's much more to the "phenomena" than what's currently catalogued.

What I am disputing is the ability to use these methods to significantly influence a person while they are asleep in the manner the OP claims.

Are you specifically disputing the possibility of significantly influencing a person while they are asleep? ...If so, I heartily disagree.

Or just pressing MS to describe the mechanisms and better explicate the process? ...If so, I can't play right now - maybe later.