Not the same circuits
BBC website has a fairly interesting article on daydreaming. Retard "neuroscientists" are just starting to acknowledge a bunch of facts that observant people have always known.

One of the unknown questions is whether the 'rehearsals' provided by daydreaming are the same as the 'rehearsals' provided in sleep.

I've just recently answered this for my own mind: A solid No.

I always run a playlist of old-time radio shows during sleeptime. Usually I'm awake for the first 30-minute show, then fade out during the next one. Most of these shows are thoroughly familiar, but I try to keep a fresh episode at the start to snatch my brain away from whatever idiot stuff I was worrying about in the day.

Several times I've dropped off during a familiar episode, then popped back up for unknown reasons. This in/out process enabled me to note the scenery and characters generated by the mind in both modes.

In wake mode, familiar episodes always repeat the location and characters that I 'built' the first time I heard the episode; and obviously use the story that was in the script.

I dropped down into sleep while 'in' the familiar location. In early sleep the ear circuit is still connected, so I was hearing at least part of the dialog. The in-sleep version of the location and characters and story was ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the familiar waking version. The dream-generator instantly wrote its own houses and terrain, its own characters, and its own STORY LINE, to fit the words that were filtering inward. Needless to say, all of these were considerably more interesting and original than the waking version.



Question 1: Is the high-quality dream generator always running in parallel with the crappy waking imagination? That would explain why it can instantly produce original characters and sets. Question 2: Why is the dream generator higher quality? Shouldn't the imagination that's available 75% of the time get better material than the rarely available dream process? Do we have an internal caste system, like NSA running high-quality secret research in parallel with crappy academic research?

(I think I wrote about this once before, but it makes sense as a link to the BBC story.)

Labels: TMI

  ¶ 5:27 PM