"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in message
news:bum4tn$969$2 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> In bionet.neuroscience k p Collins <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > But neither of the above hypotheses with respect to dream's
> > often-vivid imagery is commensurate with my hypothesis
> > that the image stays on the retina - =unless= there's some
> > active feed-forward to the retina during sleep, and, to
> > have visual 'coherence' [be that as it is in dream imagery]
> > this feed-forward to the retina would have to(?) be 'con-
> > nected' to the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.
> >
>> Do you perhaps think that dreams occur in the retina???????
If the hypothesis that I've been discussing with respect to
visual-awareness is correct, that's how it'd have to be,
=with respect to the imagery=, but, of course, =not= with
respect to anything other than the imagery. The hypothesis
remains the same wether waking-consciousness or REM-
sleeping-consciousness.
As I said in another post, =this= is the 'place' to attack
my hypothesis. The feed-forwards to the retina are the
only things that I've not adequately substantiated [yet].
> What we perceive as dreams during our "dreaming-
> consciousness" is surely constructed in the cortex
> under the influence of stimulation rising from the
> parabrachial area of the pons and conveyed to the
> cortex by way of the lateral geniculate nucleus of the
> thalamus. This activity seems to have nothing to do
> with any retinal activity. On the contrary, I am
> convinced that retinal output to the thalamus is
> depressed during that time, although I should really
> check.
And I recall reading [in a post here in b.n] that there
is activity in the retina during REM-sleep.
As I've discussed, there is a =huge= globally-integrated
"supersystem configuration" that intervenes between
waking- and sleeping-consciousness.
So, it doesn't matter that things are different during sleep,
because that's already in the hypothesis I've presented.
> A neuroanatomical connection has little meaning
> until supported by physiological evidence of a function.
> The connection may always be there, like a street, but
> the traffic varies.
Of course. How this all works is the subject of AoK,
Ap 5 & 6.
So, for now [until I track down the previous discussion,
and follow any leads in-it], I stand on what I've posted.
As I must, until I can find anything that contradicts it.
ken [K. P. Collins]
