The Function of Dreams

 Famous neuroscientist, Rudolfo Llinas, says that "the purpose of the brain is movement of the body."  And paraphrasing Whitehead, "the function served by the brain's activity is so that we might move, then move well, then move better."  The evolutionary advancement is brought about with increasing reasoning ability in higher-order organisms.  Heck, look at dolphins:  they've developed something like radar to echolocate, they are trained to do difficult tasks, they have been observed to save drowning humans, they recognize themselves in mirrors and enjoy watching themselves, and, for all we know, are solving analytic geometry problems all day long just to p**s off Descartes. 

Burl,

I like how you think. 

This is one of the things which takes a turn from strict radical behaviorism and incorporates cognitive function in the behavior sequence. There are certainly times when an inappropriate behavior can be addressed while the thought process is engaged, but before the behavior is acted upon. With dogs, this timing can be critical since once a dog's behavior escalates we are sometimes left reacting to what the dog is doing until we can get their focus back on track...and often this is a more primal state once the thought process moves into the behavior.

I like how you think.

 Well, I've already used up my best powder, so be prepared to change your mind at any time going forward 

Paige, this was a mis-post, I moved it.

Dreams are really interesting things. I am not sure yet as i take a little bit more of a physiological approach, but thought that some of you might like this link

 http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/braincomputer-interface-eavesdrops-on-a-daydream/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=102810

 Fascinating.  I am not quite sure why they refer to the thinking of an image as dreaming, though, as patients were consciously attentive.

Still, I can see how someone who cannot remember his/her dreams but undergoing Jungian therapy might benefit - just set the VCR to record it!

I'm not sure what you mean, Angelique, by "strict radical" behaviorism. Though thoughts of the subject were not important to the study of behaviorism, they don't preclude it, either. It's not a limit by design of behaviorism. Indeed, one could say that behaviorism neither denies nor confirms the ability to reason, except to say, in my general statement that if we can dream and reason, is it likewise also possible that other animals that can dream also reason? And the ability to think that thought might be part of our "behaviorism" or even a fixed action pattern for humans, in particular. And maybe for other animals, too, who may be debating on whether humans can reason. And they might have good reason to doubt it, too.

The scientist looks through the observation window at the monkey in the room, only to find the monkey looking through the observation window at him.

Then, again, I don't see a big distinction between OC and CC, other than a political one, for the purposes of most debates.

And maybe for other animals, too, who may be debating on whether humans can reason. And they might have good reason to doubt it, too.

 That's a good point.  Long ago I had an insight that has never left me - that our ability to rationalize that x is really y, bad is really O.K, etc. is at the root of all the suffering on the planet.  I am thinking of a chimp at a research lab who was taught to sign, but who lived in very confined, unnatural quarters, and I think subjected to harsh tests.  I remember it being reported that the chimp signed with expressed grief to the effect: "Why are you doing this to me?"

I would quit my research job if that happened to me, and never forgive myself for having been so callous and egocentric.

Many of the human species are arrogant to the point being nauseating, assuming that humans, alone, have the ability to reason. At least, with Skinner, he didn't assume that any creature, human or otherwise, was capable of reason or not capable of reason.

 OMG, guys, take a look at this inspiring article about theological considerations of dogs - it is everything I have come to believe.  I plan to look more into that seminary to see if they are looking at applying the theological concept of Person to our beloved and highly relational doggies.

Exciting!

philosophy-wise, it might by a good endeavor. Science-wise, it might be tougher. Science has yet to prove that man has a soul or that man can reason. If we can't define it in ourselves, how do we define it in others? Many of our suppositions about dog behavior arise from  assumptions.But, I agree, when you hear hoofbeats, you expect horses. If it sounds like moral behavior and looks like moral behavior, then it might just be moral behavior. Or not. For most of man has not defined "moral." Heinlein once observed that "moral" is what leads to survival of self, family, community, usually in that order. Various flavors of religion having little to do with what moral is. A religion might tell you that killing is bad but yet, you must to protect your family or nation or state. If I don't catch that fish and cook it, we will starve. Which is moral? Killing the fish to eat and stay alive? Or allowing myself to die because I won't eat flesh and feel that even plants have "consciousness" and therefore feel the pain of being consumed (there are some who actually believe that)?

I walk away from confrontations when I can. I don't like fighting. But I am a marksman with a pistol and I have trained to kill and maim with my bare hands and will use either skill to protect myself, my family, and my community or country, without hesitation. Does that make me moral? Or just a killer with good timing? Or, does it matter, as history is written by the winners?

In the case my moral definition, which follows Heinlein, dogs are moral. And it stands to reason that dreams involve reasoning, even abstract reasoning. Dogs do dream, as the somnambulance should not be confused with epileptic seizures. Ergo, dogs dream, least hypothesis, dogs can reason. It is upon the dissenter to prove that dogs don't dream. Which means they would have to prove that humans don't dream. And prove that dreaming and reasoning are not linked.

It is upon the dissenter to prove that dogs don't dream. Which means they would have to prove that humans don't dream. And prove that dreaming and reasoning are not linked.

Indeed.

 Australian podcast on how dreams show us animals are optimizing their memories of the past to operate better going forward, just like us, and when resting during the day, they are doing much the same thing

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/01/aim_20100109.mp3