Abstract Index
Conference Index

ASD 2000 Conference 17 Abstracts

Millennial Dreaming: Washington, D.C.

HOBSON VS SOLMS: NOW WHAT?

General Event with HARRY FISS

In his recent book "The Neuropsychology of Dreams", as well as in his 1999 ASD address "Dreaming and REM Sleep are Controlled by Different Brain Mechanisms", Solms struck a much welcomed mortal blow to the widely accepted notion, first promulgated By Hobson & McCarley more than two decades ago that dreaming and REMming are isomorphic and that consequently the same neurons that generate REM sleep, neurons located in the primitive hindbrain, also generate dreams, and furthermore, since these neuronal discharges are random events, dreams are no more than randomly evoked memories which the cortex does the best of a poor job trying to synthesize. Solms accomplished this feat by means of anatomical studies of brain injured patients that unequivocally demonstrate that REM = {CORRECTION] REM sleep does not equal dreaming; that on the contrary, REM sleep and dreaming are controlled by different brain mechanisms: i.e. the pons controlling REM sleep and the cortex controlling dreaming. This neuroscientific turning point is both good and bad news. It is good news insofar as it frees up the domain of dream research to include and give the blessing to nonbiological dream research. But it is also bad news, because at the same time it perpetuates the myth that only biological evidence is scientifically trustworthy. Bear in mind that it wasn't until Solms beat Hobson on his own turf, so to say, that the credibility of Hobson's theory began to be seriously questioned. Leaving my personal feelings aside, it is hard to ignore the fact that more than 20 years ago, I confronted Hobson with the same argument that Solms is now confronting Hobson with: first at a debate, chaired by Ray Greenberg, at the 18th annual meeting of the New England Psychological Association held at BU in 1978, and a year later in a well reviewed chapter of mine ("Current Dream Research: A Psychobiological Perspective") in "Handbook of Dreams", edited by Benjamin Wolman. In this chapter (page 41) I wrote as follows. "At the crux of the matter, it seems, is the issue whether or not dreaming is a process that exists independently of its neurophysiological correlates. I would like to submit that it does: that dreaming not only exists as a separate process. but that it also has functions of its own, quite apart from REM sleep; that there exists a psychological need for certain sleep experiences, just as there exists a biological need for certain sleep e stages; and that the content and quality of dreaming -- how we dream and what we dream about -- are as vital for adaptation as the amount of REM sleep we get." In other words, I was saying 20 years ago exactly what Solms is saying today, with only one difference: the empirical evidence    underlying my conclusions was psychological, not biological (Fiss et al., 1966; 1969; 1974). So what does this tell us? Certainly not that I want to blow my own horn. What it does tell us, and here is the bad news, that neuroscientists, whether they are Solms, Hobson, or someone else, are still convinced that biology is scientific and that psychology is not. Here is where the problem lies: philosophically, we are still stuck in the same mire. Only by transcending the current Zeitgeist can psychological research, no matter how robust and methodologically rigorous, gain the parity it deserves. So please Mark, take heed!

HARRY FISS

Harry Fiss obtained his Ph.D. at NYU in 1961 and is also an ABPP Diplomate in Clinical Psychology. He is one of the earliest pioneers in dream research, being the P.I.of one of the first NIMH funded grants in this area. He has over 100 published articles, book chapters, and invited presentations to his credit and is currently completing his book "The Dreaming Self": A Scientific Exploration, soon to be published by Brunner/Maze.