Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’


We see constant reminders of bringing back the dinosaurs. There is a misconception of what that actually means in real terms. If you reverse the evolution process, then you can only get the original version and not any version that you want. A chicken will not produce both a tyrannosaurs and a triceratops by example. Reverse engineering will only produce the dinosaur that evolved into the specific bird being used.

If a scientist decided to manipulate DNA to create a dinosaur from scratch it is unlikely to yield the accurate results that have happened naturally. This, in the extreme, is very unlikely to ever happen! Equally difficult, would be for a scientist to obtain actual DNA, unpolluted, from dinosaur remains and piece them together to create the unadulterated true version. Unless, of course, the dinosaur was an asexual reproducer. Otherwise, they would need to obtain two separate genomes and combine them into an egg stripped of its DNA content for recombination. What most of these scientific articles refer to when they say return of the dinosaurs, like this one [here] is that traits will be produced that resemble the dinosaurs in general.

We need to remind ourselves that birds have evolved into many species since the dinosaurs went extinct and there is no way of actually telling which specific dinosaur was the predecessor of birds in general. It should go without saying, that not every biped dinosaur must have evolved feathers and flight. More likely it was a specific group of dinosaurs and probably did not include the family of dinosaurs that already flew. This is what the evidence actually suggest. There are actual fossils of feathered dinosaurs found in China.

What do these scientists actually mean by dinosaurs? They mean that they can tweak out features that the predecessors of birds had in general terms. They can cause a dinosaur tail to grow on a chicken and alter the legs into dinosaur looking legs by changing the development of the embryo with DNA manipulation. These are the current hopes anyway. It will be considered a work of wonder, something to marvel at, and a starting point for greater things to come in DNA manipulation.

I have no doubt that someday, step by mighty step, man will be able to reproduce the original dinosaur from whence the chicken evolved. This will not create dinosaurs of every type and size that originally existed and roamed the earth.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

If multiple orgasms were strictly for pleasure, then every woman would have multiple orgasms. It has been greatly speculated that the female multiple orgasm phenomena have no basis in evolution by natural selection. It is claimed to bequeath no advantage to survival. Another problem is the lack of orgasms at all with many women. Neither of these are a serious problem for natural selection.

The easy problem first. If a woman does not have an orgasm, there is still a good chance that she will conceive. As long as the male has an orgasm and ejaculates into her. This should be a no brainer. It leaves a critical question though. Why would any woman ever need to have an orgasm, except for pleasure? So was sex selected for pleasure? I expect that answer to be partially yes, but not completely so. Depending on who you read, female Bonobo’s—smaller chimpanzees—have orgasms too. As an appeasement, often, two female Bonobo’s will stimulate each other into orgasm as a way to make peace. Depending on who you read, human females are the only species who actually have orgasms. I will not contend with why women have them, but it is a good thing!

The harder problem seems to be the question of why multiple orgasms arose in the first place. This has a clear and distinct answer. Males, as it is well known, are forced to stop copulation after having an orgasm, or ejaculating as it is called. Interestingly, I have read an article that implies that some men can also have multiple orgasms. As well, male orgasm and ejaculation, are supposedly, two different things. At any rate, these are rare! The vast majority of men must stop copulating and loose their erections.

What if a woman, after reaching orgasm, had to stop copulating as well? If the male did not ejaculate, then the chances of impregnating her would become very low, but not zero. Some sperm could still leak out. As with everything else in evolution? “May the odds be ever in your favor.” (The Hunger Games) Only men who could ejaculate would produce offspring. Only women who could continue until the male ejaculated would produce offspring. This would mean that selection for stamina in females would become much needed. What better way to produce stamina than to promote the ability to have multiple orgasms?

To balance this, any woman who reached an orgasm too soon and had to stop copulating would leave no descendants and not pass on her traits. She would be what is known as an evolutionary dead end. There might be some women alive today that do have to stop after they reach orgasm, but it is rarely reported in any articles. One thing is for certain, multiple orgasms are selectable for and do convey an advantage. The advantages are more than reproduction, they also include the release of hormones which aid in pair bonding and feeling good. Why would one not select for pleasure if at all possible?

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Last post I covered priming as a necessity in evolution and it holds for cognition as well. What if I told you that you can get that you get, that you get, that you get, that you get, and it really means nothing. The only thing that it means is that you got something. You are just adding meaningless levels of I got it. The main reason is in kind, it is the same in kind and we need different in kind or type, not same.

This is where priming comes in. In short, you need to be primed before you get anything. Priming comes from attention—neurological attention as mentioned last post, indirectly. You get something when your attention is primed or prompted for causation.

Try this and see if it improves anything. I get that I can get it. Once you get that you have the ability to get something a new door opens. “Can get” is different in kind. Everyone has heard someone say the following statements. If you can do that, you can do anything! If you can figure that out, you can figure anything out. Both of these attributes have a common denominator: ability, as depicted by the word can. “Getting” that you “can” is only one more “I get it” but a game changer. Humans, becoming specialized in getting it, would be in the perfect primed state to have one of the “I get it” moments become I get that I can.

Archimedes sat in his bath trying to solve a problem. As he sank deeper into the bath he “noticed” that the water level rose as he sank. The volume of irregular objects was thus solved and reportedly, he ran down the street naked screaming eureka! What was Archimedes trying to do? Solve a problem! It takes knowing that you can solve a problem before you waste time thinking about solving a problem. This is a result of I can get it, not I get it. While he was in the “can get” mode of thought he noticed that the water level rose as he sank and the famed “eureka” moment arrived.

When the brain is primed with “can get” then it becomes heightened for attention of details. Archimedes, primed with “can get” and again, primed with his “problem to be solve” was heightened for a solution. He was set up for—primed—a related trigger to the problem. The rise in water level became that trigger. His body displaced his irregular shape in the water. He could now measure the water displacement in a regular shaped container.

Here is the quote from my book promised last time:

“If everything I say is true, and it is true, then we must reexamine everything that we have for clues. The reason I say “we” is that I mean you. I have no real intention of doing so, so I should have written, “You must reexamine everything.” I plan to only reexamine one thing here, as I believe “I got it” is the most fruitful avenue. We humans quite possibly have learned proper so many things that our brains became specialized in getting it. That is, level one. Whether level two or level three thousand, they are all the same, as mentioned above. I get that I get that I get that I get that I get … It means nothing in reality. I suggest a different “species” of kind or a different “kind” of species of “I get it.” Let’s try on for size the notion of one of those “I got its” being “I got that I can get it” and see where that puts us.

After this thought, we can begin to see that nothing special must happen. It is simple in nature. It only requires time until this needed different species of “I get it” is hit upon and no other magic is required. It does not require finding any hidden traits or missed attributes of the brain, which stupid man cannot find or has not found yet, but look what it gives us in return. We can now call it questioning, as this is what it produces. Why does this happen this way?

Actually, for your information, as I was sitting here typing this, I was thinking about what the other ingredient might be. I typed in “why” and thought, No, because this would imply the species to be capable of questioning before consciousness arose. It might sound fearful to suppose that the first time a prototype human, not conscious, or only semiconscious, asked why, the full light came on and consciousness was born. I don’t believe it’s possible. However, a form of analyzing will avoid the questioning problem. I left this area of the book and thought about it. I get that I can get it was my epiphany, and it led me to believe this is the reason for “why,” or questioning in general. It also, which must be obvious to you by now, solves the biggest problem with my language origins. I get that I can alter, first calls and cries and then, shortly after, words. I have invented a huge word for this: wisdom. Well, I didn’t invent the word; I just called it a niche change to drive knowledge. Socrates is reported to have said, “Wisdom begins in wonder.”

You can purchase Tilogos: A Treatise on the Origins and Evolution of Language, here [Book]

Next weeks post will be on the selection for multiple orgasms!

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

 

My eureka moment was well primed! Prime or priming is a word used in cognitive science to define being set up for a conclusion. When used in subliminal messages—words flashes before you below the conscious threshold—one word will prime your conscious for a target word. The hidden word “bank” might prime you for the word “money,” let’s say, as the answer to a question imposed later on. Or the word “bank” might prime you to guess the word “money” faster when shown to you just above the conscious threshold. These events are timed to within thousandths of a second while in brain scanners. There is a distinct subconscious/conscious correlation.

You can be primed to feel fuller before lunch. You can be primed to feel more generous in what you’re giving. You can also be primed to believe things which are less than true. The priming does not need to be below the conscious threshold. There are many commercials that tap into this process and we consumers are usually totally unaware. As they say: sex sells. The reason is, is that sex primes our “feel good” emotions and positively enforces the product being sold. Remarkably, even women are not immune to another sexy woman selling a product. There are many diet programs I could cite here. They have pictures of “perfect” bodies on woman and claim their diet and exercise product to be the cause. Some of these women have the “perfect” body and are born with it. There is no way these women have “weight issues” to speak of. Because they look sexy, they tap into, or prime, sexuality in women everywhere. “I want to look that sexy!”

In order for priming to work, there must be some mechanism in our nature to allow for it. It must bestow an advantage for survival. Priming, then, must have been selected for. This needs to be established before I can continue onto cognitive selection.

We need to start early in the evolution of species, but not too early as would necessitate a long explanation. If any animal saw a movement too rapid to pinpoint, the animal becoming primed would survive better. If say, the specimen in question had its senses heightened for another rapid movement, it might catch sight of the movement more accurately next time. Also, the movement priming would relay an advantage. The specimen would be ready to flee quicker than an unprimed specimen of the same species. If it were a wildcat getting ready to prance on a rabbit, then the primed rabbit would stand a better chance of survival. As soon as the movement was made again the primed rabbit would flee slightly more quickly than an unprimed rabbit. I have seen videos of predators being startled by their prey and running off due to the priming affect.

I think that this example makes it clear that natural selection would have something to favor in selecting for priming. Something has to occur before it can be selected for. Keeping an act of nervation stable for long enough—primed to fire again—under the same stimuli would hasten the next firing of the same neuron for the rapid movement. In the meantime, the priming would activate attention to the possible need to flee, consciously, or unconsciously. So, priming is a trait that would occur naturally making it selectable.

We should, when looking for the explanation of consciousness, apply the same principles. First it must occur naturally before it can become selected for. Cognition of cognition, or “I get that I get it” needs to have an occurrence, but more, it needs to have a primer. I will cover these in more detail in part two of this post next week. I will also share the actual quote from my [ book. ] The quote deals with the rise of consciousness in man. I hope you find it interesting!

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Breast Size Selection

on May 16, 2016 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Ph.D. Cavemen? I was just reading a book on sexual selection and breast size was examined. The science is this. Only one third of the actual size of a breast is for milk production or the mammary glands giving the classification of mammals. This is an average sample of mammary size. The other two-thirds of breast size is made up of fat. These are facts.

One speculation was that the fat was selected for so that the fat energy could be converted into milk in times of famine. This theory was debunked by an ugly fact. The breast is the last body part to surrender its store of fat. A female would stop lactating long before the breast fat started to get used. She would also likely die herself first. Fair enough. This fat has no benefit for lactating.

Another theory was speculated on instead. What if larger breast were selected for because they held more milk. Debunked again: they don’t hold more milk. All milk is produced by the one-third portion. It is not stored in the fat. They went on to say that looking like the breast would hold more milk might make fatter breast become a selectable trait. This was refuted by science with the statement that males would not select size without content. They sited an experiment with container shapes and sizes verses volume.

Does this mean that cavemen were Ph.D.’s in physics? They would have looked at breast size, measured the volume of milk in different size breast, compared quantity within sizes, and concluded that larger size had the same production volume as smaller size breasts? I wonder which caveman got the Nobel Prize for this.

The next theory is that just because breast looked more attractive the larger they are, then beauty would win the day. This was refuted by todays standard breast sizes. Most women do not have overly voluptuous breast. The mammary size is just as large as in bigger breast; they just don’t contain as much fat. A long argument was made and nothing was settled in the definitive.

What about treating cavemen as cavemen. They had no way of knowing that larger—fattier— breast did not hold more milk. They were just cavemen after all. Perhaps selection for women with larger breast was a means to ensure that their offspring had more to drink. After all, having more and looking like you have more are two different things. If you thirst and had a choice to drink water from a large cup or a smaller cup, without the means of measuring for quantity, which one would you choose? If the two cups were not transparent and the small cup was full, but the second cup was only half full how could you know this without first drinking?

Selecting for a larger cup size would select for fat storage as an advantage for mating, whether it had any advantage or not. Just as long as it looked like an advantage, desire for that trait would occur.

Every theory must be testable and falsifiable. If actual milk production was a measure, then mammary size could and would have been selected for. Breast would be larger, but without the fat. This did not happen. Fat was selected for. Larger breast looking like they held more milk seems to be the answer that best fits the question.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Homonyms are words that are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. They can be either spelled the same as in tear—rip something apart, or tear—water droplets produced by the eye. This type can be accounted for by pronouncing the word differently regardless of spelling and is of little interest in the evolution of language. Writing has to do with the evolution of writing. Spelling two words the same with completely different meanings is acceptable when they are not pronounced the same.

They can be spelled the same, pronounced differently, and be derived from the same meaning or root word. Minute is one such word. It can be pronounced as (my nute) meaning small unit of space—read a small object or part of an object—or a subject as in: all of the minute details. Minute can also be pronounced as (min it) and refers to a small quantity of time—as apposed to year, month, week, day, hour, and then minute—small in comparison. Both mean small units, one of space and one of time. As far as the evolution of language is concerned, it is not hard to see any connection with spacetime on the larger scale. Pronounce minute one way for space and the other way for time, but keep the spelling the same. (The Brain Relativity thing!)

Then there is the case of more than one word sounding the same, but spelled differently. Two cases I will examine here: two, too, and to; there, their and they’re.

The number two caries more then one factual meaning. It can mean the second number in counting or be the name of the second number in counting 1 2 3… Another meaning can be derived as addition to. If you have one stick, then adding one stick to it makes both the name of the second number and the additional part of plus one. Perhaps a sentence would make this clear.

One stick, plus “two it” add one stick making two sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it three sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it four sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it five sticks. I know! This seems strange, but quite possibly true. Two taken as a second step in adding at every stage. Writing, being secondary to language, would demand it be spelled differently. Writing that sentence would become: Adding one stick “to” another stick produces arithmetic. It would also produce “I am going ‘to’ the store” as a means of adding yourself to a different location. You one, plus location two, in addition—terminology presented as being spelled to. To the this, or to the that, as adding place instead of objects being counted.

Too is the easier one to explain over to. Too can be used synonymously with: also, and, further, moreover, and other words meaning “in addition to.” Too many, then would be interpreted as “adding more than needed” and could be examined/treated as two many. Too few could be treated as two few, meaning the addition of more was not enough. I am going too would be treated as I am going two, making a second, third, or fourth addition the group “going” wherever they are going.

If you think this is the stupidest thing you have ever heard, then ask yourself this: would I have ever noticed that he was not using the proper spelling of the word two, too, or to if I were just hearing the words? Speaking, they would have all sounded the same, thus homonym, and my brain would have known the difference in how they were meant intuitively. I could “say” that I went two the store two get two candies and my brother came two. Your brain would hear it correctly! The grammar police would not be pleased of writing it that way. To sort these out intuitively they might just carry the same root meaning and work parallel to sense of the word or tense of the word. Think two, too, and to; run, ran, running, plus proper noun.

To clear up what is meant by intuitively, we need to examine tense and sense of the words. I will use the second example for this purpose: there, their and they’re. All three words are spacetime relative. “There” is a place in spacetime. They’re, or they are, taken two ways. Are, is a place in spacetime, or literally existence as a sense and tense. They, is a singling out of objects or subjects, also spacetime related. “They’ out of everyone else! Their, is also a singling out of spacetime identical to “there” in place, but of persona possession instead, indicating ownership of the spacetime.

Intuitively, you would understand that spacetime pinpointing was involved in this word group. Context would be taken into account automatically, and you would derive which tense or sense the speaking of the word pertained to. There, place in space or time. Their, direct persona (ownership) in/of place or time. They’re, persona (they) in tense of time (are) indicating present tense continuum. Since these words are all spacetime related they can all sound the same as context can determine sense and tense based on the innate holistic concept and intuition.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Global Warming

on April 22, 2016 in Uncategorized Comments Off

How real is global warming? There are a few different theories out there. Conspiracy theories dictate that it is just a big money grab and not reality. There is a lot to look at for a one-page post.

First the money grab. Keeping things at par, energy-wise, keeps the money going to the same pockets and creates a demand for more of the same carbon based products. Windmills, solar panels, and other “clean energy” alternatives can be made by any handyman and are not in enough demand—yet—to offset the loss of, say, oil money. If there is one thing for certain, money can never be underestimated. Yes, money is a factor. I am not convinced that taking money out of the picture would help solve the problem either. This only leaves speculation.

Second is the fact that the earth seems prone to ice ages every few thousand years anyway followed by general warm up. I am sure this is the case as the evidence bears it out. We do have swings in temperature over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years as intervals. This evidence it taken from several studies, ice cap layers, theories, and accumulated facts as well as from astronomy. Could we actually be due for a natural global warm-up period? One that would happen along the same time frame?

The third possibility is that man is, in fact, causing the global warming without any help from nature. We do emit many greenhouse gasses and we do damage the atmosphere unabashedly. Think holes in the ozone layers.

Where money is concerned, there can be no trust. Who do we believe?

In my opinion, the likely problem is both, a general warming trend and man. It would be an arrogant person, indeed, who would think that man has zero effect on this planet. My contention is that we are contributing to this global warming. With the world stuck on all-or-nothing thinking, have we overlooked our partial contributions? I think so and we should collectively own up to it. One cannot use fossil fuel at this rate and expect for nature to instantaneously deal with it.

My conclusion is that we still need to control our contributions in global warming. It might have happened anyway, but we are surely adding to the severity of it.

 

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

The news, of late, has stories of spending millions of dollars on the search for extra-terrestrial life. Are aliens even possible? One question was asked not too long ago and was answered with its own uniqueness. Maybe all of the aliens are dead! It was a good article and I am sorry that I did not save it for referral here. Let’s take another look at what the possibilities are.

Forming a viable planet to live on is hard. This was the basis of the “they are all dead” theory. With the universe being so huge, it is inconceivable that we are the only planet with intelligent life. We cannot be the only planet in the entire universe that formed a viable planet. Some objections are that our galaxy is somewhat smaller than the universe and maybe we are the only planet in this galaxy viable enough to sustain life. Contact outside of our galaxy takes too long for a reply to our beacons.

There are other possibilities though. Any planet in our universe might be in the same place, developmentally speaking, as their time lines might be closer to that of earths evolution. They could either, be advance to us, or not at the same advancement as we are. If they are less intelligent than we are, then we will make no contact. If they are more advance in intelligence, then they, with certainty, would not want to make contact. This later point deserves to be explored.

Why would any intelligent being want to come to a planet, or contact one, in which would surely end in a war with them? We can barely survive our own destruction. I can see it now. They come here and every religion instantly wants to “save” them from eternal damnation. As if a God did not exist on their own planet and who already saved them. What if they wanted to “save” us form eternal damnation? That is one “world” war I want to stay away from. A catholic bishop has already volunteered to baptize them in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, should they come here. If you believe the reports.

Our seeming inability to overcome deep prejudice of other peoples and religions are also a hindrance. How long before we become prejudice to those of other worlds?

They would be past the waste fossil fuel—rape the planet—stage, and surely look upon us as the savages we truly are, by comparison. If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that us visiting an inferior planet would only be for their resources, covered in the mask of helping to prosper them as a world and saving them. Just by our own greed we might be smitten of their affections.

Why would life evolve anywhere in this universe that was different at some level? Different planet, different intelligence? Not likely! The theory of natural selection does not equate to different possible intelligence paths. You either come to know nature or you do not! That is the definition of intelligence. If life arises it is sure to become of high intelligence, given enough time.

There might be life out there, but we might need to overcome this world before ever hoping to make contact. I believe the universe is replete with life. We just need to learn how to live on the planet we evolved on, becoming humane, then strive to make contact with other worlds!

Should we use our monies to irradiate greed and prejudice through better education on gender differences, religious differences, racial differences, and the like—of which there are no true differences and make earth “the” place to visit?             

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Last time I quickly reviewed a simple dream. This post I will review one simple sexual dream and one a little more complex. This will make the post longer than I normally make them. Sorry!

The first dream:

I was at work and I needed to go to the washroom. Similar to my last dream. Not similar, I was in a position to actually pee. I was in fact, standing at the urinal ready to go. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a woman appeared. She was very attractive and offered to have sexual relations with me. She was not shy either and her words gave me an instant erection. Ever try peeing with an erection. Not impossible, but difficult. I still needed to pee really bad and was asking her to wait until I was done, without much success. Again, suddenly, some of my coworkers came into the washroom and it angered me. I was upset that no one would leave me alone to pee in private, or at all for that matter. Then I awoke from my dream and rushed to the real washroom.

Like the dream in my prior post on dreams, your brain knows what is going on in your body. Needing to pee, bad, and actually peeing in the dream might lead to an accident in real life. I might have still woken, but I would have had to changed my bedding. An erection is not uncommon with all ages of men to ward off wetting the bed. It has been postulated that this is why most men awaken with an erection. Thus, my sexual encounter. This was not stopping me from going and it might have angered my complex brain enough to induce anger as an awakening agent. So it did the best thing it could: interrupted my peeing/sex by lack of privacy to do either. This dream and the last posted dream are similar in mechanics. They deal with what the brain knows about the brain and body. Before going to bed now, I tell myself, that if I need to pee while dreaming, wake up.

The second dream:

Remembering that this is a “family friendly” blog, I will not use the proper graphics. Many moons ago, I was dreaming that I was out for a night and that a beautiful woman was watching me. I walked over to her and she was quite aggressive in the sexual department. I took her home and to do the proverbial act, in which she told me to do whatever I wanted, so I did. I did not ejaculate in the dream (or real life) and woke before going too far. Not to graphic?

In real life, I was going through some hard times: working too much, marriage stress, home renovations, teenage children, and I was missing some form of intimacy. Too much work and not enough play. I have never been unfaithful! Why a strange woman? Possibly because there was no current way of connecting with, my then, wife. A stranger in another place in spacetime might have been needed to fulfil the necessities. Maybe, it was my unconscious brain telling my dreaming brain what I need to release my tensions. Not necessarily a different woman, but maybe, uncontrolled, lustful sex. The point is that these dreams don’t need to be explained as sexual fantasies, or wet dreams, although that is another possible answer. Your brain might be trying to tell you something important about your sexual needs, or intimacy needs as sex is often a substitute or indicator of your intimate needs. Sex releases tension, lowers depression, puts you in a good mood, keeps your heart healthy as well as your mind. What’s not to dream about?

Sexual dreams or wet dreams as adolescents might just be the brain learning to become sexual. A way of rehearsing sexual functions while the brain develops its sexually.

Even a simple dream of being in public completely naked could have some explanation about your waking brain state. It could be from trying to deal with guilt. Your brain, consciously or sub-consciously, could be revealing this to your dreaming brain. Being naked in public does not have to be sexual in nature. It presupposes that you are bare for every one to see—your sin is in the domain of the public and you cannot even hide it. The dream might not explain what the guilt is from or even give any clues.

I strongly suspect that most dreams are influenced by our current bodily condition, sub-conscious condition or even our conscious conditions. I wrote this post to give my wonderful readers some insight into normal dreaming mechanics. True, there are weird dreams that don’t fall into the realms of these, or any explanations. Most dreams I think, are telling you something hidden about your life. Reflect on them and pay attention!

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Humans are not the only species to dream. There is some evidence that your pets do too. Dogs are known to bark, under their breath, and have rapid eye movement: REM sleep. I won’t get into animal dreams though. There is reason to believe that several different types of dreams occur. Occasionally, we all have dreams of sex, falling—where we jump in our sleep, or ones akin to visions or premonitions. I will try to examine some of my dreams over the years and draw conclusions from them. I will start with an easily explainable one for this post.

I love to cook! Not any surprise that, one night while camping, I had a dream that I was cooking a huge supper for my family. I was making barbeque potatoes, corn on the cob, fresh tomatoes, and of course chicken. I had just set the chicken on the picnic table and turned around to open the barbeque. As I reached for the chicken it was no longer there. I looked around to see what happened to these fresh delectable chicken breast and could not find them anywhere. Gone! I asked everyone if they knew where the chicken breast disappeared to and no one knew.

By this point in time I began to become emotional. I was extremely upset leading to an anger with rage. I began knocking things on the ground looking for this chicken. Then my actions sped-up as I began swearing and yelling at everyone over this missing chicken. At one point, I felt so much anger and rage that I jumped. The jump woke me up just in time to stop myself from wetting the bed! Still angry, I jumped out of bed and ran to the camp park restrooms and almost did not make it.

Some types of dreams are really hard to explain. This dream, however, has an easy explanation. There are not really any hidden messages. I probably went to bed planning what to have for supper the next day. Your unconscious brain knows everything about your body, more or less. I might have been sub-consciously going over my supper plans and very much enjoying it. My brain knew that I was asleep as a state of body and motor activity. My brain knew that I desperately needed to go to the washroom. How does my unconscious, desperate, brain get my dreaming brain to wake up? Induce anger into this bliss. Needing to go, as bad as I did, during a happy moment of cooking, would require replacing this contentment with rage. The rage produced by my desperate condition.

You might think that there was an easier way for my needy brain to awaken my dreaming brain. Why not just supplement a suggestion that I needed to go to the washroom? I guess I left that part out. It did! While I was cooking, I had the feeling of needing relief. My dreaming brain told my dreaming brain that I would go to the washroom after I got the chicken started. This might make sense of the anger over the chicken.

The brain is extremely complex, even in the dream state!

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: