A powerful debate can be a great tool for persuading people to your point of view. In the case of “Dream Discussion” the issue is not persuasion or deterrence, but the instigation of the independent mind.
Allan Hobson is Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical and presents the dissenting argument that Freud’s theory of dreams is outdated and incorrect and therefore should be discarded. A rather reckless fellow, however he is extremely intelligent and represents his own replacement theory with great enthusiasm. Dr. Mark Solms of the University of Cape Town represents the opposite view endorsing Freud’s dream theory as still very relevant and worth saving. He proposes that since Freud’s theory cannot be even partially discredited, it cannot be abandoned and indeed should be embraced for the wide range of positive influences it has had on the field of dream theory.
Dr. Hobson’s research specialty is quantifying mental events and correlating them with quantified brain events, with special reference to wakefulness, sleep, and dreams. He believes that dreams are created when random energy signals reach the cerebral cortex during REM sleep. The cortex tries to make sense of the random input it receives, which causes dreams. Dr. Hobson clearly dismisses the idea that there are deep, non-physiological or hidden meanings to dreams. He calls such notions “the mystique of the fortune cookie dream interpretation.” For years he has tested his theories through laboratory tests on mice and human subjects. However, Hobson does not explain how the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, in which the dreamer is in control of the content, fits into his theories. (A question posed by an audience member involved lucid dreaming, discussion of which Hobson avoided.)
Mark Solms follows an ideology closely related to Freud’s. Psychoanalysis emerged 100 years ago as a treatment for neuroses. Neuroses were defined as “functional” disorders of the nervous system, in which no discernible abnormality could be found in the brain. The prevailing opinion was that the physical causes of neurotic disease would eventually give way to advances in scientific technology.
Freud, however, based psychoanalysis on the observation that neurotic symptoms violated the established laws of functional anatomy; neurotic symptoms just didn’t make sense physically. On the contrary, when one took the patient’s personal point of view seriously and reconstructed the emotional history of the illness, the symptoms did make sense. For example, although the abnormal sensation on one side of the face of a hysterical patient did not fit somatosensory neuroanatomy, it did make sense subjectively: the symptoms first appeared when the patient was slapped in the face under humiliating circumstances, for Reasons you don’t even recognize. She felt intense guilt and shame. In summary, Freud observed that the essential nature of neurotic symptoms had to be described in subjective terms, using concepts like remembering and feeling instead of objective ones.
The DVD content is highly articulate, concise and quickly pleases the fascinated listener. The rebuttals are loaded with conviction and determination, and both speakers are very forceful in carefully explaining their positions. The quality of both audio and video is excellent for a DVD of this type, and the inclusion of additional features makes this DVD an even better purchase. What cannot be valued is what can be learned by listening to this excellent debate, which shows us the incessant need to pursue the unknown of the subconscious and the brain.
