Thank you for your response. I'm understanding it a little more with each reading. But I'm not understanding this:.
Just as its your unconscious mind which produces that which you are conscious of during waking states.
I am conscious of the temperature, various sounds, my hunger, things that I see, itches and pains, symptoms of illness... How is my unconsciousness mind producing all of that? I would have thought it's role is in different areas. — Patterner

To take visual perception as one relatively well studied example, the retina of the eye is technically a portion of one’s brain. Most retinal Information crisscrosses from the eyes into the occipital lobes, and from there into other lobes of the brain.At the very least, retinal brain processes and occipital lobe brain processes occur before conscious sight takes place of that which the eye takes in.

I take it that the brain itself, be it the retina, or the occipital lobes, or other regions, is not an inanimate object that causes mind as its effect - such that first there is inanimate brain, or portion of it, as efficient cause and then at a subsequent period of time there is a corresponding state of mind as effect. Instead, I take it that the mind is the top portion of a largely bottom-up non-causal process, one which could be termed supervenience. Save for the mind’s top-down non-causal process which I then associate with what is commonly considered free will (e.g. repeating the conscious decision to cease smoking can alter one's physical brain into one that eventually no longer craves nicotine).

In so understanding, there is then nothing that I visually see of the external world which is possible in the absence of unconscious mind processes. In terms of my visual perception, these basically being those aspects of mind which emerge via superveneience on physical brain processes regarding visual sight, specifically brain process that occur prior to the moment of me consciously seeing X: these, again, being retinal brain processes, occipital brain processes, etc.

Of course, the brain isn't just one specialized mode of perception. It does many things simultaneously. Most of which is done unconsciously, i.e. without conscious awareness. And, in my view, many of these unconscious processes of mind end up converging into one's conscious mind, aka consciousness.

BTW, if its of interest, the lapse between retinal input and conscious sight is measured in milliseconds. Here is one article addressing certain aspects of the general concept as regards both conscious and unconscious vision.

I’m glad that the general view I presented makes some sense to you. The part you quoted, written in haste, is in truth a generalized hypothesis I make given my best understanding and interpretations of the current data. When I wrote it I forgot that some might find it a controversial notion.

In terms of the OP, I think this is one of the few answerable questions regarding sleep and dreaming.

Our brains have different brainwave states, these correspond with levels of alertness. Dreaming takes place in theta or delta brainwave states, which are the lowest alertness. You can experience theta state while awake, and it's a drowsy "brain fog" feeling, although it is also associated with creativity.

So you're not quite as alert in a dream, although people do still sometimes realize that they are dreaming and enjoy lucid dreams. Personally, I don't only have lucid dreams but also in-between states, like finding everything happening quite odd, but never quite working out that I am dreaming.

Thanks for your input Mijin. "Brainwave states" provides a different perspective. Maybe there is some real science here, instead of the stuff that Christoffer is offering. I assume the higher brainwave states, gamma, beta, represent higher mental activity, and the lower states theta, delta, represent lower activity.

Can we correlate more active brainwaves, higher frequency, with more focused brain activity, therefore stable, rational, thought, and also correlate lower frequency with less focused brain activity, unstable, irrational, fluctuating, like dreams. If so, how do you think it is possible that higher frequency brain activity (rapid change), corresponds with focused, stable thinking?

and

It is very interesting the topic of brainwaves. I look forward to reading what you both write about it.

I like the point of @Mijin that the "theta state" is also related to our creativity. I think the following image is pretty illustrative:

If the retina is part of the brain, then are the sensory nerves in the toes? I don't know what your definition of brain is.

If the sensory nerves in the toes are part of the brain, then are the signals generated by the toes when something brushes against them an event of the unconscious mind, just as signals generated by the retina when struck by photons are?

This explains it more succinctly that I could in my own words:

In vertebrate embryonic development, the retina and the optic nerve originate as outgrowths of the developing brain, specifically the embryonic diencephalon; thus, the retina is considered part of the central nervous system (CNS) and is actually brain tissue.[2][3] It is the only part of the CNS that can be visualized noninvasively. [my input: and that occurs outside the cranium] Like most of the brain, the retina is isolated from the vascular system by the blood–brain barrier. The retina is the part of the body with the greatest continuous energy demand.[4] — the last paragraph in the wikipedia introduction on the retina

Whereas the retina is a part of the central nervous system (CNS), more specifically the brain and not the spinal cord, dendritic outreaches into one's toes, for example, are part of the nervous system at large, but not of the CNS proper - which strictly consists of brain and spinal cord in at least vertebrates.

are the signals generated by the toes when something brushes against them an event of the unconscious mind, just as signals generated by the retina when struck by photons are? — Patterner

Nearly forgot:

Once the signals from the dendrites reach the CNS, I uphold that they then, and only then, become the first constituent aspects of one's unconscious mind. This, naturally, together with all other most basic, constituent portions of one's unconscious mind (other sensory inputs, sense of balance, etc.) which, I'd again uphold, converge into greater levels of agency and awareness till some such portions become our lived consciousness. All this very succinctly expressed.

EDIT: As an example, as far as feeling something brush against one's toe(s), dendrites in one's toes are always active; but one is not always consciously aware of what one's toes feel in tactile manners (it seems that never is one consciously aware of what all portions of one's skin feels in tactile manners at any given time: from the toes to the scalp) . That one becomes conscious of something brushing up against one's toes is then inferred by me to be determined by one's unconscious mind.

This article https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-reveals-universal-pattern-brain-wave-frequencies-0118 describes how scientists have determined distinct layers in the brain, with different frequency brain waves associated with the distinct layers.

High frequency oscillations occur in the upper layers, and this is where new data is received and processes. The information is maintained in the lower layers through low frequency activity. A balance is required between the high frequency and low frequency, with the middle layers acting to accomplish this. The balance is required so that one does not overpower the other, causing "neuropsychiatric disorders". It is suggested that ADHT is when higher frequencies dominate, and schizophrenia is when lower frequencies are too strong.

A balance between top-down and bottom-up activity is required for everything which we do, but you can see how it is necessary for the balance to tip one way or the other, depending on what a person is doing.

The high-level implication is that the cortex has multiple mechanisms involving both anatomy and oscillations to separate ‘external’ from ‘internal’ information.

It is suggested that ADHT is when higher frequencies dominate, and schizophrenia is when lower frequencies are too strong. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wow! It is very interesting. Isn't it? Thanks for the link to the article. It amazes me that those frequencies can actually be drawn on a paper so we can figure out what they look like. Science is helping us to understand things again. Now, it is time for a cookie!

That's rather fascinating information about the embryonic development of the retina!

I'm afraid, though, it throws my understanding of things into chaos. Lol. I thought the first step in the evolution of the eye was supposedly molecules that changed shape depending on the amount of light they were exposed to. Then these molecules, or groups of such molecules, became connected with parts of the entity that moved. Thus, it moved in different ways, depending on the light.

Then, the nature of the connecting structure between the eyespot and moving element changed, becoming a neuron, and eventually a brain.

If that's accurate, then the light-sensitive part did not originate as part of the connecting structure. So, at some point, the connecting structure started producing the light-sensitive material, and the old method of production ceased.

But that's another topic. :grin: I'm thinking that, even if sensory nerves of any other type, in any other part of the body, are not officially part of the brain, they serve the same function as the retina. That is, they send signals to the brain that contain information about things outside the body. And the signals they send to the brain play the same role as the signals the retina sends to the brain.

As far as the details of this go, it depends on how one goes about conceptualizing what “an eye” is.
Light detection is found in prokaryotes (like bacteria), single-celled eukaryotic organisms (such as ameba), and, of course, in plants. It would be odd in many a way to then claim that any of these then have eyes; e.g. that plants see light via their eyesight. On the other hand, animals such as flatworms are stated to have eyespots on their heads, this rather than eyes.

If an eye is taken to in any way consist of a lens and thereby be camara-like, common consensus is that eyes have evolved analogously, and not homologously, numerous times via convergent evolution. In other words, that not all (lens-endowed) eyes in nature have evolved from a single common ancestor.

As one example, although its difficult toward impossible to conclusively establish strictly via fossils and DNA, common consensus has it that cephalopods (like octopi and squid) and vertebrates have evolved their eyes independently via convergent evolution. A reference for this.

The human retina of itself has five different types of neurons. (Reference.) So the retina is not strictly composed of dendrites that extend from out of neuron bodies that are themselves located within the CNS, which again is the brain + spinal cord (in contrast to the fingers or toes, for example, which do only contain dendrites (and axons) in the absence of any neuron bodies). Instead, the retina is a part of the neuron-constituted CNS itself, not only due to development, but also due to of itself being constituted of neuron bodies. So the retina is a portion of brain that sends information to other portions of brain. This, in some limited ways, in parallel to the way the occipital lobe sends visual information to the temporal lobe and the parietal lobe.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it. — javra

If the activity of the eye is part of the unconscious, why, in your opinion, do we need to close our eyes when we sleep?

I have to read more about the eye/brain connection. Amazing stuff!

The

As one example, although its difficult toward impossible to conclusively establish strictly via fossils and DNA, common consensus has it that cephalopods (like octopi and squid) and vertebrates have evolved their eyes independently via convergent evolution. A reference for this. — javra

Yes, I think this was mentioned in Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it. — javra

No, I'm just curious.

However, I don't understand your use of "unconscious". I'm sure partly due to my ignorance of the topic. But also possibly because different people mean things in different ways. I'm wondering which, if any, of these you mean. And I'm seriously winging all this.

1) Any brain activity. Which could include those that control heartbeat, temperature, etc.

2) Brain activity like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as pain, fatigue, and I don't know what else, since we react to such things, but which are not, themselves, behavior.

3) Brain activity that is reacting to things like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as words, memories, and anything else, but which we are not consciously aware of. Which I mighty guess could include such things as Freudian Slips, posthypnotic suggestions, and conditioning. Also the vaguely-defined intuition.

If the activity of the eye is part of the unconscious, why, in your opinion, do we need to close our eyes when we sleep? — Metaphysician Undercover

Barring exceptions such as those of sleep paralysis and sleepwalking wherein the individual can be asleep in part or in whole with eyes wide open, such that they actively take in visual information of the external world, I’m at a loss as to the significance of the question.

Usually, when our eyes are not closed, we persist in being consciously alert to the outside world and so do not fall into sleep, wherein our conscious awareness of the outside world momentarily ceases. Hence, we will willfully close our eyes when we intend to fall asleep to assist in so doing. This doesn’t always work thought, with insomnia as a common enough example.

Or maybe you're thinking that retinal input is necessarily and instantly consciousness? To keep things simple, it generally needs to travel through the occipital lobe and then into other lobes in order to become conscious. And, so, the activities of brain which occur in the retina alone are in no way consciously experiences and are therefore aspects of the unconscious mind. Somewhat more complexly, blindsight directly speaks to how some visual information originating in the retina is, or at least can be fully unconscious. Related to this, from what I remember being taught, is that we will sometimes reflexively turn our gaze to something moving in our extreme periphery of vision prior to being consciously aware of it.

Maybe my answer to Patterner will help out.

However, I don't understand your use of "unconscious". I'm sure partly due to my ignorance of the topic. But also possibly because different people mean things in different ways. I'm wondering which, if any, of these you mean. And I'm seriously winging all this. [...] — Patterner

Fair enough. I’ll try to better explain.

To first reiterate, I take CNS processes to be that via which mind is in vertebrates. To use Aristotelian terminology, this via material causation and not via efficient causation. And, thus, that the immaterial mind supervenes upon material CNS processes. And, for a fuller disclosure, I then likewise take mind to be capable of changing material CNS processes (such as by eventually changing via neural plasticity the strength or else very occurrence of certain synapses) via formal causation or one type or another, but, again, not via efficient causation.

So the immaterial mind is what the material CNS does – this in the strict sense just outlined. And this in those lifeforms endowed with a CNS. But, again for fuller disclosure, myself subscribing to the idea of all lifeforms having some form of mind, this as per views such as those found in Mind in Life, I don’t take mind to be necessarily dependent on the occurrence of a CNS – such that, for example, an ameba or a bacterium will have its own lifeform-specific mind, which is materially caused by the organizations and behaviors of the organic molecules which constitute the physical cell. A bacterium then has a vastly, almost unimaginably simpler mind than any lifeform endowed with a CNS. But back to the issues of the human mind:

Thus understood, the immaterial mind can then be generally divided into two parts: a) the conscious mind, i.e. that which is consciously aware of anything, and b) the unconscious mind, i.e. all those aspects of mind in total as previously addressed of which the conscious mind is not in any way aware of.

This basic rudimentary dichotomy can become quickly complicated in any number of ways: e.g. a visually recalled memory is consciousness’s (the conscious mind’s) conscious awareness of that which the unconscious mind presents to it (here stated rather laconically).

In a bacterium, there will quite likely be no such dichotomy between conscious and unconscious mind whatsoever.

But in a highly complex mind such as that of a human’s, this dichotomy will always hold. Such that the conscious mind can never fully equate to the total mind that supervenes upon the CNS. As you’ve somewhat pointed out, we are unconscious of the active, CNS-dependent volition via which our heart beats, etc. Likewise are we unconscious of the active, CNS-dependent volition via which that which we consciously will to say ends up being oppressed and nullified via a statement we did not consciously intend, thereby resulting in a slip of the tongue.

We have no way of mapping the unconscious mind vs. the conscious mind onto the CNS because we have no way of mapping consciousness onto the CNS to begin with; see for the example the binding problem of consciousness.

Because of this, I can not cogently answer what the unconscious is by mapping it onto certain portions of the CNS at expense of others. Nor can I cogently uphold that the unconscious equates to CNS activity at large - for consciousness too is to be found in at least certain aspects of this same CNS activity at large. So I cannot then equate the unconscious mind in humans to any of the three possibilities provided.

Rather, again, I take consciousness to be a convergence of certain unconscious agencies and loci of awareness into an ever-changing non-manifold unity. Thereby, again, making the conscious mind dependent on the workings of the unconscious mind, this in any organism complex enough to hold any form of dichotomy between the two.

To use a common enough metaphor, consciousness is like the visible tip of a glacier whose remaining mass is submerged beneath water, the latter being the unconscious mind. The two are not divided masses, they are not separate, but are rather intertwined as parts of the same mass. This total mass then being equated to the immaterial mind in whole.

Barring exceptions such as those of sleep paralysis and sleepwalking wherein the individual can be asleep in part or in whole with eyes wide open, such that they actively take in visual information of the external world, I’m at a loss as to the significance of the question. — javra

The question is, if visual sensing is really part of the unconscious mind, rather than the conscious, why do we need to close our eyes to go to sleep? You would think that visual sensing could continue along, just fine, when the person is a sleep, if it is a feature of the subconscious mind.

Hence, we will willfully close our eyes when we intend to fall asleep to assist in so doing. — javra

Yes, I agree that when we intend to fall asleep we close our eyes, to aid this. However, I think that this is because we know that having eyes closed is necessary for sleeping. So for example, when a person does not intend to fall asleep, yet starts falling asleep, one cannot keep one's eye's open. It appears like the eyes are forced to close by some unconscious process. Or, does keeping the eyes open, in general, anytime, require conscious effort?

You would think that visual sensing could continue along, just fine, when the person is a sleep, if it is a feature of the subconscious mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

The significance of this again eludes me. And again, this readily happens when people sleepwalk. So it can and does, in fact, happen: Sleepwalkers can visually see the external world while fully asleep and thus not consciously aware.

Why then don't we all sleepwalk all the time when asleep? One relatively short answer is that natural selection tends to rule this out due to the perils of so doing all the time.

Or, does keeping the eyes open, in general, anytime, require conscious effort? — Metaphysician Undercover

Keeping one's eyes open is, generally speaking, fully voluntary - meaning that it is subject to our conscious volition. This unlike, for example, keeping our heart beating, or pangs of hunger/thirst, or the experience of physical pain, etc. To that extent, yes, of course.

Edit: I should add that, generally speaking aside, there are of course exceptions when keeping the eyes open occurs unconsciously: see for example sleepwalking with eyes open.

Keeping one's eyes open is, generally speaking, fully voluntary - meaning that it is subject to our conscious volition. — javra

This is the point then. If keeping one's eyes open is "generally" a matter of conscious volition, why would we conclude that the sense perception of seeing is unconscious? It would seem like "seeing" is something controlled by the voluntary act of keeping one's eyes open.

Do you think that it would be the case that the neurological system is "seeing" all the time, unconsciously, regardless of whether the eyes are open or not? And, the volitionary act of keeping one's eyes open is a sort of conscious control over this activity? This might provide an explanation of dreaming as the unconscious continuing in its activity of seeing, after conscious volition has shut down, and the eyes are closed. Where do you think that the images which are "seen" in the act of dreaming derive from? Do they come from the eyes?

This is the point then. If keeping one's eyes open is "generally" a matter of conscious volition, why would we conclude that the sense perception of seeing is unconscious? It would seem like "seeing" is something controlled by the voluntary act of keeping one's eyes open. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah. I can now understand what you meant. But this is a misattribution of what I claimed. My claim, again, was that consciousness (in at least humans) is dependent on processes of the unconscious mind.

So in terms of seeing things, my position is as follows: our consciously seeing via the use of our eyes whose eyelids are under our conscious control will all be in some ways dependent on processes of mind of which we are not conscious of, thereby being dependent on the workings of our unconscious mind. If these processes of the unconscious mind did not occur, we would then not be able to consciously see - with blindsight as one example of this. But because they do occur, we do in fact consciously see things.

Do you think that it would be the case that the neurological system is "seeing" all the time, unconsciously, regardless of whether the eyes are open or not? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think this is the case, not when one regards seeing as necessarily consisting of input from the retina. I think the way we see things in dreams is often a more vivid form of the way we see things when daydreaming or imagining. Only that when dreaming the unconscious mind assumes far greater agential control over what is in thus manner seen.

This might provide an explanation of dreaming as the unconscious continuing in its activity of seeing, after conscious volition has shut down, and the eyes are closed. — Metaphysician Undercover

It gets tricky here, in part due to often numerous ways in which terms can get understood. But, in principle, though we are not of a waking state consciousness while dreaming, we as a first-person point of view (as consciousness in this sense) are yet present in our dreams. Not only that but, as a somnio-consciousness (a term which I coined that I think nicely enough expresses our dreaming consciousness), we almost always yet have some degree of agential power (i.e., ability to accomplish) - hence, some degree of voluntary, rather than involuntary, volition. With one possible extreme of this degree of dreaming volition being that of lucidly dreaming.

Where do you think that the images which are "seen" in the act of dreaming derive from? Do they come from the eyes? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, though I haven't looked into it, I don't think they in any way derive from the eyes, the retinas to be more specific. But that they instead likely at least in part derive from those aspects of the sensory cortex which are active when we are willfully imagining or daydreaming things.

I don't think this is the case, not when one regards seeing as necessarily consisting of input from the retina. I think the way we see things in dreams is often a more vivid form of the way we see things when daydreaming or imagining. Only that when dreaming the unconscious mind assumes far greater agential control over what is in thus manner seen. — javra

You don't think that there is input from the retina in dreams? What do you think the so-called rapid eye movement is all about?

It gets tricky here, in part due to often numerous ways in which terms can get understood. But, in principle, though we are not of a waking state consciousness while dreaming, we as a first-person point of view (as consciousness in this sense) are yet present in our dreams. Not only that but, as a somnio-consciousness (a term which I coined that I think nicely enough expresses our dreaming consciousness), we almost always yet have some degree of agential power (i.e., ability to accomplish) - hence, some degree of voluntary, rather than involuntary, volition. With one possible extreme of this degree of dreaming volition being that of lucidly dreaming. — javra

I don't think I agree with assigning agential power to the somnio-consciousness. I agree that there is such in the case of lucid dreaming, but this is done through an intentional act which I believe degrades the dreaming. In other words I look at lucid dreaming as an act of intentionally converting one's dreams into something which isn't really a dream.

When I dream I find that the experience is one of having something happen to me which I am powerless to control. This is why, when it is a nightmare, the overwhelming anxiety of not being able to do anything about it, forces me to wake up. So in my dreams, I am doing things, but I am not at all in control over what I am doing. I am really not deciding where to go, or what to do, in my dreams, or anything like that, I am just finding myself in situations which draw me into them like a curiosity or something like that.

You don't think that there is input from the retina in dreams? What do you think the so-called rapid eye movement is all about? — Metaphysician Undercover

Here is something that is less than opinion;

These eye movements follow the ponto-geniculo-occipital waves originating in the brain stem.[17][18] The eye movements themselves may relate to the sense of vision experienced in the dream,[32] but a direct relationship remains to be clearly established. Congenitally blind people, who do not typically have visual imagery in their dreams, still move their eyes in REM sleep.[16] An alternative explanation suggests that the functional purpose of REM sleep is for procedural memory processing, and the rapid eye movement is only a side effect of the brain processing the eye-related procedural memory.[33][34] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement_sleep#Eye_movements

Emphasis mine.

Also something less than opinion: When one sees a house in a dream, one does not see the house due to photons being picked up by the retina and thereby due to retinal input.

As far as opinions go, I personally tentatively uphold the explanation given in the last sentence mentioned in the quote above. I have no way to prove this opinion, but I find it likely in part on grounds that people who do not sleep for long periods of time don't only become extremely exhausted but also tend to have psychotic breaks, i.e. go insane, which seems plausible if procedural memory is not properly processed. I also don't personally know of a more plausible evolutionary explanation for why REM dreaming evolved to begin with given that mammals at large as well as birds exhibit REM sleep.

My last few days have been crazy busy. i've only read your latest response to me once, which isn't enough for me to have absorbed much. hopefully soon!

As for the conversation the two of you are having, why not substitute hearing or smelling for vision?

How is it possible for me to believe, when I am asleep, that something is real, which is completely distinct from, and inconsistent with, what I believe is real when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

Beliefs can be groundless, irrational, misleading and blind.

Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

My last few days have been crazy busy. i've only read your latest response to me once, which isn't enough for me to have absorbed much. hopefully soon! — Patterner

No worries. Please take your time.

As for the conversation the two of you are having, why not substitute hearing or smelling for vision? — Patterner

Ah. On one hand, MU was focusing in on the visual aspects of dreams, to which I replied as best I could. On the other hand, hearing and smelling (as well as touching and maybe even tasting) get far, far more complicated. :grin: We all experience our dreams uniquely in many a way, but I've certainly heard of cases wherein the dreams of a sleeping person were affected by that which surrounded them in the external world, including sounds and smells, even though they were not at the time in any way conscious of what was taking place in the external world. Then, also, there's the alarm clock, which at first unconsciously wakes you up into consciousness from sleep and the dreams therein had. (A good shove can also due :grin: )

------

I don't think I agree with assigning agential power to the somnio-consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Didn't have as much time and neglected this part in my last post. I have no qualms about what you say, especially in regard to your own experiences of dreams.

That said, we do all experience dreams differently. It is not utterly uncommon for some humans to have dreams in which they fly through air at will. I too have had such dreams growing up. I remember them being rather serene and euphoric for the most part. And I distinctly remember being therein endowed with a supra-human capacity of will, hence volition, to travel through the air as I wanted simply by so willing it. In dreams such as these, there is certainly found a free will (or at least a sense of free will for the free will deniers) in which one chooses as one pleases between alternatives. In this case, alternative paths of motion and different destinations.

On the other hand I too have had my fair share of nightmares. In some of these, the main terror was in an inability to do what I wanted (often to run) when surrounded by extreme dangers. And, hence, via such dreams, I can relate to the experience of not having somnio-conscious volition in dreams. But, maybe, it might be the very same, felt terrifying experience of not having that ability to do what one wants which directly points to a lack of what one during the very same dream in some way had expected to be there: one's functional somnio-conscious volition.

With that said, I again have no problem in the view which you yourself currently uphold. But due to my own experiences of dreams, I will choose to yet uphold that which I previously presented: namely, that (at least at times and in some people) some degree of volition will be present to the somnio-conscious dreamer.

What I was thinking is that we can go to sleep without shutting out sounds as thoroughly as we shut out sights. Sine people have white noise machines. Some people seem to require absolute silence. But, as a species, we can fall asleep in a room with many conversations taking place, and music playing. Why does that sensory input not as bother our sleeping as much as visual input?

I’m only taking by best shots in the dark with this. So, some thoughts. As a species we are highly visual animals. Just looked this up for accuracy's sake and found this:

More than 50% of the sensory receptors in the human body are located in the eyes, and a significant portion of the cerebral cortex is devoted to interpreting visual information. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29494035/

This is not the case for many a different eye-endowed animal species.

But then all other mammals and birds (that I know of) close their eyes to sleep - and also to undergo REM sleep (which I infer to indicate dreaming) - so this might not be as important a it might at first seem.

Then there's the reality that opened eyes can get permanently injured when having the cornea scratched. So the eyes ought to be protected (in humans and other species by eyelids) when asleep. Closing one's eyes voluntarily might then be a preparation for going to sleep, and could well serve as a indicator or sign that one is wanting to so do to certain aspects of the unconscious mind. (I infer both mammals and birds to have a both conscious and unconscious mind due what i so far know of the structure and functioning of their CNS; an educated guess basically).

The other external sensory receptors and mechanisms (we do also have internal sensory receptors; e.g. this for proprioception, hunger, etc.) all tend to not risk getting harmed when asleep.

And, again, I'll maintain that the very process of falling asleep is regulated and brought about by the unconscious aspects of our mind. With insomnia as an example of when we consciously will to fall asleep but, because our unconscious mind is unwilling, are unable to. So in normal circumstances, if we are tired (something that our unconscious mind in part informs us of, imo; thereby informing us that it, or we as a total self, are in need of recharging our batteries, so to speak) and if we voluntarily want to fall asleep in a room with many conversations or with music playing, we'll often be able to do so just fine.

Anecdotally, I know of people that benefit in their ease of falling asleep by having the TV on.

More than 50% of the sensory receptors in the human body are located in the eyes, and a significant portion of the cerebral cortex is devoted to interpreting visual information. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29494035/

That's an amazing statistic!

And, again, I'll maintain that the very process of falling asleep is regulated and brought about by the unconscious aspects of our mind. — javra

Indeed. It's not our conscious mind that makes us sleep. Our conscious mind often fights it in any way it can. Eventually failing.

Anecdotally, I know of people that benefit in their ease of falling asleep by having the TV on. — javra

Yes. Some need silence, and others need noise. I would guess the tv acts as white noise. Just background droning. I would guess, that's all it is, those people would not be able to sleep if the show varied greatly and sounds. Conversations of several minutes followed by bazooka and machine gun fire might not work for them. i've never tested what noises I could fall asleep too. I can read a book in a room with people talking, or on the couch next to the television. but that's not the same as trying to sleep.

Also something less than opinion: When one sees a house in a dream, one does not see the house due to photons being picked up by the retina and thereby due to retinal input. — javra

So this would constitute a big difference between "seeing" in your sleep, and "seeing" when you are awake. How do you think that the house is caused to appear to the person in a dream, without the photons being picked up by the retina?

Suppose that this creation of "the house" in a dream, is an aspect of "procedural memory". How is this any sort of real memory, when the brain seems to be just creating random things rather than consciously remembering things? Rather than a type of memory, which is what the conscious awake mind is doing all the time, remembering things, dreaming seems to be a completely different sort of activity, where the brain is just exploring all sorts of weird things, maybe like a trial and error activity.

I have no way to prove this opinion, but I find it likely in part on grounds that people who do not sleep for long periods of time don't only become extremely exhausted but also tend to have psychotic breaks, i.e. go insane, which seems plausible if procedural memory is not properly processed. I also don't personally know of a more plausible evolutionary explanation for why REM dreaming evolved to begin with given that mammals at large as well as birds exhibit REM sleep. — javra

So if dreaming is allowing the brain freedom to go off on exploratory adventures, without be pent up by the rational inclination of the conscious mind to process sense information in relation to memories, as is what the conscious mind does, then maybe it is the case that we need this sort of release in order to prevent ourselves from going insane. It could be sort of like too much work causes severe stress and anxiety, so we need a vacation to let the brain relax and do its own thing to maintain mental health. If this is the case, then the question is, what exactly is this, what is called "its own thing", when the brain is free from the constraints of the conscious mind forcing it to be what it believes constitutes "rationality".

We all experience our dreams uniquely in many a way, but I've certainly heard of cases wherein the dreams of a sleeping person were affected by that which surrounded them in the external world, including sounds and smells, even though they were not at the time in any way conscious of what was taking place in the external world. Then, also, there's the alarm clock, which at first unconsciously wakes you up into consciousness from sleep and the dreams therein had. (A good shove can also due — javra

I agree. In my experience, the senses other than sight are more likely to cross the boundary of being asleep, and the input can enter into the dream, and have great influence over the dream. Since a dream is only truly remembered when I awaken, it appears from my memory of the dream, that the sound, smell, or even taste which enters into the dream actually causes me to awaken, because I come to notice the sensation when I do awaken. However, it may be the case that these senses commonly influence my dreams without me even knowing it, because I do not awaken to notice it.

These instances, when sensations influence the dream, would be cases of the brain receiving, and dealing with sense information, in a way which is totally inconsistent with the awake (what I called "rational" way). This implies that the brain actually has different ways of processing sense input. The conscious way is to channel the energy through some recognition process, but the sleeping way is to channel the energy off somewhere else, to be absorbed into the brain with minimum affect on its working activity. This is sort of like the difference between paying attention to something, and not paying attention. I think that since so much energy is entering the brain through the eyes, the best way to maximize "not paying attention" is to have eyelids. Eyelids seem to be a feature quite low on the evolutionary scale, and whether their primary function is to keep things like dust out of the eyes, or to maximize "not paying attention", I think is debatable.

That said, we do all experience dreams differently. It is not utterly uncommon for some humans to have dreams in which they fly through air at will. I too have had such dreams growing up. I remember them being rather serene and euphoric for the most part. And I distinctly remember being therein endowed with a supra-human capacity of will, hence volition, to travel through the air as I wanted simply by so willing it. In dreams such as these, there is certainly found a free will (or at least a sense of free will for the free will deniers) in which one chooses as one pleases between alternatives. In this case, alternative paths of motion and different destinations. — javra

OK, I see the point. There definitely is something within the dream which constitutes the self, "I", and the self is clearly doing things, therefore agential. But the self is doing things which appear to be irrational, and the things which are happening to the self are equally impossible to make sense of.

We can ask, then, what is creating these imaginary scenarios. It is a sort of "self", which knows little if any bounds of rational thought. Above, I distinguished between conscious, rational thinking, as the activity of the mind, and I was careful to describe the dreaming as the activity of the brain. This was done with the intention of separating the conscious "mind" from the unconscious activity of the brain in sleep. The brain in sleep would be a brain free from the influence of "the self" which is a product of the conscious mind. However, I now see that the self cannot be excluded from the brain activity in that way. I think, that even if we tried to totally exclude the trained habits of conscious rational thinking, from the brain, and allow the brain freedom to do what it wants (notice I can't even exclude the agential self in speaking because something has to guide that activity), it still produces a mental "self", and does not seem to be able to avoid this, even if allowed to act in the most random way.

Indeed. It's not our conscious mind that makes us sleep. Our conscious mind often fights it in any way it can. Eventually failing. — Patterner

Perhaps it is as I describe above, the brain gets tired from having to adhere to the restrictions of the conscious mind forcing it to be "rational". The brain needs periodic "vacations", to do its own thing, in order to maintain the mental health of the individual.

Perhaps it is as I describe above, the brain gets tired from having to adhere to the restrictions of the conscious mind forcing it to be "rational". The brain needs periodic "vacations", to do its own thing, in order to maintain the mental health of the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

Could be. It's all such a crazy, fascinating topic.

Yes, I find this question of how the brain operates, relative to the conscious understanding of self, and how the sense of "I" as an agent, is related to this relation, to be very interesting.