Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Of Sleep
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 72 (636666)
10-09-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-08-2011 5:41 PM


Here's some of my musings about sleep:
When it gets dark (for diurnal animals) it is very dangerous to be stumbling around in the darkness. Sleep could be really good way to immobilise the organism and conserve as much energy as possible.
We we sleep we experience sleep paralysis. If we did not we would act out our dreams. This means that when we sleep our brain is as active as when awake and something about that activity is necessary for the correct working of the brain.
There is some suggestion that brains 'de frag' when we sleep; ordering our files in a more efficient way. I personally like this: anecdotally I've spent ages on a tricky computer game only to find it easy when I've slept on it.
The various stages we go through when we sleep is quite plastic, we can condense two to three cycles into aboutvfour hours if we need to. But the fact we can't reduce it to zero and the way some animals sleep different hemispheres of the brain separately is a strong indication that sleep is biological necessary. After all, not sleeping for long enough leads to irritability, paranoia, hallucination and death.
I 'reckon' that having a complex nervous system means it 'run hot' and needs to have a refractory period where it de frags itself and this function has been co opted by organisms to conserve energy and/or stay safe during none feeding or mating times.
I've not touched on dreams but they are fascinating, too.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2011 5:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2011 9:43 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 72 (636672)
10-09-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
10-09-2011 10:41 AM


Re: When Did Sleep Arise In Evolutionary History?
As far as I can recall babies do most of their growing and sundary protien syntheses when they ae asleep.
As far as I know all animals need sleep. I 'reckon' it did not evolve specifically but was a by product of the advent of the nervous system.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2011 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2011 11:05 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 14 of 72 (636729)
10-10-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
10-10-2011 7:59 AM


Isn't most of the energy humans consume taken up by the brain? And (as I understand it) the brain isn't really less active when we sleep. I might need to check my facts here. Also dolphins swim whilst asleep and birds fly!!! (mad!!). So how much energy is really being saved?
It is true that the human brain is musts as active as when it is awake so I don't see sleep as an energy saver: the energy saved comes from over all inactivity.
Swimming dolphins and flying swifts does so not wholes asleep but by shutting down one hemispher of their brains so they are never unconscious.
I would imagine this could be the same in Cephalopoda, too. I've octopuses go into what looks like a refractory period and always assumed they were having a kip.
I would hazard that organisms probably could exist that do not need sleep but they would be out competed by ones that do sleep. That's why we don't see any and organisms that would logically be better off without it (dolphins and swifts) not needing to sleep but have convoluted work arounds (sleeping one hemisphere at a time).

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2011 7:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2011 11:26 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 72 (636731)
10-10-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
10-10-2011 10:26 AM


To contrast: How much energy does a brown bear save during its hybernation?
Forgive my pedantry: bears go into torpor, rather than hibernation.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2011 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 72 (636735)
10-10-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
10-10-2011 11:26 AM


Well I 'reckon' that for brains to do the job that they do they need to be pushing themselves tonthe energetic limit.
I remember some study about brain activity inducing tiredness (there seemed to be no significant difference between doing book learning and going on many fair ground rides).
My thoughts are that to operate at the levels brains do necessitates a refractory period. Hypothetically a type of brain that did not need to rest could exist but but this would not be able to work constantly.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2011 11:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2011 6:01 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 20 of 72 (636751)
10-10-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by GDR
10-10-2011 1:54 PM


But our consciousness resides in the biological substrate of our brain, which appears to need a refractory period to keep it going. This means that it the biology that needs to have a break.
Our consciousness is bound within our biology.
Our brain is just as active when we sleep but it does a different kind of activity. The wave lengths of our brain waves change but it's still very active.
Adenosine builds up in the body when we are awake and lowers when we sleep. From this we could conclude that this build up acts to signal sleep and that this evolved because sleep is very beneficial to the organism fitness.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 10-10-2011 1:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 10-10-2011 4:19 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 23 of 72 (636772)
10-10-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
10-10-2011 4:33 PM


I'm definitely with the learning theory: as I said, I've been stuck on computer games, slept on it, and then breezed past it next day.
It also seems to be true that protein synthesis and general anabolism takes place mostly in babies when they sleep.
Maybe sleep is from growing to adulthood that has been co opted to improve the capacity of the nervous system.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 10-10-2011 4:33 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 10-10-2011 6:49 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 25 of 72 (636776)
10-10-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
10-10-2011 6:49 PM


When you sleep and dream your occipital lobe is buzzing away and the areas v1-v4 (this is from memory so I could be wrong) light up like the're on fire. These are the visual areas of the brain functioning and why we see images in our sleep. It's my understanding that these images are initially random but can for into a post hoc narrative that we call dreams.
For some this can turn into lucid dreaming or sometimes nightmares. I've always had nightmares and used to have lucid dreams sometimes (not anymore, though).
I don't know what to say about your visualising someone from memory: my images are pretty clear (even though I have a terrible memory for faces).
That could just be within the normal variation of imaginal visualisation acuity.
One thing I do experience in dreams is that I can never read writing in a dream.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 10-10-2011 6:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-10-2011 7:31 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 72 (636797)
10-11-2011 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Robert Byers
10-11-2011 2:25 AM


Please keep your religious views out of a really interesting thread.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Robert Byers, posted 10-11-2011 2:25 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 32 of 72 (636805)
10-11-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
10-11-2011 6:01 AM


Is it some sort of chemical/hormone?
Yes. Adenosine: it builds up while we are awake and dgreades when we are asleep.
Can we learn anything about the biological nature of sleep from studying narcoleptics and insomniacs?
We do, but sleep disorders are often not normal sleep so it's harder to generalise from.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2011 6:01 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 72 (636808)
10-11-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
10-11-2011 6:44 AM


But here you are talking about two different things: sleep and dreams.
The act of being asleep can have more than one function.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2011 6:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2011 8:26 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 50 of 72 (636870)
10-11-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by 1.61803
10-11-2011 1:55 PM


Re: My fish sleep
but do they dream in color if they see in shades of gray?
They see in colour but they are red green colour blind, rather than shades of gray.
I seem to remember that our memories of dreams in part depends on how significant or arousing the dream was: I can remember nightmares I had when I was 5 (it terrified me).
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by 1.61803, posted 10-11-2011 1:55 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 52 of 72 (636873)
10-11-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
10-11-2011 2:52 PM


It just seems to me that our consciousness or mind is not just a part of our brain. It is almost as if our brain is the conduit between our physical reality and our mind.
That's what Descartes thought, too.
He was wrong, too.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 10-11-2011 2:52 PM GDR has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 53 of 72 (636875)
10-11-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2011 4:22 PM


And if you mess with the computer screen, then the content of this forum appears to change... but does it?
Buy you are not messing with the screen; it's the CPU you are messing with.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2011 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 54 of 72 (636876)
10-11-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Panda
10-11-2011 5:05 PM


Re: What is so odd about sleep?
And to add to the muddle: individual humans need very different amounts of sleep.
I tend to only need about 4-5 hours of sleep a day but I know many people that struggle with less than 8 hours.
While it is true that people get by on varying amounts of sleep most of use go through the same amount of cycles of sleep stages. What changes is the time it takes to go through REM to stage 4 sleep and back to REM again.
We can effectively condense our sleep time by shortening the sleep cycles through practice.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 10-11-2011 5:05 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024