 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Tinnitus / November 2006Psychedelic Deafness -- Its Just So Interesting -- Any Cases?
Hi: It is possible for a patient with central non-congenital deafness -- whose hearing loss began in his/her mid 20s and who previously did not have any hearing or medical problems -- to have totally-silent dreams [like watching TV on "mute"] due to the abnormality in his/her brain? I imagine in those who are deaf due to damage to parts of their brains would be just as deaf in their dreams as during wake -- even if the deafness is non-congenital [i.e. it could happen in a perfectly healthy adult in his/her mid 20s who previously had no difficulty in hearing]. AFAIK, the parts of the brain that perceive sounds in our dreams are the same as the parts of the that perceive actual sounds. So, IIRC, if the deafness is due to brain anomaly, the dreams will be just as silent as the real world. What if the parts of the brain that transmit and process auditory info are not diseased but the parts that receive the audio are damaged -- and the damage occurs in a healthy young individual in his/her mid-20s who has never had any previous audio impairment? Obviously this would result in loss of perception of real sounds during wakefulness. Would it cause the individual to be deaf in his/her dreams? I beleive -- though I could be wrong -- that the parts that receive the ultimate auditory percept are similar whether the audio perception is from reality or from dreams. I am talking of a case where a person can imagine and remember sounds clearly, but loses the ability to directly perceive auditory info. Auditory memories and imaginations can and do occur but the patient simply cannot perceive audio -- whether from real life or from dreams. I think that this is a possible scenario. Has this ever happened to anyone? Thanks, Radium > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Radium ..why is it that everything (in these ever-so clinical days) that is unexpected, or a little bit different, is classed as a disease, an anomaly, an abnormality. I don't know mate. If you want to think of yourself as a nutcase then whatever makes you happy. > > Hi: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I don't know mate. If you want to think of yourself as a nutcase then > whatever makes you happy. No offense but I asked a scientific question which I crossposted to all appropriate groups. Please respond with reasonable scientific answers and leave the off-topic junk out. > No offense but I asked a scientific question which I crossposted to all > appropriate groups. Please respond with reasonable scientific answers > and leave the off-topic junk out. It wasn't a question intended to be about science at all. What you wanted to know, and promote, was more about looking for reasons why difference means abnormal. Just because you mentioned some science doesn't get away from that. Ditch the abnormal stance first. > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > audio -- whether from real life or from dreams. I think that this is a > possible scenario. Has this ever happened to anyone? An interesting question, and one which could be applied to brain damage affecting any of the other sensory modalities too. This sort of very specific brain injury is likely to be rare and data hard to come by. But, since the sounds heard in dreams (with some exceptions) are conjured up internally, I think the answer to your question would probably be yes - dreams would be silent too. However, depending on the precise nature of the brain injury, it might not be so simple... 'Perception' functions simultaneously at different levels; ie. are we talking about the raw, almost-unconscious registering of the mere presence of a sound... or also its tonal and harmonic content...or its musicality... or the understanding of where it comes from and what it means, or the appreciation of its musicality etc. These phenomena use different regions of the brain. 'Perception' merges into 'consciousness' (another big unsolved puzzle) and all this (the sheer sense of 'being around') probably emerges from the sum-total of brain activity. In other words, there might be a situation where the dream sounds 'sounded silent' but they were stlll 'heard' at some other level. The patient might be able to respond emotionally to some music in his dream say, while not having first heard it as sound as such. Wierd eh? But this would be analogous to the well-established phenomenon of 'blindsight' resulting from an injury in the primary visual cortex . More at http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web3/Chivers.html Steve >In other words, there might be a situation where the dream sounds 'sounded >silent' but they were stlll 'heard' at some other level. The patient might [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Steve Sachs talks about it a bit in his boo, SEEING VOICES, he refers to something called PHANTASMAL VOICES. Which a late deafened adult would hear during waking hours. > >In other words, there might be a situation where the dream sounds > >'sounded [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something called PHANTASMAL VOICES. Which a late deafened adult would > hear during waking hours. Very funny for Halloween, "in his boo, etc" Intentional? Artis > > Hi: > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Steve Perception does not 'function'. Neither does phenemena 'use' parts of the brain. These are anthropomorphisms based on the quaint idea of little men working in the head. > Perception does not 'function'. Oh? What term would you substitute? Neither does phenemena 'use' parts of > the brain. Bear in mind the term: 'parts' could apply to the software aspect of the brain as much as the hardware, depending on how it's organised. Fill us in with a more accurate description of what actually happens. These are anthropomorphisms based on the quaint idea of > little men working in the head. What's that got to do with it? No little men needed. Explain please. Steve > > Perception does not 'function'. > > Oh? What term would you substitute? Perception is good enough. But it does not 'function'. You cannot build up a 'mechanics of function' for perception, for the objects of perception do not behave mechanically. > Bear in mind the term: 'parts' could apply to the software aspect of the > brain as much as the hardware, depending on how it's organised. Fill us in > with a more accurate description of what actually happens. Yes, I will most certainly do that. The brain is a physical structure without guide or purpose. The object you are mixing it up with is an intentional object, also called 'brain'. The intentional object is a perceptual construction, an idea, mapped to the physical object 'brain'. There is no relationship between these two 'brains' - they are merely mapped together. But you are drawing relational significances by saying things like 'perception has a function in the brain'. No, perception does not have a function in the brain. Well it might have a function in the intentional object 'brain', but there are no functions in a physical brain. > These are anthropomorphisms based on the quaint idea of > > little men working in the head. > What's that got to do with it? No little men needed. Explain please. Yes, if we want to say that perceptions are active in the physical brain, and the brain is a non-teleogical physical object, then the only way that perceptions can be active in the physical brain would be through a physical intermediary, like little men working 'in' the head. There is something called Hysterical Deafness. I person simply turns off their hearing. >> Perception does not 'function'. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Steve > There is something called Hysterical Deafness. I person simply turns > off their hearing. I wonder how this mechanism works Being married for too long. Practice makes perfect. >> There is something called Hysterical Deafness. I person simply >> turns >> off their hearing. > > I wonder how this mechanism works > Being married for too long. Practice makes perfect. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > I wonder how this mechanism works Many textbook say that hysterical-deafness is purely psychological and has no physiological aspects at all. I don't believe this. Sure hysterical-deafness maybe caused by emotional trauma but its got to be neurophysiological at some level. After all, everything is physiological, ultimately. The mind is in the brain. The mind is just as material and physical as anything else. Psychogenic or hysterical conversion disorders are definitely physiologicals -- its just that the cause is due to psychological issues rather than physical ailments. Ultimately its still physical. Even if no "organic" cause can be identified for the symptoms, the cause is still physiological to a very signficant extent -- just not due to physiological injury. >> Being married for too long. Practice makes perfect. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > identified for the symptoms, the cause is still physiological to a very > signficant extent -- just not due to physiological injury. Many textbooks? How do you know that? You sound like many others who think if they have a "credible" source, then their own opinions will have more weight. It's ok to have opinions, btw, just don't attempt to back them up with bull droppings. One should always avoid self indulgent claptrap with no scientific basis. Artis > > There is something called Hysterical Deafness. I person simply turns > > off their hearing. > > I wonder how this mechanism works How do you, as a mechanism, work? > An interesting question, and one which could be applied to brain damage > affecting any of the other sensory modalities too. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Steve There we go again. What's with all this medic-speak? What's with all this pseudo-materialist lingo? - "...damage, injury, brain, patient, emotional 'response', 'unsolved' puzzles, brain activity, weird,..." And no. Its not 'weird'. Any more than its weird why you like to have warm socks and cooked dinners. > But, since the sounds heard in dreams (with some exceptions) are > conjured up internally, I think the answer to your question would probably > be yes - dreams would be silent too. What are the exceptions? Can you search in MEDLINE and MEDSCAPE? Mike > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Radium > Can you search in MEDLINE and MEDSCAPE? Their search is very limited. The things I look up can hardly be found and when they, its just irrelevant stuff. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.