PSYCHEDELICS - Sciencemadness.org

308___________
____________________________________________________ Psychedelics
DREAMING
Were the subjects asleep, and were their experiences actually
dreams? When occasionally questioned specifically by the
experimenter, A and B felt sure they had not been asleep
when the reported phenomena occurred. They referred to
the continuity of the vase and the table percept throughout
most of the experiences in question. The vivid phenomena
seemed to be superimposed on that continuity. On some occasions,
the subjects specifically mentioned that they had fallen
asleep for a brief time, as they had become "suddenly" aware
that their heads had fallen forward and that there had been a
break in the continuity of the concentration. Nevertheless,
the subjects could have had brief periods of sleep of which
they were not aware. The perceptual continuity they experienced
would argue against a dream state, as does the fact that
their experiences did not have the complex structures normally
associated with dreaming.
HYPNAGOGIC STATE
However, there are important similarities to be noted between
the subjects' experiences and the hypnagogic state described
by Silberer. Silberer defined hypnagogic phenomena
as being a regression to autosymbolic thinking, an "easier"
way of thinking, occurring when an effort to think took place
in a state of drowsiness. Although the subjects stated that
they were not asleep during the occurrence of vivid phenomena,
they did report episodes of drowsiness in many of the
experimental sessions. Thus, one of Silberer's defining conditions
for hypnagogic phenomena was present. The other necessary
condition, the effort to think, was not present in the
specific sense indicated by Silberer's examples, as these sub
jects were performing a type of perceptual concentration
or perceptual thinking, with abstract thinking specifically
blocked. However, if we accept Silberer's generalization of
the second condition (the effort to think) as "an interference
with falling asleep," then both conditions would appear satisfied,
since the effort to concentrate on the vase would constitute
such an interference.
Important differences are present, however. Although it