Wasserman M D
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1984;32(4):831-46. doi: 10.1177/000306518403200405.
I have reviewed Hobson and McCarley's activation-synthesis hypothesis of dreaming which attempts to show that the instigation and certain formal aspects of dreaming are physiologically determined by a brainstem neuronal mechanism, their reasons for suggesting major revisions in psychoanalytic dream theory, and neurophysiological data that are inconsistent with their hypothesis. I then discussed the concept of mind-body isomorphism pointing out that they use this concept inconsistently, that despite their denials they regularly view physiology as primary and psychological processes as secondary, and that they frequently make the error of mixing the languages of physiology and psychology in their explanatory statements. Finally, in order to evaluate Hobson and McCarley's claim that their findings require revision of psychoanalytic dream theory, I examined their discussions of chase dreams, flying dreams, sexual dreams, the formal characteristics of dreams, the forgetting of dreams, and the instigation of dreams. I concluded that although their fascinating physiological findings may be central to understanding the neurobiology of REM sleep, they do not alter the meaning and interpretation of dreams gleaned through psychoanalytic study.
我已审阅了霍布森和麦卡利关于梦的激活-整合假说，该假说试图表明梦的激发及某些形式方面在生理上是由脑干神经元机制决定的，他们提出对精神分析梦理论进行重大修订的理由，以及与他们假说不一致的神经生理学数据。然后我讨论了心身同构的概念，指出他们对这一概念的使用并不一致，尽管他们否认，但他们经常将生理视为首要的，而将心理过程视为次要的，并且他们在解释性陈述中经常犯将生理和心理语言混为一谈的错误。最后，为了评估霍布森和麦卡利声称他们的发现需要修订精神分析梦理论这一说法，我审视了他们对追逐梦、飞行梦、性梦、梦的形式特征、梦的遗忘以及梦之激发的讨论。我得出的结论是，尽管他们那些引人入胜的生理学发现对于理解快速眼动睡眠的神经生物学可能至关重要，但它们并未改变通过精神分析研究得出的梦的意义和解释。
