Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see author affiliation information in an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To see author affiliation and contact information (as available) in an article, simply click on the Information icon next to the author’s name in every journal article.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Solms, M. (2000). J. Allan Hobson and Edward Pace-Schott's Response Commentary by Mark Solms. Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(2):193-201.

(2000). Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(2):193-201

J. Allan Hobson and Edward Pace-Schott's Response Commentary by Mark Solms Related Papers

Mark Solms

I will respond here to the major points made by Braun and Reiser and Hobson and Pace-Schott regarding my commentary on Hobson's target paper (1999). I will start with some general issues before moving on to more specific ones.

The Ghost of Freud

Both Reiser (1999) and Braun (1999) lament Hobson's and my preoccupation with whether or not Freud was right; they argue that perhaps Freud need not be the central issue any longer (Braun, 1999, p. 200). Certainly, I agree that Freud need not be the central issue any longer for modern scientists seeking to understand the brain mechanisms of dreaming. I accept too that the narrow question, Was Freud right?, places unnecessary constraints on fresh theoretical possibilities. However, Hobson was specifically asked by the editors of Neuro-Psychoanalysis to comment on the implications for psychoanalysis of recent developments in the neuroscientific understanding of dreams. We were interested in Hobson's views on this issue for the reason that his earlier research findings with respect to the brainstem mechanisms of dreaming were widely interpreted as disproving Freud's dream theory (including by Hobson himself; e.g., Hobson and McCarley, 1977; Hobson, 1988). If recent findings in neuroscience have now cast doubt on the validity of Hobson's earlier findings, then it is necessary, and only fair, for us to reevaluate his criticisms of Freud in the light of the new data. Naturally, in other contexts (in a journal dealing only with neuroscience, for example) it would be less appropriate for our discussion to revolve around Freud's dream theory (cf.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.