Hobson and Soames

Hobson and Soames both have very good points in the dream debate. Hobson takes a more scientific approach, putting forth the "activation synthesis hypotheses... [which suggests] that dreaming [is] caused by brain activation and sleep" (The Philosopher's Zone), while Soames sticks with Freud's theory that "wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes... [which need] to be disguised and censored" (The Philosopher's Zone).

Hobson's activation synthesis hypothesis is more clear and scientific, which appeals to me because of the factual evidence, such as "at its lowest point of deactivation in non-REM sleep, the brain is still 80% active" and that "the amnesia [after dreaming] is related to the loss of noradrenergic and serotonergic and histaminergic modulation of the fore-brain" (The Philosopher's Zone). The difference between Hobson's theory and Soames' theory is similar to the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism. One is based off of facts and the other is based off of faith.

Soames does have a point in that "making use of the Freudian dream theory, is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed" because it is unfair to abandon a theory that hasn't been proved incorrect. By saying this, I mean that we shouldn't scrap it because we have more factual evidence elsewhere because we might find some sort of evidence proving a part of Freud's theory someday.