A powerful debate can be a great tool to persuade people to your point of view. In the case of “Dream Debate” the issue is not persuasion or deterrence, but the instigation of the independent mind.

Allan Hobson is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical and makes the dissenting argument that Freud’s theory of dreams is outdated and incorrect and should therefore be discarded. A rather foolhardy fellow, however he is extremely intelligent and represents his own replacement theory with great enthusiasm. Dr. Mark Solms of the University of Cape Town represents the opposing view supporting Freud’s dream theory as still very relevant and worth saving. He proposes that since Freud’s theory cannot even be partially discredited, it cannot be abandoned and, in fact, must be embraced because of the wide range of positive influences it has had on the field of dream theory.

Dr. Hobson’s research specialty is quantifying mental events and correlating them with quantified brain events, with particular reference to wakefulness, sleep, and dreams. He believes that dreams are created when random energy signals reach the cerebral cortex during REM sleep. The cortex tries to make sense of the random inputs it receives, which triggers dreams. Dr. Hobson clearly dismisses the idea that there are deep, non-physiological or hidden meanings in dreams. He calls such notions “the mystique of the fortune cookie dream interpretation.” For years he has proven his theories through laboratory tests with mice and human subjects. However, Hobson does not explain how the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, in which the dreamer is in control of the content, fits into his theories. (One question posed by an audience member involved lucid dreams, discussion of which Hobson avoided.)

Mark Solms follows an ideology closely related to that of Freud. Psychoanalysis emerged 100 years ago as a treatment for neuroses. Neuroses were defined as “functional” disorders of the nervous system, in which no perceptible abnormality could be found in the brain. The prevailing view was that the physical causes of neurotic illness would eventually give way to advances in scientific technology.

Freud, however, based psychoanalysis on the observation that neurotic symptoms violated the established laws of functional anatomy; neurotic symptoms simply did not make sense from a physical point of view. In contrast, when one took the patient’s personal point of view seriously and reconstructed the emotional history of the illness, the symptoms did make sense. For example, although the abnormal sensation on one side of the face of a hysterical patient did not fit the somatosensory neuroanatomy, it did make sense subjectively: the symptoms first appeared when the patient was slapped across the face in humiliating circumstances, for Reasons not yet known. She felt intense guilt and shame. In short, Freud observed that the essential nature of neurotic symptoms should be described in subjective terms, using concepts such as remembering and feeling rather than objective.

The content of the DVD is very articulate, concise and quickly pleases the fascinated listener. The rebuttals are charged with conviction and determination, and both speakers are very forceful in carefully explaining their positions. The quality of both audio and video is excellent for a DVD of this type, and the inclusion of extra features makes this DVD an even better buy. What cannot be valued is what can be learned by listening to this excellent debate, which shows us the relentless need to pursue the unknown of the subconscious and the brain.