You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Lehtonen notes some compatibilities between psychoanalytic concepts and the neurological/information-processing model of dreaming proposed by Crick and
Mitchison. They proposed that dreaming is an attempt to unload from the mind disturbing and valueless residues of experience and development, an active "unlearning" of "parasitic modes" of thought, which otherwise may compel maladaptive behavior. Lehtonen sees this process as analogous to the concept of tension relief through wish fulfillment in dreaming, and compares "parasitic modes" to drives. Crick and Mitchison's concepts of "completion" and "classification" are compared to the psychoanalytic concepts of displacement, condensation, overdetermination, and symbol formation. Nonetheless, many of Crick and Mitchison's conclusions are compatible with psychoanalytic thinking, including their insistence on looking at the manifest dream only and their suggestion that remembering dreams may be a bad idea. Lehtonen concludes with the observation that the physiology and psychology of dreaming are not competing models; they must be described in different terms. He suggests that Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity applies to the relationship between the physical and psychological function of dreams.