GRK2 GRK2
2. GRK2 AND CARDIAC INSULIN SIGNALING
What are the philosophical implications to the issue of polyphasic sleep? This is probably a little-addressed question because for many people, the phrase "philosophical implications" causes instant heartburn -- and that's fine, but I'm not one of those people; in fact philosophy is one of my very first loves. I was in the process of studying it formally when I first tried Uberman, and I still am! So, while it's perfectly alright if others don't care to read or ponder this section, I am, in the grand tradition of philosophers everywhere, going to write it anyway. ;)
The first question to be addressed is, of what kind are the philosophical implications that a sleep schedule might have? Traditionally, sleep has had a "monkeywrench effect" on any theory of
consciousness; it makes a great example to bring up whenever someone claims something akin to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" -- oh yeah? Do you stop existing when you sleep? -- or posits any theory that doesn't take our periods of personal darkness into consideration. Philosophers have argued amongst themselves about whether sleep constitutes being totally blacked-out and gone, or whether the mind retires to some other realm to contemplate by itself; and what these different views of sleep mean for their pet theories of consciousness.69 In these cases, though, sleep is a philosophical tool rather than its subject, and I think there's room for it to be a subject, too. Specifically, I think that sleep, especially with the advent of polyphasic sleep as a possible long-term schedule, raises ethical questions, specifically when it comes to the normative value of sleep.
Is it morally good to sleep as much as one wants? Should we restrict our sleep if possible, striving for regularity and efficiency rather than indulgence; or does sleep, as an involuntary bodily function, merit indulgence whenever needed (like having to pee)? There's a popular view, more assumed than stated, that sleep should be indulged in whenever possible, for as long as the sleeper wants (within reason), and that it should, ideally, not be subsumed to efficiency or other concerns. But there's also a separate assumption, informed by asceticism perhaps70, that to freely indulge in even "normal" physical demands is damaging, or at least likely to hinder higher development of the mind and spirit. Despite our tendency to trust some assumptions inherently, there isn't solid evidence either way, and you can see expressions of both these assumptions everywhere.
We know that being sleep-deprived for long periods of time is probably unhealthy (a fact that's often utilized by the sleep-indulgence camp), but that doesn't tell us about ways of restricting sleep that don't cause long-term sleep deprivation. Even so, people who "train" themselves to sleep less, or who sleep on odd schedules to maximize their efficiency, are usually viewed with a mixture of admiration and concern. What are we concerned about? Simply their health, or is there something more fundamentally
"wrong" with not sleeping the usual amount, that we don't know how to express yet?
On the flipside, we also know that restricting food intake -- caloric restriction -- is healthy, and in fact appears to be the only71 sure-fire way of extending one's lifespan. Perhaps overindulgence in sleep is no more healthy than overindulgence in food.
It all comes down to how you view sleep, I think. Here are some views that I've espoused or considered in the course of pondering this topic:
69 If you're interested in reading more about how different philosophers have batted this issue around, there's a paper I can recommend, which I enjoyed and thought gave a good overview of at least the classic Western philosophers. It's The Philosophy of Sleep: The Views of Descartes, Locke and Leibnitz, by James Hill, published in the Richmond Journal of Philosophy in Spring 2004. I will admit right now that I'm not well-read in theories of consciousness specifically, so I apologize if I've missed something obvious.
70 Remember that not only Buddhism, but Christianity too, were informed by ascetic traditions.
71 For now, of course.
One possible view: Sleep is a mechanical recharge, like plugging a batteried object into the wall for a few hours. There's something about sleep that either connects us to an energy source, or allows the mind/body to generate extra energy and store it for waking use.
The normative implications of Possibility One fall on the side of restriction, if restriction can be done in a healthy way. If you're recharging your batteries, doesn't it make sense to do it in the most efficient way you can? Would you turn down an upgrade to your electric car that made the batteries more efficient, able to charge faster? Living -- being awake and aware -- is pretty much an unqualified good, so to have more of it must be good, and if all that's in the way of that is mechanical efficiency, then restricted schedules which work are not only a good, but it becomes almost a moral imperative to adopt them if possible.
There are a few problems with this view: One, as we learn more, our bodies are seeming less and less like simple machines. To assume that we're built to run only 2/3 of our available time due to a simple power equation seems overly simplistic and increasingly unlikely. (Or maybe we're not; maybe we're designed to do just as well if we meditate to store energy instead of sleeping, and we don't know it yet.) Two, this view invites judgment of those who sleep any more than they must, and that smacks of a sort of Puritanical nastiness. Overindulgence isn't good for people -- I agree with that, in general -- but when it becomes morally necessary to restrict oneself beyond the natural tendencies, all kinds of mean and judgmental behavior towards others can result.
A second possible view: Sleep is an experience of the Void, wherein we lose consciousness while we commune with the Eternal and Infinite. Presumably our minds get in the way of communion72 with the Great Allness of things; it's been suggested that we're built to put our minds under for a while each day so that our [souls / subconsciousnesses / essences / pick something] can connect with the Source from which we and our whole world came from.
On this view, it's no longer morally desirable to restrict our sleep just because we can -- indeed, it becomes akin to skipping church to do so. (I'm not trying to promote the religious angle here; it merely makes for an easy way to communicate the powerful nature of the argument. One could just as easily say that to thwart such a connection would be to do damage to what we fundamentally are, cutting off a part of our lives that's as vital and necessary as the waking part.) Indeed, to weaken or restrict this connection could even be doing damage to us on a level we're not yet equipped to understand: Perhaps sleep is how we stay "in contact" with the place/state we came from, and not getting enough can hurt our chances of making it "back" after we die.73
Of course, this view relies on a whole bunch of assumptions that, even if I wanted to take the time to try and prove them, I probably couldn't do. If you happen to believe them, then maybe you can choose to believe this...but even then, you won't have a clear answer as to what to do about sleep, either. Perhaps the sleep you get on a restricted schedule is enough. Perhaps no sleep is enough unless "done properly", and how to do it properly is anybody's guess. Maybe sleep has an even deeper purpose than that, which we simply haven't figured out yet! ...This is a pretty enough view, but it has a rabbit-hole in the middle, I think.
Then there's also a third option, which is to take the first view and give it a twist: Maybe sleep isn't really necessary at all. Maybe it's an evolutionary artifact that we can overcome, or will eventually "grow out of". This view is supported by stories like that of Thai Ngoc74, the man who mysteriously lost the ability to sleep, and has lived for 33 years without it, and boasts a clean bill of mental and physical health.
72 To wit, Adam could not survive hearing the voice of God.
73 An unlikely truth, but a neat sci-fi plot, I think!
74 Among other places, you can read his story here: http://www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=12673
If sleep wasn't necessary at all, would you still do it? How many people do you think would continue to, for how long? Do you think it would eventually be consigned to the category "Wastes of Time"? ...Or, to ask it another way, beyond the fact that we need it, does sleep have any real value?
Would you give up sleep? If I could never sleep again and never be tired, I would probably try it, but I can also see myself regretting such a decision, finding in the future that I couldn't tolerate "being here", in the world, 24/7. Maybe sleep exists to keep us sane, to give us a "time out" from what is otherwise a complicated and often emotionally brutal existence. Food has a "comfort" element that would prevent us from wanting to give it up entirely, and for most people, sleep does too ... the major difference is,
restricting one's food intake, within reason, is generally accepted to be sensible and healthy.
This is a major problem: With most things, if there's no clear-cut answer one way or the other, it's best to side with Aristotle and aim for "moderation in all things". But what's "moderation" when it comes to sleep? Sleeping until you're only a little tired? That's courting long-term sleep deprivation, which is the one thing most people (scientists and polyphasers and moms alike) agree is the least desirable of the outcomes. With sleep, it seems that to either sleep until you're completely refreshed, or to restrict sleep to the least you can get and not be tired (which seems, for our purposes, to entail a nap-based schedule), are the only options that make any sense; and neither of them are moderate.
This little twist makes sleep one of the hardest items of personal care to build an ethical view of.
We know we should bathe and be as clean as possible (within moderation); we know we should eat what we need to live and so that we're not hungry (within moderation); we know we should exercise and keep our bodies in good repair75. But how should we sleep? A whole lot, so we're not tired, or very little, so we're efficient at spending our time (now that this can be done without being tired as well)?
Fortunately, it's beyond the scope of this section to pick an answer; and anyway, I believe that from where we stand, doing so would be arbitrary and premature. There are philosophical implications to polyphasic sleep, insofar as it's opened up the possibilities from "sleep a lot or be sleep-deprived" to include "sleep very little and don't be sleep deprived", and now we're all stuck pondering whether this is morally a better choice for those who can make it, and how much, if at all, those who don't sleep polyphasically ought to be trying to.
Thankfully, I enjoy pondering. If you do as well, your thoughts on this topic would be a welcome addition, so write them down! (If I can do it, you can do it.)
75 Yes, again, within moderation -- Exercise taken to extremes is not healthy, and neither is medicine or performance-based tweaking.