This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.

Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different? Do we have a soul?

This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.

Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different? Do we have a soul?

both.

that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.


There doesn't have to be a god for there to be a soul. That question has nothing to do with god(s). I don't think there's a soul though.

We are entities with both a body and a soul. When we die our souls remain and occuPy another body...strength of soul determines the body it occuPies...thats what life is for...to strengthen or weaken the soul. Power of will.

Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different? Do we have a soul?
Big lumpsa meat.

This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.
Ha ha. Good one.

This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.

Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different? Do we have a soul?


You forget to give the real option: We are biological entities.

both.

It's impossible to have a soul and not have a soul. You have to pick one. We have free will or we don't. If you are an athiest then you believe we cannot have free will anymore than a rock or a robot.

There doesn't have to be a god for there to be a soul. That question has nothing to do with god(s). I don't think there's a soul though.

If there is a soul, the soul is God. People who believe in God, believe in God because they believe in souls.

If you are an athiest then you believe we cannot have free will anymore than a rock or a robot.

There is no logical way to go from atheist to having not free will.

Not that we have free will of course perse.

It's impossible to have a soul and not have a soul. You have to pick one. We have free will or we don't. If you are an athiest then you believe we cannot have free will anymore than a rock or a robot.

I am an atheist and I believe that we have free will and that we have a soul. I am an atheist and I believe there is no God. I am an atheist and I believe in reincarnation.

You forget to give the real option: We are biological entities.

If you don't have a soul then you are just a collection of configured atoms, that were configured by chance/accident, no different than a rock really.

I am an atheist and I believe that we have free will and that we have a soul. I am an atheist and I believe there is no God. I am an atheist and I believe in reincarnation.

So if God is the soul or the soul collective, then are you really an athiest?
I highly suggest you reconsider your self classification.

Not that we have free will of course perse.
Why not?

There is no logical way to go from atheist to having not free will.

Not that we have free will of course perse.

We are all Gods children, we all have souls which come from God the source, and that soul gives us free will, yet somehow athiest think it's rational to believe in free will yet not believe in God?

God is free will!!!

The rock has no free will because it has no soul.God is the holy spirit remember?

So if God is the soul or the soul collective, then are you really an athiest?
I highly suggest you reconsider your self classification.

PerhaPs God is the soul collective...and that means I am Part of God, but that is not what other PeoPle believe in.

PerhaPs God is the soul collective...and that means I am Part of God, but that is not what other PeoPle believe in.

Buddhists believe in that God.

See, you assume everyone believes in the same God, thats your own stereotype of all thiests. Some thiests are as scientific as athiests.

Why not?

Someone would first have to make a convincing argument that we have free will if we want to conclude we have.

We are all Gods children, we all have souls which come from God the source, and that soul gives us free will,

How logical.

OK: I maintain that we're free to do anything within our physical power. Most of don't though, as we have work commitments. Discuss.

But seriously: are we, or are we not free, to do anything we jolly well please? I maintain that yes, we are. But naturally (or, rather, unnaturally) there are laws against that kind of thing.

You disagree? I don't see how you possibly can.

OK: I maintain that we're free to do anything within our physical power. Most of don't though, as we have work commitments. Discuss.

But seriously: are we, or are we not free, to do anything we jolly well please? I maintain that yes, we are. But naturally (or, rather, unnaturally) there are laws against that kind of thing.

You disagree? I don't see how you possibly can.

You are not free to do anything you want. When you need to go to the toilet you will go. You are compelled.

That's only because I don't have the physical power not to. I think I covered that. Continue.

When you see a beautiful woman you are compelled to look at her cleavage when the opportunity arises. Or to look away if she notices it.

No free will. No decision was taken. A behavioural pattern was executed nonetheless.

What if I was gay?

Yes, we are prisoners to our biological imperatives. Monkey be, monkey see, monkey do. I still think that comes under physical constraints. But outside of that we're free, I tell you - free!!! Free to grope those beautiful breasts and rob banks and poo where we please; free to cross continents in stolen cars and punch our bosses and knock policemen's hats off. Free, I tell you! Free!!!

When you see a beautiful woman you are compelled to look at her cleavage when the opportunity arises. Or to look away if she notices it.

No free will. No decision was taken. A behavioural pattern was executed nonetheless.

If you don't have free will, you are a robot following instructions. In general, free will is all that is real. The proof that free will is all that is real is expressed in the fact that the rock does not control a damn thing. The rock is just junk data, just atoms configured in a certain way.

What if I was gay?

Yes, we are prisoners to our biological imperatives. Monkey be, monkey see, monkey do. I still think that comes under physical constraints. But outside of that we're free, I tell you - free!!! Free to grope those beautiful breasts and rob banks and poo where we please; free to cross continents in stolen cars and punch our bosses and knock policemen's hats off. Free, I tell you! Free!!!


Actually no we are not prisoners to biology. We can evolve.

What if I was gay?

Yes, we are prisoners to our biological imperatives. Monkey be, monkey see, monkey do. I still think that comes under physical constraints. But outside of that we're free, I tell you - free!!! Free to grope those beautiful breasts and rob banks and poo where we please; free to cross continents in stolen cars and punch our bosses and knock policemen's hats off. Free, I tell you! Free!!!


You think your boss is a cunt. You want to shout at your boss telling him he is a cunt.

You cannot.

You can if the conditions are right. You feel confident. You just found a new job. You did too many drugs in the morning and can't think straight.

Where is the free will if you can act only under special circumstances? The existence of a theoretical possibility to call your boss a cunt doesn't imply that there is a real possibility.

Slave to the system.

You think your boss is a cunt. You want to shout at your boss telling him he is a cunt.

You cannot.

You can if the conditions are right. You feel confident. You just found a new job. You did too many drugs in the morning and can't think straight.

Where is the free will if you can act only under special circumstances? The existence of a theoretical possibility to call your boss a cunt doesn't imply that there is a real possibility.

Slave to the system.


That just means the boss has more will power. You have free will to do anything you want, that does not mean it's always smart to do so.

That just means the boss has more will power. You have free will to do anything you want, that does not mean it's always smart to do so.

No, it means your actions are directed by circumstances. If you would have free will you would be able to take any action at any time.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/oscar2001/history/braveheart.jpg
FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMM!!

You think your boss is a cunt. You want to shout at your boss telling him he is a cunt.

You cannot.

You can if the conditions are right. You feel confident. You just found a new job. You did too many drugs in the morning and can't think straight.

Where is the free will if you can act only under special circumstances? The existence of a theoretical possibility to call your boss a cunt doesn't imply that there is a real possibility.

Slave to the system.
I know, I know. All the while that I was espousing our great freedoms I knew, in my heart of hearts, all this to be true. But still the theoretical possibility exists - which is what this thread is about, isn't it. The moments when the theoretical possibility becomes a practical one, and we tell the boss exactly what we think and leave that very morning, bound for the Arctic wastes of darkest Canada, are truly some of life's greatest. I only wish they could come more often - God willing.

I know, I know. All the while that I was espousing our great freedoms I knew, in my heart of hearts, all this to be true. But still the theoretical possibility exists - which is what this thread is about, isn't it. The moments when the theoretical possibility becomes a practical one, and we tell the boss exactly what we think and leave that very morning, bound for the Arctic wastes of darkest Canada, are truly some of life's greatest. I only wish they could come more often - God willing.

This theory can easily be tested. Put the same person in the same set of environmental cues a few hundred times and monitor his behaviour. Then change something radical.

According to the free will theory his reaction in the first set of similar situations should give a range of very different outcomes.

I predict very much a limited set of outcomes.

I predict that changing the environment will change the 'free will'.

Theory isn't really interesting if reality says otherwise. :p

If you don't have a soul then you are just a collection of configured atoms, that were configured by chance/accident, no different than a rock really.

Why chance? Why do you view evolution as chance? It is a very shrewd processes, an interaction between variety and environment. What is chancy about that?

You should spend some time studying this thing that you denigrate all the time. Pick up a few books on evolution and read them through. It might not make you accept the observations of others, but at least you can have some informed objections, rather than making stuff up and sounding uneducated.

Oh, and rocks don't have neurons. A soul? Do you think it is any coincidence that animals have varying amounts of neurons, and those with the highest ratio to body weight seem to have something more similar to what you call a soul? Lizards seem to have more of a "soul" than worms do, and rats even moreso, and then puppies and chimps and us. Wow... there certainly seems to be come correlation between neurons and souls. I wonder what that could mean?

It's also funny how a baseball-bat to the cranium seems to mix up what the soul does. It can change a person's likes and dislikes, their moral choices, their behavior, permanently. Another clue?

Hmmm, neurological disorders seem to rob people of their souls. My grandfather, with his Alzheimer's, started to seem like a lifeless mass of flesh once his neurons turned to mush. The evidence is mounting...

Compare all of this to the evidence for a "soul", which would be exactly none, and any person choosing "soul" has obviously forfeited reason for superstition.

There is no single entity that is 'us'. It's just vast impulses which make up a single nervous system.

This theory can easily be tested. Put the same person in the same set of environmental cues a few hundred times and monitor his behaviour. Then change something radical.

According to the free will theory his reaction in the first set of similar situations should give a range of very different outcomes.

I predict very much a limited set of outcomes.

I predict that changing the environment will change the 'free will'.

Theory isn't really interesting if reality says otherwise. :p
99 people queuing up at a bank will hand over their hard-earned cash like the pathetic, dull, mindless automatons they are, so that the bank can make ever more 'ethical' investments and buy ludicrous amounts of Nazi gold.

The 100th person - ie, me - would jam a shotgun in the hapless cashier's face and scream at her to fill the bag and be ruddy well quick about it.

Only kidding. I queue up like the pathetic, dull, mindless automaton that I am and proffer my life-savings for them to spend on lollipops and cruise missiles.

My mate Mental Barry wouldn't though, he robs banks all the time. Well, not all the time - he's currently doing a 15 stretch in Strangeways.

But the question is, O Wise Monkey: why O why O why are Mental Barry's so much bigger than mine? :(

But the question is, O Wise Monkey: why O why O why are Mental Barry's so much bigger than mine? :(

He is not bigger. His standard response to being in the bank environment is to initiate bankrobbing behavioural patterns. He is without free will like you.

But he shouldn't even be in there. He's been told to keep away. He doesn't though.

He is compelled to go near banks.

You are just providing data that supports my case. Thank you my friend.

No, I was just being silly, my overly deterministic chum.

Don't misunderstand me, I largely share your outlook, but still feel that we have a certain amount of freedom to do the right (or the wrong) thing. Bankrobbers can become priests and priests can become bankrobbers. We reserve the right to thumb our nose at our instincts and our most-venerated institutions.

Admittedly these things don't happen that often but it's the anomalies that make the headlines and establish the exceptions to the rule. Not everything we do is governed by our ancestry, or morality, or our upbringing. These constrain our choices to a great extent but we as individuals are the ultimate arbiters. A father can forbid his teenage daughter from dying her hair bright red but a strong-willed individual will still go ahead and do it. He, his wife, his family, friends and the local priest might tell her she must keep her unborn child but ultimately the decision about whether or not to do so is hers and hers alone - and such decisions don't conform to any established behaviour patterns and aren't governed by any kind of simplistic left-right thinking.

There are times in life where we enter new territory and don't really have any precedents to draw on - decisions to make that make us the people we are.

redarmy11:
I trust you're not a dualist. If you're like me, you believe cognition/consciousness is a consequence of our brains' activities. If I'm right that I have judged you as a monist, then I don't see how you can think we are free. The atoms in our brains do what they must do, in the same exact way as the atoms in a rock do what they must do. The difference between a brain and a rock is that the brain is highly organized matter. The brain creates patterns which result in consciousness and apparent "willingness" whereas rocks do not. That the patterns created by our brains result in a consciousness and an illusion of freedom is incidental.

Why chance? Why do you view evolution as chance? It is a very shrewd processes, an interaction between variety and environment. What is chancy about that?

You should spend some time studying this thing that you denigrate all the time. Pick up a few books on evolution and read them through. It might not make you accept the observations of others, but at least you can have some informed objections, rather than making stuff up and sounding uneducated.

Oh, and rocks don't have neurons. A soul? Do you think it is any coincidence that animals have varying amounts of neurons, and those with the highest ratio to body weight seem to have something more similar to what you call a soul? Lizards seem to have more of a "soul" than worms do, and rats even moreso, and then puppies and chimps and us. Wow... there certainly seems to be come correlation between neurons and souls. I wonder what that could mean?

It's also funny how a baseball-bat to the cranium seems to mix up what the soul does. It can change a person's likes and dislikes, their moral choices, their behavior, permanently. Another clue?

Hmmm, neurological disorders seem to rob people of their souls. My grandfather, with his Alzheimer's, started to seem like a lifeless mass of flesh once his neurons turned to mush. The evidence is mounting...

Compare all of this to the evidence for a "soul", which would be exactly none, and any person choosing "soul" has obviously forfeited reason for superstition.

Haha, good one. Very good.

Haha, good one. Very good.

Thanks, and I agree with your posts, but wouldn't it be more of a probabilistic system, rather than a deterministic one? As we discover more about how the brain works, it isn't as cut-and-dry as the old model of chemical reaction -> Neuron firing -> chemical reaction -> repeat.

Now we understand that the chemicals have to build to a certain threshold. Anything in this shady boundary will cause a single synapse to fire, but the dendrite that receives this firing probably won't do anything. It might take 3 firings in 2 milliseconds for this other neuron to fire. Another might take 5 inputs in 10 milliseconds. What about 5 in 10.2 milliseconds? Sometimes you get a firing, and sometimes you don't, it depends, not just on the amount of chemicals built up, but how long since the last firing, and the exact position of these chemicals.

At what point does this chaotic mess become more probability than determinism?

I think, if we had perfect knowledge of all of the brain's processes, we would say that in my particular situation, I have a 96.78% chance of hitting the submit button after this paragraph (having planed the post thusly), but there is the 3.22% chance that I might add another sentence, as a related thought pops into my head. Even with perfect knowledge of all brain states and activities, this might be the closest we can get to predicting human behavior.


Free will. <---- Woo Hoo! :D

No, it means your actions are directed by circumstances. If you would have free will you would be able to take any action at any time.

You are, and some people do, but those people don't have reasons or what we'd consider a moral compas.

Why chance? Why do you view evolution as chance? It is a very shrewd processes, an interaction between variety and environment. What is chancy about that?

You should spend some time studying this thing that you denigrate all the time. Pick up a few books on evolution and read them through. It might not make you accept the observations of others, but at least you can have some informed objections, rather than making stuff up and sounding uneducated.

Oh, and rocks don't have neurons. A soul? Do you think it is any coincidence that animals have varying amounts of neurons, and those with the highest ratio to body weight seem to have something more similar to what you call a soul? Lizards seem to have more of a "soul" than worms do, and rats even moreso, and then puppies and chimps and us. Wow... there certainly seems to be come correlation between neurons and souls. I wonder what that could mean?

It's also funny how a baseball-bat to the cranium seems to mix up what the soul does. It can change a person's likes and dislikes, their moral choices, their behavior, permanently. Another clue?

Hmmm, neurological disorders seem to rob people of their souls. My grandfather, with his Alzheimer's, started to seem like a lifeless mass of flesh once his neurons turned to mush. The evidence is mounting...

Compare all of this to the evidence for a "soul", which would be exactly none, and any person choosing "soul" has obviously forfeited reason for superstition.

I'll explain further.

If a person has a brain injury, they still have a soul up until the point where they are braindead. The brain is not the soul, because a brain is a useless organ without perception/senses. The brain does nothing but interpret the senses. The soul is actually not something which exists inside the body or inside the brain, the soul is what allows you to control your body with your brain. When you lose control of your body, as in you lose consciousness, and you fade, then your soul is officially gone, but it maintains as long as you have the ability to have a sense of self.

He is compelled to go near banks.

You are just providing data that supports my case. Thank you my friend.

The environment is not the master of man. Man is the master of the environment.

So when you talk about the social environment, it exists because other, stronger willed people, willed it into existance. The bank exists because people want it to exist. The bank robber just wants money and usually is not smart enough to earn it properly.

Thanks, and I agree with your posts, but wouldn't it be more of a probabilistic system, rather than a deterministic one? As we discover more about how the brain works, it isn't as cut-and-dry as the old model of chemical reaction -> Neuron firing -> chemical reaction -> repeat.

Now we understand that the chemicals have to build to a certain threshold. Anything in this shady boundary will cause a single synapse to fire, but the dendrite that receives this firing probably won't do anything. It might take 3 firings in 2 milliseconds for this other neuron to fire. Another might take 5 inputs in 10 milliseconds. What about 5 in 10.2 milliseconds? Sometimes you get a firing, and sometimes you don't, it depends, not just on the amount of chemicals built up, but how long since the last firing, and the exact position of these chemicals.

At what point does this chaotic mess become more probability than determinism?

I think, if we had perfect knowledge of all of the brain's processes, we would say that in my particular situation, I have a 96.78% chance of hitting the submit button after this paragraph (having planed the post thusly), but there is the 3.22% chance that I might add another sentence, as a related thought pops into my head. Even with perfect knowledge of all brain states and activities, this might be the closest we can get to predicting human behavior.


Free will. <---- Woo Hoo! :D


The brain itself is not the soul. If you had a brain, but no eyes, no touch, no taste, no sound, just a brain in a jar, the brain would never become aware and would be a worthless organ.

http://www.creativematch.co.uk/flairimages/laurence.jpg
Woo-hoo. And, yes, that one about baseball bat-related violence was a great post.

I'll explain further.

If a person has a brain injury, they still have a soul up until the point where they are braindead. The brain is not the soul, because a brain is a useless organ without perception/senses. The brain does nothing but interpret the senses. The soul is actually not something which exists inside the body or inside the brain, the soul is what allows you to control your body with your brain. When you lose control of your body, as in you lose consciousness, and you fade, then your soul is officially gone, but it maintains as long as you have the ability to have a sense of self.
What about when we sleep? Does our soul diminish with our level of consciousness? Are blind people less soulful than the seeing? Many, many more questions that I can't be bothered typing (free will again ;) ).

No, I was just being silly, my overly deterministic chum.

Don't misunderstand me, I largely share your outlook, but still feel that we have a certain amount of freedom to do the right (or the wrong) thing. Bankrobbers can become priests and priests can become bankrobbers. We reserve the right to thumb our nose at our instincts and our most-venerated institutions.

Admittedly these things don't happen that often but it's the anomalies that make the headlines and establish the exceptions to the rule. Not everything we do is governed by our ancestry, or morality, or our upbringing. These constrain our choices to a great extent but we as individuals are the ultimate arbiters. A father can forbid his teenage daughter from dying her hair bright red but a strong-willed individual will still go ahead and do it. He, his wife, his family, friends and the local priest might tell her she must keep her unborn child but ultimately the decision about whether or not to do so is hers and hers alone - and such decisions don't conform to any established behaviour patterns and aren't governed by any kind of simplistic left-right thinking.

There are times in life where we enter new territory and don't really have any precedents to draw on - decisions to make that make us the people we are.

Indeed, and does the fact that 'uncharacteristic behaviour' is rare not show that free will is not the norm? If we assume that free will is causing 'uncharacteristic behaviour'. Ants also sometimes show 'uncharacteristic behaviour'. Do they have free will?

Emphasizing certain concepts sometimes makes it impossible to see. That our behaviour is largely determined by external input shoved through a black box resulting in predictable output.

I'm sure we would like to have free will, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. And not having free will wouldn't make us less interesting.

What about when we sleep? Does our soul diminish with our level of consciousness? Are blind people less soulful than the seeing? Many, many more questions that I can't be bothered typing (free will again ;) ).

You are telling me that when you sleep that you lose your sense of self? Most of us dream, or are capable of it, and we wake up again.

Physical states have nothing to do with the soul/mind because the mind exists outside the body. If you take notes, you can wake up and lose your memory, read the notes, and pick up back where you left off. Not only this, but your children can read them, and their children. Do you see?

Your body is just a temporary material object which the mind expresses itself. Example is this, language and math, which define the universe and provide for scientific method, are products of the soul/mind, the body just is an instrument or tool. You read, and apply knowledge, but you don't solve the universe all by yourself with your little brain, you depend on all the brains of human history to do it. The universe is just a storage device for the mind.

The soul is what connects us all together. It allows for us to communicate with each other. This is why someone else can tell you that you were asleep and lost your memory, and take you in as family.

Indeed, and does the fact that 'uncharacteristic behaviour' is rare not show that free will is not the norm? If we assume that free will is causing 'uncharacteristic behaviour'. Ants also sometimes show 'uncharacteristic behaviour'. Do they have free will?

Emphasizing certain concepts sometimes makes it impossible to see. That our behaviour is largely determined by external input shoved through a black box resulting in predictable output.

I'm sure we would like to have free will, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. And not having free will wouldn't make us less interesting.




People put their soul in their work. Their brain is just a collection of configured atoms. The soul is the configurator of those atoms.

Humans always had free will. You could always do whatever you wanted to do, even if it's stupid. You can jump off a roof right now, you can do anything you want. That's free will. That does not mean you'll want to jump off a roof. If you really want to do something then you'll do it.

Anyway here is a post to the science which leads me to even ask this question.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1271610&postcount=1

Some suspect the material universe may be a hologram. The more we learn about the material universe, the more holographic it seems, in how it actually functions. If we can communicate faster than light, and distance does not exist, it's evidence for the soul being the real controller of matter. It's literally mind over matter, I cannot figure out how else we can have the ability to have something be in two places at once unless everything is everywhere at once in reality and this material universe is just a hologram.

A copy of post 52 briefly appeared here by accident. - that prompted Swivel's comment.

Something really funny briefly appeared here by chance. -that prompted Billy T's comment.

TimeTraveler, what evidence do you have for all of the ideas that you are posting? You seem to know an awful lot about souls. Where does this knowledge come from?

What are we? Material Objects, or Persons w/ souls?

Neither. We are an informational process (a subroutine, if you like) in a real-time simulation of the physical world that is sensed and transformed by our neural transducers into electro-chemical impulses and conveyed to the brain for processing.

Being non material information, we are not governed by the laws of physics. Thus, we can (but perhaps do not) have Genuine Free Will. Here is the proof (in a long essay):

Genuine Free Will is Possible

Before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the future appeared to LaPlace to be exactly determined by the past state of the universe, even if it was clearly unpredictable. Chaos theory and measurement errors plus ignorance about small asteroid orbits, rupture stresses in tectonic faults or vascular systems, etc. makes LaPlace’s future unpredictable, perhaps fatally so in only a few seconds for some individuals. Quantum Mechanics destroyed LaPlace’s deterministic world. Thus, thanks to QM, a “probabilistic will” is at least possible. I.e. we can have the illusion of making “choices” that are actually made by the chance results of QM; however, Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes.

If GFW does not exist, it is perhaps the most universal of all human illusions. This article will show that GFW is physically possible, even probable, without any violation of physics if one is willing to drastically revise the usual concept of one ’s self. Furthermore, it argues that the required revision is a natural consequence of a better understanding of how the human visual system functions and the fact that we are highly visual creatures. The possibility that GFW is only an illusion is not excluded, but is made less probable, by the arguments presented in “Reality, Perception, and Simulation: A Plausible Theory”1. This text extracts from that article some aspects related to the existence of GFW and suggest a reason for Neanderthal extinction and the “Out of Africa” expansion.

That article focused almost entirely on the human visual system. How the brain uses a 2 dimensional array of information (neural activity present in the retina) to form a 3 dimensional perception of the environment is the central mystery of vision. The most accepted general concept is that this 2D data array is “computationally transformed” in successive stages neural processing until the 3D perception “emerges.” This processing begins in the retina itself where data is compressed by almost 100 fold. (Retinal photo detectors greatly outnumber optical nerve fibers.) The first cortical processing area, V1, extracts some “features,” (mainly line orientations and intensities) that are present in the visual field. Color, motion, and other primary features are extracted later in entirely separate regions of the brain. These separated features are processed further in other regions of the brain, but no one knows how they are reassembled into the unified 3D perception we experience. I concur with this feature extraction and segregation model, but do not think the 3D perception we experience is the “emerging result” of automatic computational transforms of the retinal data array as the standard theory suggests.

I contend that the visual features extracted in separate regions of the brain are never “reassembled” and do not “emerge” to form our unified visual experience. Instead, I believe that currently available sensorial information and one’s memory are used to construct, probably in the parietal region of the brain, a real-time simulation of the visual world. We experience that simulated world, not the physical world. Evolutionary selection has forced this simulation to be a nearly perfect model of our immediate physical world. (Excepting electromagnetic waves and other features for which we lack neural sensors.) Thus, continuous detailed guidance is required from the senses, but hallucinations and illusions can be, and occasionally are, created in the simulation that conflict with the physical world. These “errors” together with dreams and visual images formed with eyes closed are difficult for the conventional view of vision to explain in terms of automatic transformations of retinal data. Hallucinations, visual dreams, etc. are easily understood with the concept that what we experience is an internal simulation of the world, not an emerging transform of the retinal data.

Now I reproduce three of the several arguments I presented in above cited article to support this simulation concept and to demonstration that the standard concept of 3D perception as the emerging end result of automatic neural computational transformations of retinal data is surely wrong:

1) Our visual experience is uniformly rich in details over a wide area. That is, we see / experience the environment in front of us everywhere with high resolution, but the optical system of the eyes has very low resolution, except for one extremely small (solid angle slightly more than one degree) part, the fovea. How can high-resolution perceptual experiences, spanning a large part of one hemisphere, emerge from such low resolution input data? Clearly what we experience is derived from some inter construction, not the computational transform of retinal data. I am referring to our visual experience, not our ability to perceive fine details far from the point of fixation. Our perception of fine details is limited to that part of the image falling on the fovea. If our visual experience emerged from successive neural transforms of the retina data, it would be like looking through a lightly frosted sheet of glass, which had only one small spot completely clear (without frosting).

2) One’s perceptual experience when viewing a movie can also prove that the conventional view of visual processes is simply wrong. Imagine that a motion picture camera, held by someone seated in an extreme left seat of a theater, is filming actors on the stage and that doors on the left and right sides of the stage are equally large. Now suppose that this film is projected in a movie theater from a centrally located projection booth. The image projected on the screen will have doors of different size. Assume the left one is 25&#37; larger. If you are seated on the right side of the movie theater in a location that is exactly symmetric to the location of the camera that filmed the movie, then the two doors will form equally large images on your retinas, but the standard theory’s “automatic computational transforms” will compensate for the 25% greater distance to the screen image of the left door and you will correctly perceive that the left door image is 25% larger. (This is correction for distance called “perceptual size constancy”) 2 Likewise if a movie character, who is 80% as tall as the real stage doors, should enter right door, and exit the left one, his height should be perceived as changing by 25% as he walks from one door to the other, according to the convention theory. Regardless of where they are seated, people never perceive an actor’s height as changing as his movie image moves from one side of the screen to the other. If one of the stage actors had walked from the extreme right rear of the stage to the extreme front edge, directly towards the camera making the movie film, the size of his film image could easily have increased by 50%. When you see this walk in the movie, his image on the screen will grow larger by 50%, but its distance from you remains constant so that the automatic computational transforms applied to this retinal image also remain constant. (The convergence angles of your eyes, etc. do not change during his walk.) Consequently, if the standard theory were correct, his perceived size should increase by 50% as he walks, but his perceived size is constant regardless of where he walked on the stage. Clearly the conventional view of how visual perceptions are produced (emerging end result of automatic computational processes) is simply wrong and needs to be replaced. My JHU/APL article gives several other reasons why I believe we experience the results of an internal simulation of our environment, not automatic transforms of our retinal images. It also explains, at the neural level, how we segregate objects (parse them) from the continuous visual field and how we then identify these parsed objects, but these processes are not discussed here because this article concerns only the existence, or not, of GFW.

3) The primary task of living organisms is to stay alive, at least long enough to reproduce. Neural computations require time. The world we would experience, if our experiences were the “emergent results” of many successive stages of neural transformations would be delayed by a significant fraction of a second. During our evolutionary history nothing truly discontinuous ever happened in our visual environment. (The discontinuous changes in movie and TV scenes did not exist.) None the less, it was essential for our ancestors to have a real-time understanding of their surroundings despite nature’s temporal continuity and our neural delays. - Try ducking a rock thrown towards your head if your only visual experience of it is a display projected into the eyes (electronic goggles) that delay the image by 0.1 seconds! A real-time simulation of the environment can be achieved in a neural simulation by slightly projecting ahead the sensory information to compensate for neural processing delays.

A real-time simulation would have great survival value. Perhaps the Neanderthals still experienced slightly delayed “emerging transforms” of retinal data when our smaller brained and weaker ancestors perfected a real-time simulation of their environment. (Ecological pressure from the larger and stronger Neanderthals would have accelerated the rate of evolution in our ancestors.) Likewise, the “Out of Africa” mystery, (Why one branch of hominoids, expanded and dominated all others beginning approximately 50,000 years ago.), which is often assumed to be related to the acquisition of “autonomous language” (no gestures required - hands free and education facilitated), might better be explained by the development of the real-time simulation of the environment.

Furthermore, I think everything we perceive as being “real” in our environment, including our physical bodies, is a part of this same simulation, not an emerging result of neural transformations of sensorial data from any of our neural transducers. That is, all of the senses only guide the simulation, feature by feature, to keep it highly faithful to the current external reality. When an abrupt external event unexpectedly occurs (hidden firecracker exploding, etc.), it significantly conflicts with the events projected in our simulation for that moment. We are startled and the simulation must be quickly revised to conform to the unanticipated external reality. This revision requires approximately 0.3 seconds. I think it probable that the simulation is paused while the revision is in progress, but we do not notice as we are also “paused” during this brief interval, just as we are not aware of hours passing while we sleep. I think the unusual electrical activity in the brain associated with the re-initiation of the simulation produces the EEG signal commonly called “P300,” or the “startle spike.” P300 is strongest over the parietal region.3

Why the continuous natural environment should be dissected into “features” and separately processed as a means of achieving a unified perception of the world is a great and unexplained mystery for most cognitive scientists, but easily understood if a simulation of the world is constructed by the brain. The physically sensed world is dissected into “features” for the same reason that a pilot uses a checklist before takeoff. Dividing a complex task into its component details and separately checking each, item by item, feature by feature, improves task performance accuracy. Thus, both the real-time simulation and the dissection of the visual field into features have significant survival value and consequently are probable natural developments in the evolution of creatures as complex as man.

In order to compare the features derived from retinal data with those derived from the simulation, they must be brought to the same neural tissue. Clearly it would be advantages to make this comparison as early as possible in the sequential stages of “computational transforms” of the retinal information. If the simulation is constructed in the parietal region of the brain, then one would expect that the number of neural fiber leaving the parietal cortex and returning to the visual cortex would at least equal those coming there, via the LGN, from the eyes. In fact they are somewhat more numerous. They are called “retrograde fibers” and no plausible reason for their existence has been suggested. Some of the comparison may be made even earlier in the LGN, which is usually considered to be mainly a “relay station” between the eyes and visual cortex. (Both areas have large projections into the parietal cortex, so it can easily “know” when, where and what difference has been detected.) The quantity of retrograde fibers from the visual striate cortex to the LGN slightly outnumbers the number of fibers coming there from the eyes. About this second set of retrograde fibers, DeValois4 states: “It is by no means obvious what function is sub served by this feedback.” (From V1 to LGN) About the retrograde set from the parietal to V1, they state: “Even less is understood (if that is possible) about these feedback connections...” They also note that both sets are “strictly retinotopic,” which is the neuro-physiologist’s way to compactly state that each small part of the visual field is mapped in one-to-one correspondence with neural tissue. That is, the retrograde fibers return to the same small area of processing cells that the prograde fibers enter and these cells are concerned with only a small part of the image on the retina. This approximately equal number of retinotopic retrograde fibers entering the visual cortex, is not only explained by the theory I am suggesting; they are required for the simulation to rapidly correct for unpredictable external events!

If a buzzer sounds while one is watching the steady predictable movement of a small light spot and one is asked: “Where was the light spot when the buzzer first began to sound?” the location indicated is later than the true location. Thanks to the predictive simulation, the subject is continuously aware of the true location of the light in real-time but he only becomes aware of the sound later after the simulation has been revised to include the sound of the buzzer and he associates it with that later location of the light. Retrograde fibers project back to early sensory processing stages for all of the senses to make correction of the simulation as rapid as possible but perception of new events is still delayed enough to be easily demonstrated in this type of psychological test. - For example, a reasonable competent computer programmer can program his computer to move a light pixel across a stationary grid displayed on the monitor and to randomly make a brief sound. With fine pointer, he quickly points to the light spot location where the light was when the sound started. A few seconds later, the computer displays where the light pixel actual was when the sound started. Note how quickly he moves the pointer (his reaction time) does not matter. The delay measured is the time required to revise the simulation to include the new sound. This small revision will not produce a “P300” EEG signal because the simulation is not paused while it is made. Only major environmental discontinuities, usually sudden unexpected loud noises, pause our existence (startle us).

Thus the only reality we directly experience is this simulation and we are part of it. That is, we are an informational process in a simulation, not a physical body. When we are in deep dreamless sleep the simulation is paused and we do not exist - only our physical bodies exist. Our bodies are at all times completely governed by physical laws, like any other physical object; but if we are only an informational process in a slightly imperfect simulation of the physical world, then we need not be deterministic (or quantum mechanical) beings. That is, we may not exactly follow physical laws just as the creatures modeled in modern computers making movies, pixel by pixel, without actors or optical cameras do not exactly follow the physical laws. The meaning of symbols manipulated in a computer does not depend upon the physical construction or deterministic details of the computer. The human brain is a parallel processing computer, much more advanced than any man has yet conceived, and is fully capable of making a real-time simulation of the world we experience.

Other humans, some of the more advanced animals, and ourselves are modeled in this simulation as having wishes and making choices, not as bio-mechanical creatures governed by physics. That is, the simulation in which we live and exist assumes GFW exists for some of the more advanced creatures. Thus, GFW does exist in the only world we exist in and directly experience. Neither we, nor GFW exists in the physical world. From our direct experiences in the world we exist in, the simulation, we infer (I think correctly) that the physical world does exist, but as Bishop George Berkeley noted, the existence of a physical world may be only an erroneous belief, commonly deduced from our direct experiences. That is, the directly experienced GFW has a stronger claim to “reality” than the inferred physical world!

Summary: This definition of one’s self as an informational process in a simulation, not a physical body, permits you to have GFW and make other violations of physical laws, especially in your dreams, when sensory guidance of the simulation is weak or absent. For example, some people sincerely report “out of body” experiences etc. These physically impossible experiences and GFW are directly experienced and thus have a strong claim to being “real.” In contrast, the existence of a physical world is only inferred from these direct experiences. Bishop Berkeley argued consistently that it may not exist, but he required a God to give him his experiences. My view is similar to his in some aspects (I do not exist as a physical object in the material world.) but it makes no reference to God. Instead, a brain-based simulation is creating both my experiences and me. Being non-physical is the price one must pay for GFW if one rejects miracles that violate physics.

Question: Are you a complex bio-mechanical machine without GFW or only an informational process that has GFW in a simulated world? If you believe the former and that belief is correct, you must. I.e. you can make no real choices without postulating a “soul” or other miracles that violate physics, but if the latter is correct, I can chose to believe it (or not) and still be consistent with physics and logic. Some who believe they have free will and yet reject the second alternative of the question may find in this dilemma a strong argument for the existence of God and miracles, but if they do their “free will” is not GFW. Instead it is the potentially capricious and reversible gift of a greater being, whose postulated existence is not supported by any physical evidence. In contrast, there is a large body of physical evidence (some given above) supporting the simulated world in which I postulate we exist with GFW. See the first reference for more of this evidence. Consider also how many of the strange aspects of human psychology easily fit within the framework of a simulated world and being (phantom limbs, multiple personalities, false memories, sincere denial, d&#233;j&#224; vu, hallucinations, etc.).
References and Notes:

1) For reprint, contact the Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physic Laboratory (helen.worth@jhuapl.edu). "Reality, Perception, and Simulation: A Plausible Theory" appeared in the JHU/APL Technical Journal, volume 15, number 2 (1994) pages 154 - 163. The last two pages (Philosophical Implications and Speculations) give the above solution to the freewill vs. determinism problem.

2) For example, if a father is standing three times farther from you than his half grown son, his image on your retina is smaller than that of his son, yet you perceive their relative sizes correctly. Standard theory suggests that we automatically correct retinal image sizes to compensate for distance. “Perceptual size constancy” is usually reasonably accurate. The most notable natural exception is the moon illusion. The near horizon moon appears to be larger than the overhead moon because humans conceive of the “sky dome”, on which the moon and stars appear to move, as more distant near the horizon than at the zenith. Why this is so, is partially caused by the slowing of the angular rate of movement of clouds, birds, etc. we watch as they move towards the horizon.

3) There are many other reasons to suspect the simulation takes palace in parietal cortex, but I will only briefly mention two. First is the geometric efficiency of the brain’s structure for a parietal simulation. The simulation requires four main inputs. Tactical sensory cortex contacts the anterior parietal; Visual cortex contacts the posterior, Auditory input contacts it laterally and the primary tissue associated with memory is directly below the parietal cortex. This minimizes neural conduction delays and “white tissue” (nerve fibers) brain volume requirements. Even stronger support is found in the sequela of parietal strokes, which result in “unilateral neglect.” Victims of these strokes do not recognize the existence of the contra lateral half of the physical world. They eat only the food on one side of their plate, etc. Their visual system can be shown to continue functioning perfectly. For example, if one briefly flashes a small light in that part of the world that does not exists (for them), and then demands that they guess whether this non-existent light was red or green, they perform far above chance, while complaining that it is silly to name the color of something that did not exist. This proves their visual system is functioning well, at least through the stage where small color features are extracted. I explain unilateral neglect sequela by postulating that the undamaged side of the parietal brain is continuing to make a simulation, but only of its half of the world. Because their personality is not drastically changed, I believe frontal cortex is utilized to construct much the “psychological self” included in the simulation but their physical body image is a parietal construct. - If they happen to turn their head and see their leg, whose existence is no longer represented in the simulation as part of their body, they may try to throw this “foreign leg” away – it is disgusting close to them.

4) Page 101 of Spatial Vision, first edition, Oxford Psychology Series No. 14, by R.L. & K.K. DeValois Oxford University Press (ISBN 0-19-505019-3)

This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.

The only debate is which holds higher value... truth (Atheists) or psychological satisfaction (Theists)... and that debate is subjective therefore there is no correct or incorrect position.



What are we?

Sentient cross sections of reality.



Material Objects, or Persons w/ souls?

We have mass and 'souls' dont exist.



Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different?

We are a configurations of quarks and gluons.



Do we have a soul?

You cannot have something that does not exist.

People put their soul in their work.

A figure of speech is meaningless as an argument.

We are biological entities, our consciousness is a biochemical and electrical process.

We are biological entities, our consciousness is a biochemical and electrical process.

So the soul is energy? According to the rules of quantum physics? I'd say the soul is self aware energy. Energy that knows what itself and who/what it is.

Everything in this universe is energy in one form or another.
I didn't mention any soul in my post, it is not required.

We are biological entities, our consciousness is a biochemical and electrical process.If you believe that, then that belief was mandatory for you as all these processes are governed by the laws of physics - I.e. you have no free will. For possible escape from this box, read post 52. (I know it is long, but this is a complex problem, not handled in "one liners.")

We are entities with both a body and a soul. When we die our souls remain and occuPy another body...strength of soul determines the body it occuPies...thats what life is for...to strengthen or weaken the soul. Power of will.

How do you know that

How do you know that

I am not sure, but I know.

I am not sure, but I know.

Just like Christians believe in their crap, right?

Material objects called persons.

If you don't have a soul then you are just a collection of configured atoms, that were configured by chance/accident, no different than a rock really.

yes

Just like Christians believe in their crap, right?

look you have to experience see it/feel it for yourself to truly believe. It cannot be proven. I saw things that came true exactly how I saw them in future...and it has no explanation. I felt things and people and their actions when they were away from me and that is exactly what they have been doing. Some things in life do not have explanations and cannot be explained.

yes I am leaving you with ultimatum, have faith in me or do not have faith in me.

If you believe that, then that belief was mandatory for you as all these processes are governed by the laws of physics - I.e. you have no free will. For possible escape from this box, read post 52. (I know it is long, but this is a complex problem, not handled in "one liners.")


what exactly is being argued here? that there is no free will because of the laws of phsics?... acting under the laws of physics does not restrict free will

unless you are talking about determinism and or the chaos theory or whatever.. but then, still ...

what exactly is being argued here? that there is no free will because of the laws of phsics?... acting under the laws of physics does not restrict free will...You obviously did not read post 52, whcih sumarized the longer essay on free will discussion of the problem between free will and physics. Thus no point in telling you again.

Entertaining the belief that souls exist without ample evidence is foolish and unreasonable. Until proven otherwise, we're products of chance and evolution, nothing more.

look you have to experience see it/feel it for yourself to truly believe. It cannot be proven. I saw things that came true exactly how I saw them in future...and it has no explanation. I felt things and people and their actions when they were away from me and that is exactly what they have been doing. Some things in life do not have explanations and cannot be explained.

yes I am leaving you with ultimatum, have faith in me or do not have faith in me.

That would be like believing a schizophrenic claiming to be the reincarnation of jesus just because he says so.

This is a question, that will once and for all settle the athiest vs thiest debate.

Are we material objects, like the rock and the robot, or are we something unique, and different? Do we have a soul?

we all have a soul its knowing if its a good one or a bad one!

The human race basically sucks anyway!

You obviously did not read post 52, whcih sumarized the longer essay on free will discussion of the problem between free will and physics. Thus no point in telling you again.

is that your idea of a discussion? CTRL+V a huge article, and then refering people to it when they ask you a question?

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/snadlee/funny%20pics/obama2.png

is that your idea of a discussion? CTRL+V a huge article, and then refering people to it when they ask you a question?Ask your question more clearly, showing some indication you have read at least one of the more than 25 times I have disscused my real time simulation concept in posts and I will try to answer you. What is it about post 52, one of my latest discusions, compressed to be no longer than most of my posts, you fail to understand? Be specific.

we are all just molecular conglomerates: get over it.

we are all just molecular conglomerates: get over it.Yes but we do function as the world's best computers (by far) and may make the real-time-simulation as I propose - perceive that and be part of that (psychologically, instead of physical bodies controlled by the physical laws of nature).