I object to this point on the foundation that Quantum Mechanics is not a resolved set of theories and mutually exclusive presentations of the system are at war with one another to this day. Bohm's theory, for instance, is rigidly deterministic, and the multiple universe one is also deterministic, but a "branching determinism". In essence, the probablistic nature of Quantum Mechanics is itself up to debate and therefore, I find this argument supremely unconvincing. I'd also note that there is nothing in the macroscopic brain and mind which would admit of quantum probability. What aspect of an inner simulation allow us to experience the world from a perspective that has a distinctly first-person characteristic, yet is found no where in the brain itself in such imagery? What evidence do you have for it lasting .3 seconds? Also, how could we remain paused for such a relatively long period of time and nonetheless react, and often have many reactions, in that time? You will note, however, that simulations on computers do indeed follow strict deterministic processes. No Turing Machine follows anything but a formal system so composed to be anything worse than computationally irreducible. Randomness does not play into it and, in the end, the information processing is rigidly deterministic like everything else. Accordingly, saying that a simulation only simulates what is real and thus is not deterministic, is ridiculous as the system beneath it is deterministic, whether or not the physical laws so simulated work on the same foundations, or are just simulations of the behaviour as capable of being experienced. The human brain being a Turing Machine - be it linear or parallel - is controversial, specifically in light of its semantic content. Subjective idealism, in line with Berkley's thoughts, is an unsupportable hypothesis. See my "A Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism" (available here on Sciforums) for my arguments in regards to that. I'd also ask how a formal system can produce "wishes and choices" which are not direct correlates to that formal system's deterministic processes? Imagination allows us to experience, as thoughts, all sorts of violations. But this does not mean we are experiencing true violations. Brain information need not be "non-physical". Indeed, it remains quite physical, if we accept the premise that the mind is a Turing Machine. There exists no Turing Machines which are non-physical. I must say: Interesting essay, Billy T. I also did not quote its full extent here, in order to allow you to present your own work.