Phantom Limb Manipulation

[petrossa]

From the sourced scientific observation lot's of things can be deduced. The writer himself poses an interesting one.

Further, as the world of virtual reality looms before us, it is plausible that our brains can be easily tricked into feeling as if we occupy the virtual representation of ourselves. We will not just be looking at an our avatar in a virtual world, but feel as if we are the avatar and are in the virtual world.

However doesn't he skip a step there? Namely, we do that already.

Our brain already constructs a virtual representation of the world. Given the biological fact that between a corporal event being witnessed by the brain it takes upwards from 0.5 secs for it reach our consciousness. There are arguments that given the definition by present day law of 'conscious acts' no one is responsible for his actions. (Gazzaniga, the Ethical Brain http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/1932594019.html)

You only know consciously what you've done 0.5 secs AFTER you've done it, seen it,heard it, felt it.

Hence, freedom of will is an illusion created by your brain.

SOURCE

Edited November 7, 2009 by Anaron
Fixed link.

[mokthraka]

that means others dont know what you have done till even longer. so its okay :)

and im pretty sure that its not always .5 seconds

[petrossa]

that means others dont know what you have done till even longer. so its okay :)

and im pretty sure that its not always .5 seconds

:D ?still it's thought provoking to see that a noted neurophysicist who's been expert witness on lot's of courtsessions puts forward (slightly tongue in cheek) the proposition that in actual fact no one is aware of his actions till after the fact, get's supported by on observation made by someone researching phantom limb phenomena.

No that's true, it can be up to 1 second.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

lot's of things

Where did that apostrophe come from? [/pedantry]

Further, as the world of virtual reality looms before us, it is plausible that our brains can be easily tricked into feeling as if we occupy the virtual representation of ourselves. We will not just be looking at an our avatar in a virtual world, but feel as if we are the avatar and are in the virtual world.

However doesn't he skip a step there? Namely, we do that already.?

Our brain already constructs a virtual representation of the world. Given the biological fact that between a corporal event being witnessed by the brain it takes upwards from 0.5 secs for it reach our consciousness. There are arguments that given the definition by present day law of 'conscious acts' no one is responsible for his actions. (Gazzaniga, the Ethical Brain http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/1932594019.html)

You only know consciously what you've done 0.5 secs AFTER you've done it, seen it,heard it, felt it.

Hence, freedom of will is an illusion created by your brain.

SOURCE

Don't forget that one's actions can be predicted up toSIX> seconds before we actually perform them.

I think the idea of a split between the 'concious' and the 'unconscious' is very much overestimated, but that by no means diminishes the consciousness IMVHO.

[Mr. Gibs]

Lol I saw this topic in the latest forum activity section and thought it was about venture bros =/

LOL

Interesting article though!

[petrossa]

Where did that apostrophe come from? [/pedantry]

bad english for you, not bad for a foreigner.?:pp

Don't forget that one's actions can be predicted up toSIX> seconds before we actually perform them.

I think the idea of a split between the 'concious' and the 'unconscious' is very much overestimated, but that by no means diminishes the consciousness IMVHO.

We're talking about reactions here. Not actions as such.?

event happens:

vision pass by the limbic system first, audio as well. Limbic system reacts, neocortex has no knowledge of the existence of the limbic system nor a direct linkage like the two hemispheres have.

So neocortex gets the visual later, and notices the body has reacted. It scans the hormone levels, respiration rate, heartrate, positioning of the facial muscles, muscle tension, body stance and in so doing tries to figure out what's happening. Once it has correlated all the info the controller gets a collated view of current happenings. This it now has to make aware to 'you'. As it needs to fit in with previous events, the view gets massaged until it is consistent with previous 'events', and there you have your reality.

[carmatic]

im sorry, but what does phantom limbs have anything to do with your 'illusion of freedom' ? aside from both being covered by neurology, i dont see the link...

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

im sorry, but what does phantom limbs have anything to do with your 'illusion of freedom' ? aside from both being covered by neurology, i dont see the link...

It's an example of what's being discussed. Did you even bother to read the source? :p

Anyway, it's both interesting and scary. I won't take it as 100% fact; however, I'll try my best to understand it. The very thought of my actions being predetermined and therefore not determined by me is quite daunting. It's almost as if we're running in autopilot mode but we think we're in the driver's seat.

[carmatic]

but... the source is about the phantom limbs of amputees... im confused??

the other article linked was something about an 'interpreter' , making everything we do seem justified... then it goes on about religion and stuff ... i dunno...

Edited November 7, 2009 by carmatic

[petrossa]

im sorry, but what does phantom limbs have anything to do with your 'illusion of freedom' ? aside from both being covered by neurology, i dont see the link...

If you read the article about phantom limb, you'll see the writer posing an interesting theory.

I posted a little snap in the OP.

He arrives at the possibility you can fool the brain into believing you have 6 arms, ergo you can fool the brain into accepting a completely virtual world as real.

I state that's exactly what happens already.

[petrossa]

It's an example of what's being discussed. Did you even bother to read the source? :p

Anyway, it's both interesting and scary. I won't take it as 100% fact; however, I'll try my best to understand it. The very thought of my actions being predetermined and therefore not determined by me is quite daunting. It's almost as if we're running in autopilot mode but we think we're in the driver's seat.

It's pretty much based on scientific fact. The >0.5 second pause has been observed as a standard during open skull brain surgery.

But your own planned actions you seem to control, it's your interface with the world you don't.

There's though the interesting presurge of brainactivity BEFORE you make a conscious decision to perform an act. As if the brain has already itself decided to lift your arm and prepares the motorcenter so you can agree with it and do it. That part could be interpreted as a somewhat free will.

?

but... the source is about the phantom limbs of amputees... im confused??

the other article linked was something about an 'interpreter' , making everything we do seem justified... then it goes on about religion and stuff ... i dunno...

That's just a small preview. Buy the book, you won't regret it. (no i don't get a percentage?:p:p )

[lamminium]

I like Steven Novella because of this article of his.

Now, free will is a delicate concept and most likely non-existent. I am increasingly attracted to the notion that life is governed by probabilities rather than deterministic causes. Evolution is a straight forward example of probabilistic phenomena. Quantum mechanics is another (or really, modern physics in general) and if you look modern theories in science, probability is the recurrent theme: chemistry, genetics, etc. Just recently, I discovered the formal name for my current belief in the mechanism of life: naturalistic pantheism. This goes back to my description of my own 'God' - a pleasantly surprising fit.

The reason why it takes 0.5+ seconds for an action to register in our conscience is due to the physiological working of the brain - the fact that electrical and chemical signals have to be initiated, transmitted and integrated (and we all know this). An intriguing application to this time lag is perception manipulation as you alluded to.

We must, however, make the distinction between reality and virtual reality. A real object is real with or without your acknowledgement. As soon as we filter the image through the lens of our perception, results may vary - one consequence is the so-called virtual reality. So am I saying that God is real? Possibly? Because my argument implies that there is a chance. But then between a personal, anthropomorphic God and a pantheistic God, there is clearly a logical preference for the latter form.

[petrossa]

We must, however, make the distinction between reality and virtual reality. A real object is real with or without your acknowledgement. As soon as we filter the image through the lens of our perception, results may vary - one consequence is the so-called virtual reality. So am I saying that God is real? Possibly? Because my argument implies that there is a chance. But then between a personal, anthropomorphic God and a pantheistic God, there is clearly a logical preference for the latter form.

Well, disregarding god who cares, the reality bit.

I propose that in fact reality as such is not just the lens of perception, but is being actively generated in our brains. Sure a rock is a rock even if we're not a around.

But a sequence of events, there's the difference. I guess most have had the experience when an accident or such happened time slows down. At the same time your bodily reflexes are just not up tot he task and you're nailed to the ground.

This has also been shown in tests to be a genuine artifact of the brain, that the flow of time as we perceive it is determined by the brain. That goes to show that our view of events is being heavily preprocessed, giving the possibility that the brain interjects or filters outs bits that it finds inconclusive or just doesn't like and events need not have taken place in the order we perceive it, may not have happened or happened but is being added to to fill in eventual holes to make it fit our preconceptions.

Which goes to to point that it's impossible to determine if our personal perception of events is what actually happens. That's a bit the point Gazzaniga made when discussing the problem of eyewitness accounts.?

So it can be taken as a given that perception of events varies from person to person and can vary in the same person from day to day.

Which in turn goes back to my OP. Isn't it so that we live already in a virtual world? That 'we' are just going with the flow, were free will is the real illusion.

[lamminium]

Reminds me of this.

Perception is subjective so it's labile and heavily dependent on the owner's mental and physical state. And yes, our brain likes to fill in the gap to complete the image. I wouldn't say we live in a virtual world, objectively speaking. Perhaps at some stage, we temporarily remove ourselves from reality (like day-dreaming) but quite often, it's the real world we live in: say if a group of healthy people watch a car go past, I don't think any of them will say "a cat just went past". In assessing reality, we rely on the others' accounts to validate our version.

[petrossa]

Reminds me of this.

Perception is subjective so it's labile and heavily dependent on the owner's mental and physical state. And yes, our brain likes to fill in the gap to complete the image. I wouldn't say we live in a virtual world, objectively speaking. Perhaps at some stage, we temporarily remove ourselves from reality (like day-dreaming) but quite often, it's the real world we live in: say if a group of healthy people watch a car go past, I don't think any of them will say "a cat just went past". In assessing reality, we rely on the others' accounts to validate our version.

Obviously we rely on others, since by basic design they have the same brain as any other healthy person. So you'd expect them all to see the approximately the same image. Doesn't imply it's the correct one though.

Introduce an amazon indian who's never ever set foot outside the jungle and has no knowledge at all of cars.

What does he see? One can only hazard a guess, but he'd probably relate the object to something he knows. It's seems to be roaring, it's headlights resemble a predator at night, it's charging whilst roaring in your general direction. Since his reference cadre doesn't allow for mechanical objects, he'll see some horrible monstrous predator coming for him and take fright.

But sure as hell he won't say: i've seen a car.

And not doing that but taking those people, and ask them afterwards: What did you see?

Well they'll respond a car.

Ok, which color? There will a number of colors named, some accurate

Which make, males will respond on the whole correctly, females not

What was it's relative speed? You'll get any number, or just fast, slow

What plates did it have? mixed response.

Now let hem discuss among themselves and ask again.

Suddenly you get a a unified response where color, make, speed and plates will vary from reality.

And their reality diverges then from actual reality, but they don't know that. For them their memory is reality. Over the years, the memory will get polluted. Time, place, circumstances will get mixed with other similar events. At that point you live in a total virtual reality.

[carmatic]

theres a difference between the image of the world we have , which is an intrinsic part of our everyday functioning/survival, and an illusion, which is something which is made to exploit the flaws of our perception to result in a wrong image for us

virtual reality is something manmade, while perception itself is spontaneous... the former is an illusion, the latter is part of our everyday functioning

and i still dont understand what is the link between phantom limbs and virtual reality, aside from possibly being able to train people to manipulate more than 2 arms if theyre' hooked up to to a simulator or a robot controller...

the parts of the brain which control your movement are seperate from the parts which receive your senses

[petrossa]

theres a difference between the image of the world we have , which is an intrinsic part of our everyday functioning/survival, and an illusion, which is something which is made to exploit the flaws of our perception to result in a wrong image for us

virtual reality is something manmade, while perception itself is spontaneous... the former is an illusion, the latter is part of our everyday functioning

and i still dont understand what is the link between phantom limbs and virtual reality, aside from possibly being able to train people to manipulate more than 2 arms if theyre' hooked up to to a simulator or a robot controller...

the parts of the brain which control your movement are seperate from the parts which receive your senses

All human reality is per definition manmade. It's our perception of the surrounding world. Objective reality exists imo, (i steer away from getting metaphyscial, because that's a dead end) but not in our heads.

It is long been determined that our bodies are projected on our brains, with special area's linked to bodyparts. You can amputate a limb, but your brain doesn't notice and still tells you it's there.

Or the other extreme, an affliction where people lack the representation of a limb and want it amputated because they don't recognize it as theirs.

Put together with all other biological scientific observations known sofar it is considered to be a fact that our brain constructs reality on the go.

As such, our perception of reality is a mental construct open to manipulation/interpretation. This is to me the definition of a virtual reality.

[carmatic]

my definition of a virtual reality is a literal, manmade, physical machine, designed to fool our senses... you know, like 3d goggles and virtual helmets and The Matrix and all that...

and just because your brain does it, doesnt mean its manmade... thats just like saying sweat is manmade ...

[petrossa]

my definition of a virtual reality is a literal, manmade, physical machine, designed to fool our senses... you know, like 3d goggles and virtual helmets and The Matrix and all that...

and just because your brain does it, doesnt mean its manmade... thats just like saying sweat is manmade ...

The OP wasn't about 3d games. The OP was how results form research into phantom limb phenomena, like a convincing amount of other scientific observations, supports the thesis that man lives in a virtual world already.

[carmatic]

im sorry but i dont agree, the only times the term 'virtual reality' comes up in the article is when mentioning the exact idea i brought up... controlling avatars in virtual reality... it doesnt even attempt to give a new definition to that term

[petrossa]

And so i posted the idea that he was one step to far, and we live in virtual reality already. It's exactly the same principle, whether your phantom limb is a robotic arm or not.

His research shows that the brain cannot distinguish between reality and virtuality. So that directly supports the idea that since the brain can't see the difference, all the brain's perceptions are interpretations of reality, not a direct copy of reality.

Hence virtual reality.

[carmatic]

the interpretation of reality is just that, an interpretation.... a virtual reality is something which has to be made , its a machine, a device, something made of silicon and powered by electricity... its purpose is to mess with our interpretation, but it only exists in our interpretation when we interact with such a machine

[lamminium]

Obviously we rely on others, since by basic design they have the same brain as any other healthy person. So you'd expect them all to see the approximately the same image. Doesn't imply it's the correct one though.

Introduce an amazon indian who's never ever set foot outside the jungle and has no knowledge at all of cars.

What does he see? One can only hazard a guess, but he'd probably relate the object to something he knows. It's seems to be roaring, it's headlights resemble a predator at night, it's charging whilst roaring in your general direction. Since his reference cadre doesn't allow for mechanical objects, he'll see some horrible monstrous predator coming for him and take fright.

But sure as hell he won't say: i've seen a car.

And not doing that but taking those people, and ask them afterwards: What did you see?

Well they'll respond a car.

Ok, which color? There will a number of colors named, some accurate

Which make, males will respond on the whole correctly, females not

What was it's relative speed? You'll get any number, or just fast, slow

What plates did it have? mixed response.

Now let hem discuss among themselves and ask again.

Suddenly you get a a unified response where color, make, speed and plates will vary from reality.

And their reality diverges then from actual reality, but they don't know that. For them their memory is reality. Over the years, the memory will get polluted. Time, place, circumstances will get mixed with other similar events. At that point you live in a total virtual reality.

The fact remains is that the 'car' exists to the tribal person. He just lacks the terminology/knowledge to describe it. So the car is real, no matter how you look at it. The problem arises when you try to attach a description to it.

In describing something, we tend to relate it to a previously encountered and preferably well characterised object/concept to make sense of it. It does not mean the thing is virtual. Its lone existence is real. What we make of it may not be. The same principle applies to a sequence of events. This is, however, a convoluted concept. The spatio-temporal parameters are relative and largely depend on the frame of reference (in your example, it's the judgement of a particular bystander). What is unchanged is the fact that the event occurs (that an object which we term 'car' ran past). Reality borders on the perception of a collective. We may well be living a virtual reality in the frame of an external observer (outside our dimension) but for us, our world is real.

I'm starting to appreciate what you're trying to imply: because our life and aspects of life are defined by our perception, which is malleable, each person is in effect living a virtual world. That, however, is the problem of mental capacity such as memory and intelligence. That's why one eyewitness is usually not sufficient to close a case. Moreover, if an objective evidence such as a verifiable electronic footage is shown and presents a clear case against the accused, no amount of witnesses can testify against it.

[petrossa]

I'm starting to appreciate what you're trying to imply: because our life and aspects of life are defined by our perception, which is malleable, each person is in effect living a virtual world. That, however, is the problem of mental capacity such as memory and intelligence. That's why one eyewitness is usually not sufficient to close a case. Moreover, if an objective evidence such as a verifiable electronic footage is shown and presents a clear case against the accused, no amount of witnesses can testify against it.

To step away from the analogies, because they'll always lead to a discussion on the merits of the analogy rather than the matter discussed.

Intelligence is just a question of how fast is your CPU. A moron may well arrive at the same conclusion as a genius, only it'll take him a lifetime what a genius can do in a few years.

I pose that conscious awareness is a mental construct wholly dependent on the data provided by the interpretive data management systems of the brain, were holes in perception are filled it in from memory similar to the sampling of an audioCD.

From the start of the senses already, the eye itself already filters by having fast recovering and slow recovering cells.

The closer the the center of vision the faster the eye can retrigger, the further away the slower. So the data of the outlying regions of the vision are updated less frequently. Also in the brain this takes place, so static images may be backfilled from memory rather than rescanned anew. Very efficient.

So it goes down whole trail of sensory perception.

After all that prefiltering, it's cleaned up, stabilized, referred to longterm memory for clues, gets joined by corporal status information, is than transferred to the auditive areas to give words to the scene and thus making it a conscious awareness.

All in all the end result is a wholly virtual representation of reality.

[lamminium]

Strictly speaking, we all live in the past because of the limited speed of light. By the time the photons which contain the information of the surrounding fall on our retinae, the original information has changed during that fraction of a second. This occurs with or without the additional processing by the brain. In a profound sense, our reality is already non-absolute.

I suppose you're talking from the point of a human observer. Perhaps your idea of reality means precision in every detail whereas I tend to think of it as actual events whose details are a matter of relative measurements. To reiterate the analogy of the car: "it zooms past you" is a fact. "How slowly" or "how fast" are parameters dependent on your reference frames. Thus, to every human, the whole reality is subjective but there are points where their accounts of reality converge. These points constitute reality.

What I've said so far implies that in our individual version of reality, there are elements of virtuality but on a whole scale, we don't live in completely virtual world.