Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

So first of all, QM says that a mouse could learn calculus tomorrow, incredibly improbable but still possible.

Show me where QM says this, ryan.

It's pretty well known. It's very much implied in much written on QM. And, it is implied in all of the mainstream theories about QM.

 

[ryan]

I agree. I read studies suggesting this.

Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ...

I highly doubt this DBT. Read,

"'Where in the Brain Is Consciousness Located?' UCSB's Michael Gazzaniga says that's a trick question: Consciousness is a flexible and ever-changing process. Part 3 of Unlocking the Secrets and Powers of the Brain, sponsored by the NSF, The Franklin Institute, and DISCOVER magazine"

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7JUXub5pA

Please also watch at least the first 1:30 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONlo9WcKgQ .

They simply don't know what, where and how the consciousness exists.

Conscious activity may be distributed but this doesn't mean the brain is not doing it. Gazzaniga does not support quantum consciousness, as far as what I have read, or heard from him in interviews.

Yeah, nobody did until a few years ago. Hell, nobody thought QM could operate in life at all.

Gazzaniga does talk about narrator function, a conscious report of what is occurring in relation to actions taken....which can be separated from so called conscious agency. It is all brain agency, not quantum alone and certainly not conscious will, which emerges somewhere around mid process.

But you wrote, "Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ... ". Wouldn't there be a "reconnection"?

 

[untermensche]

You claim to know that the 'mind' is something other than what the brain is doing regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Which you reject out of hand, despite the fact that it is universally accepted by researches....except maybe a small percentage of dreamers who envisage non material mind or quantum mind regardless of the absence of evidence for these ideas.

You of course can't explain your own contentions in any way except repeating - 'I can move my finger' - which would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Of course "mind" is more than something in the brain. It is something known by simple logic and experience.

To have experience requires two things: Something which can experience AND all that this something is capable of experiencing. This logic is insurmountable and cannot be dismissed.

I call "that which experiences" "the mind", an arbitrary label, but a label pointing to a necessity if there is experience.

And if we take logic further. If there is movement from rest then there must be initiation of movement. There again must be two things: That which initiates and that which it can work on to initiate.

I also claim the mind is "that which initiates". And this is based on more than fingers moving. It is based on countless voluntary movements in a lifetime. Never was the body just moved. It was always an act of "will".

And you have provided no information about the mind, "that which experiences", "that which initiates", because you nor anybody knows what it is, in physiological terms.

You know a tiny few things about the brain, a lot of it about the brain under artificial external stimulation not normal functioning, and want to make absolute claims with this tiny bit of knowledge.

All you really have is the desire to make dogmatic absolute claims.

And the amazing ability to not be intrigued by the fact that you can move your finger at "will".

Just by saying "brain, brain, brain, brain" you think you have said something. You have said next to nothing. You have not addressed the underlying necessary logic at all. Nor shown in any way it is not necessary.

You can prove it yourself easily enough. Drink a bottle of whisky and experience what it does to your mind.

You simply don't understand logic.

Suppose the car is the brain and the driver is the mind. If I deflate the tires the car does not work well.

But nothing has happened to the driver.

A driver needs a properly functioning machine. That's all your whiskey experiment shows.

I have even described global work space model as information coming together in order to enable higher order processing and response with sensory imagery, feelings, etc, a virtual representation of self and environment.

No need for the creation of a global work space if the thing that experiences the work space "the mind" cannot act on that work space. The act of creating it for a mind to experience is entirely superfluous activity if that "mind" cannot act on it's makings of that work space. You are indeed saying the mind is superfluous and unneeded. But of course nobody can logically use language, use some aspect of the "mind", to deny one has one. So you are saying this thing clearly experienced is entirely superfluous.

Yet the numerous times I ask you to explain your notion of non brain activity mind, you never do. You avoid it like the plague.

I addressed it immediately but because it is so simple I thought I didn't need to address it again.

If the "mind" is one aspect of brain activity, and movement is another, then the mind initiating movement is just one aspect of brain activity working on another. Nothing amazing or interesting.

The "mind" however is a kind of brain activity that uses a complete concept of the world, with it's innumerable smaller concepts embedded, along with things like sensations and emotions to make decisions in the world and initiate movements to carry out those decisions or initiate language to carry them out.

What makes the human stand out is that it makes decisions with a "mind" not a brain.

 

[DBT]

Show me where QM says this, ryan.

It's pretty well known. It's very much implied in much written on QM. And, it is implied in all of the mainstream theories about QM.

It's pretty well known that QM allows mice to learn calculus?

Just saying 'it's pretty well known does nothing to show how its possible, or describe the mechanism or means by which it becomes possible for a mouse to learn calculus when it's brain does not have the means to process this level of information.

You did not answer my question. Your reply avoids my question.

It's well

 

[DBT]

I agree. I read studies suggesting this.

Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ...

I highly doubt this DBT. Read,

"'Where in the Brain Is Consciousness Located?' UCSB's Michael Gazzaniga says that's a trick question: Consciousness is a flexible and ever-changing process. Part 3 of Unlocking the Secrets and Powers of the Brain, sponsored by the NSF, The Franklin Institute, and DISCOVER magazine"

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7JUXub5pA

Please also watch at least the first 1:30 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONlo9WcKgQ .

They simply don't know what, where and how the consciousness exists.

Conscious activity may be distributed but this doesn't mean the brain is not doing it. Gazzaniga does not support quantum consciousness, as far as what I have read, or heard from him in interviews.

Yeah, nobody did until a few years ago. Hell, nobody thought QM could operate in life at all.

Quantum states don't process information, don't have senses, do not acquire information, do not actively respond to stimuli according to stored information, etc. These functions are the evolved attributes and features of complex neural networks. There is no evidence for quantum consciousness or a non material element like a soul as the source of mind.

But you wrote, "Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ... ". Wouldn't there be a "reconnection"?

Consciousness is not aware of or have access to the underlying electro chemical activity that is forming it. Consciousness is not aware of or have access to the information feeding conscious activity, this is all unconscious activity. Most of the brains functions are unconscious.

That self identity is shaped and formed by the brain is easily seen - as I have pointed out numerous times - in cases of progressive memory function breakdown where the patient loses recognition of self, family, friends, skills and interests and all the things of the world.

 

[DBT]

I addressed it immediately but because it is so simple I thought I didn't need to address it again.

If the "mind" is one aspect of brain activity, and movement is another, then the mind initiating movement is just one aspect of brain activity working on another. Nothing amazing or interesting.

The "mind" however is a kind of brain activity that uses a complete concept of the world, with it's innumerable smaller concepts embedded, along with things like sensations and emotions to make decisions in the world and initiate movements to carry out those decisions or initiate language to carry them out.

What makes the human stand out is that it makes decisions with a "mind" not a brain.

You last remark completely and utterly contradicts everything you said prior to that.

If mind is shaped, formed and consciously represented by a brain, as it obviously is, which you apparently agree (but then proceed to contradict)....the mind is not autonomous. The brain is the agent of mind.

The mind cannot decide to do or not do anything other than what the brain is doing in terms of mind formation/conscious representation.

Yet you imply a separation even while denying a separation.

This is the the point where your claim fails.

 

[ryan]

It's pretty well known. It's very much implied in much written on QM. And, it is implied in all of the mainstream theories about QM.

It's pretty well known that QM allows mice to learn calculus?

Just saying 'it's pretty well known does nothing to show how its possible, or describe the mechanism or means by which it becomes possible for a mouse to learn calculus when it's brain does not have the means to process this level of information.

You did not answer my question. Your reply avoids my question.

It's well

It's just the probabilistic nature of matter. Structures, molecules, processes, etc. exist probabilistically. There is a possibility that a rat will learn calculus tomorrow but a much greater chance that it won't.

 

[DBT]

It's pretty well known that QM allows mice to learn calculus?

Just saying 'it's pretty well known does nothing to show how its possible, or describe the mechanism or means by which it becomes possible for a mouse to learn calculus when it's brain does not have the means to process this level of information.

You did not answer my question. Your reply avoids my question.

It's well

It's just the probabilistic nature of matter. Structures, molecules, processes, etc. exist probabilistically. There is a possibility that a rat will learn calculus tomorrow but a much greater chance that it won't.

That still doesn't explain how a mouse brain can possibly learn calculus, the mechanism, the how of it.

The probabilistic nature of quantum breaks down on a scale well below that of a mouse brain. Not even molecules are probabilistic, carbon doesn't spontaneously transform into silicon or anything else.

Depending on your interpretation, QM may not be probabilistic at all. It may be fully deterministic (MW interpretation). We may only be seeing the flitting shadows of reality and calling it probabilistic.

 

[ryan]

Quantum states don't process information, ...

Yes, they do.

don't have senses, do not acquire information, do not actively respond to stimuli according to stored information, etc. These functions are the evolved attributes and features of complex neural networks. There is no evidence for quantum consciousness or a non material element like a soul as the source of mind.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00258 (summary)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.00258.pdf

It just seems obvious that something so volatile as QM would play a role in something as fragile and intricate as the brain.

But you wrote, "Brain also forms its conscious self identity which it calls 'me' while disconnecting the means of production from its 'me' ... ". Wouldn't there be a "reconnection"?

Consciousness is not aware of or have access to the underlying electro chemical activity that is forming it.

Here is where you seem to allude to dualism. By "underlying", it seems like the you are saying that the consciousness emerges and runs parallel with the matter/processes.

Consciousness is not aware of or have access to the information feeding conscious activity, this is all unconscious activity. Most of the brains functions are unconscious.

How is the consciousness not aware of information; that's the whole idea of the consciousness. My consciousness is conscious of light entering the room, etc.

That self identity is shaped and formed by the brain is easily seen - as I have pointed out numerous times - in cases of progressive memory function breakdown where the patient loses recognition of self, family, friends, skills and interests and all the things of the world.

I agree, for the most part.

 

[ryan]

It's just the probabilistic nature of matter. Structures, molecules, processes, etc. exist probabilistically. There is a possibility that a rat will learn calculus tomorrow but a much greater chance that it won't.

That still doesn't explain how a mouse brain can possibly learn calculus, the mechanism, the how of it.

The probabilistic nature of quantum breaks down on a scale well below that of a mouse brain. Not even molecules are probabilistic, carbon doesn't spontaneously transform into silicon or anything else.

DBT, there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

Depending on your interpretation, QM may not be probabilistic at all. It may be fully deterministic (MW interpretation). We may only be seeing the flitting shadows of reality and calling it probabilistic.

But there will still be a low probability that we find ourselves in a universe where a mouse learns calculus overnight.

 

[DBT]

Yes, they do.



https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.002I. Sbitnev∗ 58 (summary)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.00258.pdf

It is not quantum that has senses, but the architecture of a brain.

There is nothing to be found within these article that actually establishes quantum consciousness. Which is merely a speculation without a proven mechanism.

From your summary:

''The emergence of quantum consciousness stems from dynamic flows of hydrogen ions in brain liquid. This liquid contains vast areas of the fourth phase of water with hexagonal packing of its molecules, the so-called exclusion zone (EZ) of water. The hydrogen ion motion on such hexagonal lattices shows as the hopping of the ions forward and the holes (vacant places) backward, caused by the Grotthuss mechanism. By supporting this motion using external infrasound sources, one may achieve the appearance of the superfluid state of the EZ water. Flows of the hydrogen ions are described by the modified Navier-Stokes equation. It, along with the continuity equation, yields the nonlinear Schrodinger equation, which describes the quantum effects of these flows, such as the tunneling at long distances or the interference on gap junctions.''


Now even if this is the case, it still requires the presence and activity of the brain with its architecture as a whole to form ''dynamic flows of hydrogen ions in brain liquid'' - which essentially changes nothing in terms of the brain is the sole agent of information processing and mind formation. The information state of the brain being reflected in the state of the mind.

Nor does this support your contention that a mouse can possibly learn calculus because quantum appears to be probabilistic.

It just seems obvious that something so volatile as QM would play a role in something as fragile and intricate as the brain.

You miss the point of the articles. It isn't quantum that is forming mind but the brain utilising quantum effects at the extreme end of its own architecture (perhaps, but not proven). No brain architecture, no mind.

The architecture of the brain determining what sort of mind is formed, cat, horse, cow.....regardless of all of these brains having the same quantum substrata.

That is the point.

Here is where you seem to allude to dualism. By "underlying", it seems like the you are saying that the consciousness emerges and runs parallel with the matter/processes.

No, just distinct roles performed within a highly complex networks.

How is the consciousness not aware of information; that's the whole idea of the consciousness. My consciousness is conscious of light entering the room, etc.

I meant the processing prior to readiness potential, the selection for what is to be represented in conscious form. Not all information is represented in conscious form...plus the focus of attention may be quite narrow.

 

[DBT]

That still doesn't explain how a mouse brain can possibly learn calculus, the mechanism, the how of it.

The probabilistic nature of quantum breaks down on a scale well below that of a mouse brain. Not even molecules are probabilistic, carbon doesn't spontaneously transform into silicon or anything else.

DBT, there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

Depending on your interpretation, QM may not be probabilistic at all. It may be fully deterministic (MW interpretation). We may only be seeing the flitting shadows of reality and calling it probabilistic.

But there will still be a low probability that we find ourselves in a universe where a mouse learns calculus overnight.

How would it manifest? Do quantum particle/probability wave spontaneously organise themselves into new planet or a mouse SuperBrain? How would it happen in terms of quantum theory? Do you have a source for this?

 

[Juma]

there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

No. Not really. That would be so improbable that you would need centillons of universas for something remotely similar (fex a copy of a benzen molecule pops into existance).

So, no. It wont happen.

 

[untermensche]

I addressed it immediately but because it is so simple I thought I didn't need to address it again.

If the "mind" is one aspect of brain activity, and movement is another, then the mind initiating movement is just one aspect of brain activity working on another. Nothing amazing or interesting.

The "mind" however is a kind of brain activity that uses a complete concept of the world, with it's innumerable smaller concepts embedded, along with things like sensations and emotions to make decisions in the world and initiate movements to carry out those decisions or initiate language to carry them out.

What makes the human stand out is that it makes decisions with a "mind" not a brain.

You last remark completely and utterly contradicts everything you said prior to that.

You do like to make dogmatic statements with no argument to support them.

I don't have a clue what you base this on.

If mind is shaped, formed and consciously represented by a brain, as it obviously is, which you apparently agree (but then proceed to contradict)....the mind is not autonomous. The brain is the agent of mind.

But that says absolutely nothing about what kind of agency a "mind" can possess. It is merely another dogmatic article of faith that the brain cannot construct a mechanism within it that can act on other parts of the brain based on conscious "will".

It actually takes knowing what a "mind" is to say what it can and can't do to other parts of the brain and how it can do it.

That is what I have said from the beginning.

The mind cannot decide to do or not do anything other than what the brain is doing in terms of mind formation/conscious representation.

Another dogmatism. This is a decision you have made with your "mind" not your brain. Your mind deals with concepts. Your brain deals with things like electricity and neurotransmitters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

No. Not really. That would be so improbable that you would need centillons of universas for something remotely similar (fex a copy of a benzen molecule pops into existance).

So, no. It wont happen.

Existence, not "existance". We're not deconstructing anyhting here.

What happened three days ago is that we are the twin earth that just popped out of nowhere. It so happened that the original earth just popped out of existence a mere billionth of a second after that. Phew! It was close!

Apparently I'm the only one to have noticed.

So typical of me.
EB

 

[ryan]

DBT, there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

Depending on your interpretation, QM may not be probabilistic at all. It may be fully deterministic (MW interpretation). We may only be seeing the flitting shadows of reality and calling it probabilistic.

But there will still be a low probability that we find ourselves in a universe where a mouse learns calculus overnight.

How would it manifest? Do quantum particle/probability wave spontaneously organise themselves into new planet or a mouse SuperBrain? How would it happen in terms of quantum theory? Do you have a source for this?

From the University of Oregon, read,

"The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).

For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.

The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence.".

from http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

You would probably find the rest of the link interesting.

 

[ryan]

there is a chance that an entire twin earth could pop into existence right beside the moon.

No. Not really. That would be so improbable that you would need centillons of universas for something remotely similar (fex a copy of a benzen molecule pops into existance).

Why are you telling me this??? I only said it was possible. I said nothing wrong.

So, no. It wont happen.

... until about the centillionth universe

 

[ryan]

It is not quantum that has senses, but the architecture of a brain.

There is nothing to be found within these article that actually establishes quantum consciousness. Which is merely a speculation without a proven mechanism.

From your summary:

''The emergence of quantum consciousness stems from dynamic flows of hydrogen ions in brain liquid. This liquid contains vast areas of the fourth phase of water with hexagonal packing of its molecules, the so-called exclusion zone (EZ) of water. The hydrogen ion motion on such hexagonal lattices shows as the hopping of the ions forward and the holes (vacant places) backward, caused by the Grotthuss mechanism. By supporting this motion using external infrasound sources, one may achieve the appearance of the superfluid state of the EZ water. Flows of the hydrogen ions are described by the modified Navier-Stokes equation. It, along with the continuity equation, yields the nonlinear Schrodinger equation, which describes the quantum effects of these flows, such as the tunneling at long distances or the interference on gap junctions.''


Now even if this is the case, it still requires the presence and activity of the brain with its architecture as a whole to form ''dynamic flows of hydrogen ions in brain liquid'' - which essentially changes nothing in terms of the brain is the sole agent of information processing and mind formation. The information state of the brain being reflected in the state of the mind.

It simply comes down to the fact that my consciousness is a mechanism in the brain and might have QM properties. Whatever my consciousness does, might have an effect on what the rest of the brain does as exemplified in the quote as "interference on gap junctions".

It just seems obvious that something so volatile as QM would play a role in something as fragile and intricate as the brain.

You miss the point of the articles. It isn't quantum that is forming mind but the brain utilising quantum effects at the extreme end of its own architecture (perhaps, but not proven). No brain architecture, no mind.

The architecture of the brain determining what sort of mind is formed, cat, horse, cow.....regardless of all of these brains having the same quantum substrata.

And like I said, the mind is not totally free. It must work its "freedom" within many constraints/architecture in the brain. It's choices A, B and maybe C; not choices A, B, C ... infinity.

 

[DBT]

You last remark completely and utterly contradicts everything you said prior to that.

You do like to make dogmatic statements with no argument to support them.

I don't have a clue what you base this on.

You are not one who should be talking about dogma without taking a good hard look in the mirror.

I base what I say entirely on your claims and what you yourself have said.

What you essentially said was, and I quote; ''The "mind" however is a kind of brain activity'' but then you go beyond brain activity and strongly suggest autonomy of mind when you said; ''What makes the human stand out is that it makes decisions with a "mind" not a brain.''

Do you see the last bit where you said 'not a brain' - implying that mind is something more than the activity of a brain. That some additional factor is at work.

That is confirmed by many of your remarks along this line, which supports the notion of autonomy of mind;

Total "Brain agency" is a hypothesis, not a proven fact.

There you have it. You are for all practical purposes claiming that mind is something more than just brain agency.

This is what I have been asking you to explains for entire thread, but still no meaningful response, just smokescreens and 'I'm so hard done by' song and dance routines.

Now can you or can you not explain your idea of autonomous mind, you claim that mind is more than brain agency alone?

 

[DBT]

It simply comes down to the fact that my consciousness is a mechanism in the brain and might have QM properties. Whatever my consciousness does, might have an effect on what the rest of the brain does as exemplified in the quote as "interference on gap junctions".

It makes not the slightest difference in terms of chosen decisions because QM properties are not subject to your will or your choice. You are not aware of any quantum properties, yet alone able to benefit from them by bending them to your will.

If quantum effects alter the normal course of decision making, which is the function of a brain, these are not chosen. As they are not chosen, you are not the master of quantum consciousness, but the puppet of forces that you cannot harness to your advantage.

Quantum is not your friend when it comes to your idea of free will.

And like I said, the mind is not totally free. It must work its "freedom" within many constraints/architecture in the brain. It's choices A, B and maybe C; not choices A, B, C ... infinity.

Mind and decision making is what brain does. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You quoted Gazzaniga earlier. Here's what he had to say:


Michael Gazzaniga;
''Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visualimagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions. How can this be?

Over the past thirty years I have been studying a phenomenon that was first revealed during work with split-brain patients,who’d had the connections between the two brain hemispheres severed to relieve severe epilepsy. My colleagues and I weren’t looking for the answer to the question of what makes us seem unified, but we think we found it. It follows from the idea that if the brain is modular, a part of the brain must be monitoring all the networks’ behaviors and trying to interpret their individual actions in order to create a unified idea of the self. Our best candidate for this brain area is the “left-hemisphere interpreter.”Beyond the finding, described in the last chapter, that the left hemisphere makes strange input logical, it includes a special region that interprets the inputs we receive every moment and weaves them into stories to form the ongoing narrative of our self-image and our beliefs. I have called this area of the left hemisphere the interpreter because it seeks explanations for internal and external events and expands on the actual facts we experience to make sense of, or interpret, the events of our life.''


''Experiments on split-brain patients reveal how readily the left brain interpreter can make up stories and beliefs. In one experiment, for example, when the word walk was presented only to the right side of a patient’s brain, he got up and started walking. When he was asked why he did this, the left brain (where language is stored and where the word walk was not presented) quickly created a reason for the action: “I wanted to go get a Coke.”

Even more fantastic examples of the left hemisphere at work come from the study of neurological disorders. In a complication of stroke called anosognosia with hemiplegia, patients cannot recognize that their left arm is theirs because the stroke damaged the right parietal cortex, which manages our body’s integrity, position, and movement. The left-hemisphere interpreter has to reconcile the information it receives from the visual cortex—that the limb is attached to its body but is not moving—with the fact that it is not receiving any input about the damage to that limb. The left-hemisphere interpreter would recognize that damage to nerves of the limb meant trouble for the brain and that the limb was paralyzed; however, in this case the damage occurred directly to the brain area responsible for signaling a problem in the perception of the limb, and it cannot send any information to the left-hemisphere interpreter. The interpreter must, then, create a belief to mediate the two known facts “I can see the limb isn’t moving” and “I can’t tell that it is damaged.” When patients with this disorder are asked about their arm and why they can’t move it, they will say “It’s not mine” or “I just don’t feel like moving it”—reasonable conclusions, given the input that the left-hemisphere interpreter is receiving.

The left-hemisphere interpreter is not only a master of belief creation, but it will stick to its belief system no matter what. Patients with “reduplicative paramnesia,” because of damage to the brain, believe that there are copies of people or places. In short, they will remember another time and mix it with the present. As a result, they will create seemingly ridiculous, but masterful, stories to uphold what they know to be true due to the erroneous messages their damaged brain is sending their intact interpreter. One such patient believed the New York hospital where she was being treated was actually her home in Maine. When her doctor asked how this could be her home if there were elevators in the hallway, she said, “Doctor, do you know how much it cost me to have those put in?” The interpreter will go to great lengths to make sure the inputs it receives are woven together to make sense—even when it must make great leaps to do so. Of course, these do not appear as“great leaps” to the patient, but rather as clear evidence from the world around him or her.''