HelenM

rw

My personal opinion is that when a Christian is talking to a nonChristian the Christian ought to observe 1 Peter 3:15:

I'm not sure quitting is really in the spirit of that verse.

I respect your choices, though.

I like how you and jaliet are talking about why you quit and thanks jaliet for responding to what he said although I'm not saying I agree with his view of you...please don't think that. What he said about you is subjective; I make no comment on it here.

love
Helen

Mad Kally

Topic: Do you hear voices in your head?

It is very common for people with schizophrenia to hear voices. These are called auditory hallucinations. They are very frequent and are often the "hallmark" symptom of the illness. They actually hear voices outside of themselves talking to them as if someone was actually there.

This is how psychiatrists can tell if a person is pretending to be mentally ill. Ex: "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" Everything else is merely your own thoughts. Your very own neurons firing away inside your brain.

rainbow walking

jaliet: Hi RW, glad to know you can still respond to my posts directly. I take full responsibility for the degeneration of what I had earlier started as a debate/ inquisition on your experience. I am sorry it turned out as it did. I have learned what was there for me to learn.

Rw: I respect your willingness to accept responsibility and apologize. I accept your apology and also apologize for the hurtful things I said in return. It is difficult for people of differing world views to discuss their beliefs in a spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. I am one of the world’s worst at trying to maintain civility.

Rw Earlier: ...When the concept VOICE is used we generally think of a specific audible sound. I use this concept to convey the phenomenon because it describes the impression of it as we experience it. I can’t think of a better word, can you?

jaliet: what about "ideas"? what about "messages"?whether we lack a better term or not, the word "hearing voices" has a certain "historical" or conventional meaning and if I told someone "Hey, RW hears voices in his head" he/ she will think I am implying you are mentally unstable.
Maybe its time we came up with a word for it if it is, as you claim, a universal phenomena?

Rw: Sure, that’s one possible solution. We could also just agree that I am referring to our internal voice that we associate with our thoughts and identity. If you want to take a stab at renaming it I’m up with that as long as we both agree to its definition.

Rw Earlier: This is true also but it is not the context of what I am trying to convey. On the other hand it does demonstrate that the phenomenon exists though it isn’t provable.


jaliet: Which phenomenon? (sorry to ask this, but in retrospect, the word phenomenon could have two meanings considering your theistic position) - God, or the hearing of voices "in our heads"? which do you mean?

rw: I’m speaking of the phenomenon of expressing our internal thoughts linguistically in the manner of a perceived voice inside our mind.

Rw Earlier: Non sequitur. We can see that a mirror is comprised of physical qualities that enable us to determine the reflection is actual and not contrived in our mind.


jaliet: I think you are intentionally misunderstanding me. What I meant to convey was the idea, that if its something we have control over, then it must be ours. And I think you have misused the word "non sequitur". I believe "false analogy" would be the correct term.

rw: You are correct about the misuse of “non-sequitur”. False analogy would have been more accurate. What I meant was that when it comes to actually being able to VERIFY a reflection in a mirror we have a piece of polished glass we can touch and examine objectively to ascertain the factual existence of a reflection. But when we speak of this internal voice we have nothing that our external senses can perceive, yet we experience our thoughts in this way. So we have a genuine human experience that cannot be verified empirically. It can only be subjectively claimed and even though 99 out of 100 people may claim to share this experience if that one individual were to demand proof not one of the 99 could factually establish the experience as being empirically legitimate.

Rw Earlier: ...You can empirically verify the phenomenon of reflection and the phenomenon of shadows. The question of one’s thoughts is subjective and depends on our testimony or “say so” alone for verification. You cannot PROVE to me that you can channel your thoughts in any specific way because I cannot verify that you are actually thinking in a specific way. I must depend on you telling me that you are thinking about a specific subject.

jaliet: Are you of the position that none uf us here, is in control of what we think? Who channels our thoughts if not us? I say it is ourselves because we choose what to think - we can verify this by simply taking a poll right here at secweb - we neednt go to a lab and fix gadgets to peoples heads for this - unless you are not willing to believe what people here will say. You say "PROVE IT". I ask "what is your reason for believeing it is/ could be anything other than ourselves who is doing the thinking?".

rw: This is another one of those areas that we need to consider carefully. Are “WE” in control of our thoughts or do our thoughts control “WE”? What I mean is, aren’t “WE” a product of our thoughts? Would there be a “WE” without thoughts? When you or I use these personal pronouns such as we, us, them, you, or I, we are referring to our IDENTITY. What is our identity comprised of and from if not our thoughts? So we have this distinct impression that “WE” (this unique identity we have over a period of years thoughtfully established) are in control of our thoughts. Do we ever actually make a move or a decision without thinking; referring to our thoughts? So who or what is in control?

Rw Earlier: ...There is only one way to CONCEPTUALIZE words and that is with a voice.


jaliet: Jesus RW, this is unbelievable to me. Can you quote some sources? This is such a strong statement.
Are you saying that those born deaf cannot conceptualize words?

rw: Not unless they are taught the concepts to which those words refer. Ever read or seen the movie about Helen Keller? But this does bring up another interesting aside. I was thinking when you said this about people who claim to have photographic memories. I wonder if they don’t actually take snapshots of pages without actually reading the page word for word? I wonder if maybe we all have an internal camera that we don’t know how to use yet? It would be fantastic if we could sift through a 300 page book in ten minutes just taking mental snapshots of each page and then actually read the book later, in our minds from those mental snapshots, when it is more convenient to do so. We use our memories almost extensively as playback machines like a tape recorder but we use words. I believe pictures are worth a 1000 words and would be invaluable if we could train ourselves to memorize in some snapshot fashion rather than a word for word verbatim type of format.

Rw Earlier...The only way to PRONOUNCE a word is to SAY it. SAYING it requires a voice. I also don’t think it’s a matter for decision. It appears to be an intricate aspect of our mental nature.


jaliet: We do not have to pronounce every word in order for our thoughts to have meaning to us. When we think of having sex with someone for example. We think of or imagine the events that will take place before the real act and the act and maybe after it. We dont have to "pronounce" how the events will unfold for us to be capable of contemplating the act. You make it sound like we must have a script for every thought.

rw: Yes, we do think in mental imagery also. Isn’t this what we mean when we talk about our IMAGE-ination? But when we are verbally communicating or reasoning or reading we begin with symbolic language that may or may not lead to more explicit images. And we almost invariably do so via our internal voice.

Rw Earlier: All of the examples you just listed are related to real objects and hence are PERCEPTUAL.

jaliet: Define perceptual. It excludes physical objects?

rw: No, of course not. Perceptual means that which we perceive via our senses. We can only perceive physical objects with our senses. That which is abstract cannot be perceptualized independently of something relational to our physical world. In order to conceptualize an abstract we must refer to it using a metaphor or analogy so that we can relate to the abstract in a rational way. That is why this internal voice is such a paradox to those who ascribe to a purely empirical naturalistic epistemology. They are confronted with an actual experience that defies verification perceptually even though they perceive it and must admit to this perception to be honest.

RW Earlier: The concept conveyed by a mathematical symbol is meaningless unless it is attached to an object.

jalietWhen we learnt mathematical tables ie 1*1 =1, 1*2=2, 1*3=3...12*12=144. Are you saying you could make sense to them only if we attached eg. apples to the numbers for the figures to have meaning? eg 2 apples * 2 = 4 apples?
What about when we learn differentiation and Intergration? or even the concept of recurring decimals?. Must we still think in terms of apples and pears?
Those are plain numbers sir, and they have meaning. Ask any mathematician. Is there one here btw?
I wonder if Guys who study Pure Maths (as opposed to applied Mathematics) could convince RW that what they learn has any meaning?

rw: All math is derived from two integers: one and zero. Once we learn this we can conceptualize abstractly to higher mathematical principles. But we cannot divorce math from its relative position in reality and expect it to remain functional.

Rw Earlier: ...But this “voice” we are speaking of here is a conceptualization that is attached only to our internal thoughts. You can’t PROVE it exists and you can’t even explain to me how it is you PERCIEVE it. Most skeptics tend towards the naturalistic meaning they rely on PERCEPTUALIZATIONS to arrive at CONCEPTUALIZATIONS meaning that something must be available to one or more of our senses to be PERCIEVED. Now here we have this VOICE that we clearly PERCIEVE as an EXPERIENCE yet it is just as clearly a phenomenon that cannot be PROVEN.

jaliet: So you believe skeptics are incapable of imagining? Fairies haven't been "percieved", but now we can all conceptu8alize them. Skeptics only apply reason to what the mind churns out. Even a skeptic can ask themselves whether God did something for them, then dismiss the "voice" with good reason.

rw: I’m not clear on what you are saying here but as far as “fairies” is concerned, someone somewhere created the initial perception of them in order for us to conceptually discuss them between ourselves in a discussion. It is possible to create a concept from other concepts. It is possible to comprehend an experience without having experienced it yourself. But we’re not talking about simple comprehension of a concept. We are talking PROVING the factual existence of a perceived experience. If I claim to experience my thoughts being linguistically expressed with an internal voice yet I cannot factually establish this claim I am subject to the same charges leveled against a theist for claiming the literal existence of an entity based on an experience he cannot factual establish.

Rw Earlier: Now, as I said in my last reply to this OP, where do atheists get off condemning theists for their beliefs when atheists engage in their own form of subjective unprovable indulgences just to think freely.

jaliet: subjective unprovable indulgences? You lost me, please explain by what you are referring to when you say "subjective unprovable indulgences"

rw: The experience of perceiving one’s thoughts expressed in that internal voice of which we are discussing. It is an indulgence that is both subjective and unprovable.

Rw Earlier: Also I read your last remarks concerning my decision not to discuss my testimony with you any further. In as much as YOU chose to label it as me throwing in the towel you have further exposed your pride and arrogance was at stake because you expressed it as though we were in a prize fight and you had to define my decision in a way that conveyed you had somehow won something.

jaliet: We were in a debate. You quit the debate, citing my bad manners. Quitting was your way of dealing with my bad manners. So if you are faced with ill-mannered people, you quit. That is your way and you reserve the choice to quit whenever you want. From where I sit, quitting and throwing in the towel are synonymous to me.

rw: I wouldn’t call it a debate. It was only a discussion that hovered on the fringe of debate. I felt the discussion had degenerated to a level of vitriol and bickering that was unproductive. I can’t pin the blame entirely on you because it takes two to bicker.

RW Earlier: In reality you LOST the opportunity to further explore the subject.

jaliet: This is true and I regret it. But it also makes it easier for you to quit discussions with people who dont say what pleases you. So long as you keep thinking that quitting is Ok when the other party doesnt say what you like, you exclude people who dont agree with your idea of what constitutes rudeness, arrogance and so on, from discussing with you. Whether that makes you a better person or not is for you to decide. As for me, next time I will be in another debate, I will "wear gloves" and be less agressive. When all is said and done, it was an experience we went through and we each had a way of dealing with it.

rw: I’ve been in a host of these discussions that went south due to people expressing themselves in an offensive manner. I can’t remember a single one that resolved anything. No one should have to endure insults and rudeness after they were kind enough to respond positively to an invitation to discuss their beliefs. I don’t expect people to please me or respond the way I want them to but conversely I should be able to reasonably expect people to respect me until I give them a reason not to. It has been my experience that some atheists have a bad attitude towards theists before they even begin discussing their beliefs and I’ve been guilty of this myself on occasion. In as much as you’ve apologized and I’ve apologized let’s just put this in the rear view mirror and move on.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Helen,

I was not responding in the proper spirit so I felt breaking off the discussion was justified until I could regain the proper spirit.

And I meant every word I said earlier about your participation in this thread. I really wish you'd get more involved here.

HelenM

excreationist

You have some good questions.... we can be aware of long-term memories, but only those that are related to our short-term experiences (that are represented in our short-term memory). So we can only access long-term memory if there are matches with short-term memory - the best match is automatically triggered. I have seen that this is a good explanation through introspection.

I guess it is fairly hard... but an example is listening to someone then thinking up a reply based on what they said. These exact words aren't precisely remembered (assuming that you found them pretty boring) - but I think that every experience shapes the patterns you've learnt in your long-term memory. Long-term memory is when you have to spend a long time trying to retrieve an old memory by coming up with an appropriate trigger in short-term memory. (e.g. thinking of the category of the word and some of the letters, etc)

Well how can our perceptions be distorted (through LSD, etc) if we sense things objectively and directly, "as they are"? If you look at <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/temp/brain.gif" target="_blank">my brain diagram</a>, our short-term memory still receives signals that originated from our senses.
BTW, try counting the black dots <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/illusions/black_dots.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> - I think the problem is to do with our brain's processing of the visual input - maybe to reduce the information, like how computer images can be compressed. But the black/white dots do appear to be real... if we do access our senses directly then if the dots look black or white, then in reality they ARE black or white.

Well in <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/temp/brain.gif" target="_blank">my brain diagram</a>, I have the sensory inputs giving the brain raw data... this would be several million or billion bits of data a second. Then this data is processed and the "features" and patterns are extracted (I called this "perception"). So in the case of vision, the focused object could be converted into shape, colour and lighting data. It would be at the highest resolution/detail. The other elements in the visual field would be at a lower resolution - until we look directly at them - we are constantly looking around complex scenes though. Some illusions, such as the one I linked to show how the feature extraction process can result in some weird things. In the case of audio, there would also be a focus or a couple, where they have a lot of detail and are given a sound channel and an approximate location in space. The other sounds have lower detail. So anyway, I think the main part of our brain, which processes our short-term memory, just looks at extracted "features" and patterns - it doesn't process billions of bits of data per second (image and sound data, etc) like a computer's CPU.

Ted Hoffman

RW
Thanx for accepting my apology. I'm glad we have resolved our earlier conflict.
I am kinda overwhelmed by work right now so I cannot respond meaningfully to any post till saturday. I regret being unable to participate in this thread considering I was the one who started it, but I hope that it can flow without me for a while.
Still, the idea of our thoughts controlling us sounds really fascinating and I hope someone will be able to enlighten us all on the mechanism behind what influences how we think. And what we think.
Madkallys auditory hallucinations is the strict meaning of the phrase "hearing voices", but we can still use the same phrase for the purposes of this discussion - no need for coming up with new words.

rainbow walking

Rw: I’m trying to understand if you see these functions as compartmentalized or as layered or perhaps interwoven like a chain-link fence? When I am thinking about something the impression I get of the thought process is that I am searching my memory for something similar to it that will enable me to IDENTIFY what it is I am thinking about and what, if any, response I need to formulate in reaction to the something that compelled me to think about it to begin with. Sometimes a familiar conceptualization arises immediately so that I don’t think quite as long on it. Other times, especially when that something is a new experience, I find myself spending more mental energy seeking a familiar conceptualization to reference to assist me in forming a systematized identification of this new experience.

From this question I am curious about a deeper more basic level of memory that we all seem to rely on, sort of like an operating system in a computer…say windows 98 for instance. We begin very early to learn a language and how to use that language not only verbally but physically in facial expressions and body language. All of this seems to become our operating system that enables us to develop unique identities.

Would you say this is a function of long or short term memory or neither? For instance, there has always been this conceptualization of our personhood related to our identity that we have conventionally referred to as “the HEART of a man”. Now we know this isn’t meant to reference that organ in our chest that regulates blood pressure but is referring to an area of our minds that is comprised of who we are.

So I am asking if our IDENTITY, (who we each perceive ourself to be), is contained in our memory or imagination? Is our identity contrived, an illusion, or is it real? For centuries men believed our reality was an illusion. Perhaps our illusion becomes our reality? That is, after all, the case for the schizoid and other mentally deficient illnesses. What if, for instance, what you and I consider to be normal, is just another mutually agreed upon illusion that only works as long as there is a consensus that this is NORMAL behavior. Like why we have laws that dictate what is not normal behavior. What if there is actually a much better ILLUSION awaiting our consensual agreement? An illusion that would eliminate many of the inherent problems associated with this one? Problems like poverty, aggression and fear? Again, it can readily be observed that the greatest threat to our illusions (comfort zones) comes from those who do not share our illusions but wish to change or eliminate them. It can also be observed that the greatest threat to our mental stability (health) comes from those CONFLICTS that challenge our internally PERCIEVED identities.

Our societies are founded on IDEOLOGIES, IDEAS. Are these ideas real? Or do they become realities when people ACT upon them? And if a sufficient number of people consistently act upon a particular set of ideas or ideology does this not create the reality of an illusion that the ideology transcends the mind that it occupies and the life that it influences? How does this relate to CHEMICAL balances and imbalances in the brain? When we LEARN that killing is not acceptable behavior does this become an attribute of our memories or our operating systems? Since we can easily circumvent this knowledge by AGREEING that killing IS acceptable under certain circumstances how far is it from reality to insanity? How do we determine when enough blood has been shed? When enough NON-CONFORMING thoughts have been extinguished? When our contrived reality is safe?

Rw: You speak of patterns and I’m in agreement. Would it be safe to say that something we experience consistently over a period of time develops a pattern of thought that becomes integrated with our operating system and thus facilitates easy recognition? For instance, aggressive behavior? It doesn’t take much thought to identify aggressive behavior coming from another person. But even this has its intricate nuances that we must learn to further identify. There are many variations of aggression. Verbal aggression should not be met with physical force. Professional aggression can be a source of CONFLICT that often over-rides our judgment and causes us to react adversely. What I mean by professional aggression is the almost natural competition in the work place. We are always striving to out PERFORM our co-workers. Shrewd managers play on this all the time to increase production and job performance.


Ex: Well how can our perceptions be distorted (through LSD, etc) if we sense things objectively and directly, "as they are"?

Rw: This “distortion” can be created from several directions. In the case of LSD you have a direct impact on the brains chemical BALANCE. Equilibrium is required for the mind to process the experiences it is being subjected to. On another level if our operating systems have not been prepared to identify a particular experience then a certain amount of distortion can take place, particularly around those instances of the experience that convey the most conflicting data upon an operating system that has not been prepared to identify the source and results of the experience.

For instance, swimming alone in a lake in deep water when suddenly ones legs begin to cramp so painfully as to not only render them useless in keeping ones swimming momentum but to actually become an almost over powering pain taking away ones ability to concentrate on remaining afloat. This is an experience most people do not normally prepare for. Their operating system is being flooded with an enormous amount of CONFLICTING data simultaneously. How that data is processed will determine if the person survives. In such a situation one can either FORCE oneself to remain calm, endure the pain and concentrate on remaining afloat or one could panic, give in to the fear and begin thrashing wildly in the water until they drown.

Is this a situation subject to arbitrary interpretation? You either live or die. This was an experience I found myself in at the age of sixteen. Fortunately I was an avid swimmer. In this case the deciding factor was KNOWLEDGE contained in the memory. Knowledge that I could remain afloat indefinitely with selective breathing techniques and the knowledge that leg cramps will subside in time if one endeavors to keep the legs as still as possible. But my first initial reaction was to begin thrashing about wildly in the water. I had to force myself to calm down. ( For those who think I attribute all such occurrences to God please note that I take full credit for saving myself in this instance).

This case introduces perceptions from sources both within and without our bodies. Pain is a classic example of sensory perception. Wouldn’t you say it is directly hard wired into our brains so that distortion doesn’t become a factor unless something like a medication is introduced to distort it?

EX: If you look at my brain diagram, our short-term memory still receives signals that originated from our senses.
BTW, try counting the black dots here - I think the problem is to do with our brain's processing of the visual input - maybe to reduce the information, like how computer images can be compressed. But the black/white dots do appear to be real... if we do access our senses directly then if the dots look black or white, then in reality they ARE black or white.

Rw: That was a cool example. The black dots appeared only in my peripheral vision. When I focused directly on a white dot black dots would appear and disappear as my peripheral vision tried to focus them in. And, of course, the instant I shifted my DIRECT view to a dot that I thought was black it would immediately become white. I also noted that when I saw the black dots they appeared within the white dots as though they were smaller. They didn’t actually take over the entire space of the white dot but appeared within it.

This is an optical illusion created by the arrangement of squares and dots. Does this really indict our processing capabilities or just prove that we have limitations in our sensual perceptions? If I looked at a slide containing microscopic germs without the aid of a microscope I would describe to you a small rectangular piece of clear glass with a little brown smudge in the middle. This is all my senses could tell me. After placing the slide under the microscope I could then further describe the smudge in more detail.

Rw: Then are you saying our internal voice is an illusion? But even illusions are caused by something. What creates the illusion of a voice in our minds and how can you prove it is only an illusion? Additionally, would this indicate that our sense of SELF is also an illusion? I am aware that there is some speculation along these lines. What do you know of it?

rainbow walking

rw: Hi jaliet,
The question that arises revolves around that "us" you have referred to here. Is there an "us" independent of our thoughts? Are they actually two seperate attributes of our minds? Is our percieved identity actually in control of our thought processes or do our thoughts flow regardless of our self image?

Are we like children residing on an island surrounded by the rivers of our thoughts, picking an chosing what to drag on shore and what to let drift on by?

Or are we like a pilot at the controls of a machine that we operate using mental and emotional levers to regulate our existence?

How did we come to have this IDENTITY we percieve within ourselves? This distinct point of internal focus that appears to be served by our physical bodies even as we dedicate its energies to serving the needs and demands of our physical existence has become who we percieve ourselves to be. We are under constant pressure to produce choices.

I'm thinking of an analogy but not sure how to correlate it. An electric generator is a mis-leading concept since the generator doesn't actually generate electricity. In reality it generates a CONFLICT between opposing magnetic fields which in turn produces PRESSURE on a conductor that is comprised of electrons. This PRESSURE forces the electrons to flow thru the conductor. This flow is called electricity and if you put anything in its path it will have an effect. For instance if you place a magnesium coated strand of teflon in its path, due to the electrons being tightly packed in the filament, the pressure on the electrons to flow is restricted and creates a RESISTANCE that causes heat which produces light. One day it may be discovered that light is just a higher frequency of magnetics.

I also believe that one day it will be discovered that light doesn't actually travel at all. That, as a higher fequency of magnetism it merely causes the electrons within its influence to rotate in such a way as to resonate with the frequency much like opposite poles of a magnet attract one another whereas like poles repel; that the highest concentrations of electrons are found in the most invisible attributes of our universe such as air, atmosphere, space; that these electrons resonate according to the frequencies of magnetism exerted the most forcefully such that they produce things like light, sound, radio in its manifest frequencies, nuclear, kinetic, gravitational and thermal dynamics; that the stars which are the most prolific sources of magnetics are not producing this phenomenon in and of themselves but are just pressure relief valves that are drawing energy from a different event horizon and dispelling it into this universe under very high pressure; that black holes are this universes pressure relief valves re-venting back into that other event horizon; that the changes these stars appear to undergo as they grow is actually just the erosion of the fabric of space created by the superhot, high pressure flow of magnetics between universes making them first grow larger, then change colors, eventually self fusing the hole like a welder sealing a leaky rift in a boiler; that the dwarf star effect that produces such a sheer magnitude of magnetism will eventually implode creating a black hole or vent back into this other event horizon.

O'kay, how's that for drifting of subject;^D

excreationist

rainbow walking:
This discussion is growing really big and it is giving me a headache... I can get overwhelmed when essays, etc, start getting big. So I'll try to respond to you point by point. I'm not used to complex questions so now I will have to think quite hard... (I prefer to think lightly)

Anyway, the first part of your post talked about memories and things. I'm interested more in a basic framework for explaining consciousness and emotions. There are books by Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett that go into the mechanics of it all relating it to neuroscience.

I've only really looked at memory and language in a fairly superficial way.

So I think you're asking what the physical structure of the STM and LTM is like. Well it is a web of neurons where each neuron is connected to about 10,000 others. I'm not sure how learning works exactly, but I think it involves neurons making new connections and modifying existing connections. In neural networks a neural has several inputs and if it reaches a certain threshold, it fires (or it can partially fire if it is below the threshold).
You can learn about artificial neural networks on the internet. I've even programmed one. I want to make more in the future. They are good at recognizing patterns and predicting things and they are taught things (called "training").
Anyway, when LTM in the brain are accessed, I read that the connections are strengthened, so that it has a high priority if things similar to it are the input again. In the case of searching for things, you need to give your LTM enough information so that it can make a good match and then retrieve the information. You usually have to give it about half of the information. So to retrieve the word "cat" it might be a pet that isn't a dog, or an animal that has three letters that begins with a "c", etc. When you started your search you mightn't have enough information to match against the goal and so not find it. Then I think what happens is many associations are triggered and these new associations are used ("imagination") to help find what you are looking for. You can also get input from your senses - so a picture (or an associated memory from the picture) might trigger the memory you were looking for.
I'm not sure if the STM is in one place or many, but I think it is coordinated together and the coordinator is "us" - the experiencer or the observer. We call on the other parts of our brain - the "advisors" and ask them to do tasks for us, and they report back to us when they need to or when we demand results (we're hasty). They give us advice on what to do (the LTM) and we can look at lots of different advice (from different LTM's) and use other advice (from LTM - and triggered emotional responses) to determine which advice to follow.
You could read Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" - there are probably other recent books on the subject.

Well we use our LTM to operate, and absolutely need STM. In my model there is a system which processes the STM - it sees which things are the most important (have the strongest associated emotions) and gets the rest of the brain to trigger associations to try and meet goals. If things are less important, they are forgotten from the STM and the empty space is used to put the new triggered associations in. Anyway, the "observer" or the "experiencer" in my model is the processor of the STM aka the central executive. It must simultaneously process the STM so that we can associate totally different things together. e.g. a noise and what would have made the noise.

Well I think it is machine-like rather than being able to make decisions free from the physical laws of its environment. I'd say that that is still a "person", though many might disagree.

You have lots of interesting thoughts in there but my mind is in such a lazy state... I think I have very limited STM. I can be intelligent though because I've learnt a lot of powerful patterns that are shortcuts for dealing with logical arguments. (e.g. I use analogies a lot, etc)
Anyway, yes people have different perceptions of reality, but I think that there is one objective reality out there, whether it is one similar to what science tells us about or what the creationists say or we are inside the Matrix. So basically people can have flawed perceptions of things. This can be for many reasons - e.g. defective brains, or defective reasoning, etc.

Well there are apparently about 150 types of chemical messenges in the brain. One or two tell the brain to start having dreams (the drug DMT uses this chemical), others are emotional messages like pleasure. I suppose there is also one for pain. (maybe) And neurons send their information from neuron to neuron using chemicals. This is short-distance communication. I think they can also use a kind of gas to communicate with distant neurons. Anyway, if the messages aren't working properly then the brain in general doesn't work properly. So the person might be too overactive or too depressed, etc. (Though I think that this is partly caused by circular trains of thought, but the chemicals would reinforce this)

It's in our memories. For me killing people is like this:
killing people-&gt;social rejection-&gt;bad (lack of connectedness) -100
and

killing people-&gt;jail-&gt;social rejection-&gt;bad (lack of connectedness) -200

killing people-&gt;jail-&gt;loss of freedom-&gt;boredom-&gt;bad (lack of newness) -100

There may be some emotional advantages, but overall, killing people is undesirable for me.

I think the term "operating system" should just be applied to linguistic coordination in our brain. Anyway, killing people is quite abstract but if we were in that situation then low-level intuitive (non-OS) memory would be used.

Well neural networks can solve complex problems. They are taught a few inputs and the desired outputs and then they can give outputs for unseen inputs.
So your questions would just been an unseen problem that our brain would intuitively solve. It would search through the LTM finding relevant memories and weighing up the possibilities and finally arriving at a decision. If the brain wanted to make a hasty decision then it would be very skewed, based on the first or second memories that have been triggered.

Well I'll answer the rest later... my brain is hurting...