Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/participants

message: People on the list are still contributing - I've just fixed some errors in the article on Dialethiesm. So I think that it's more likely that those not turning up to the roll-call don't read the talk pages, than that they don't contribute. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll Call April 2006 - a decade ago 

message: Who in this grand list is actually still editing philosophy articles? I invite you to show that you remain committed to the project by bolding your name on this list. Banno 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll Call April 2006 

message: Now that the roll call is complete, I'd like to create an archive for this page and delete inactive members. Presumably anyone who missed the role call could simply add their names again. Are there any strong objections? Banno 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Is there a userbox for philosophy contributors? If not, I could make one. Kronocide 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There (sort of) is such a box -  This will add you to the 'Wikipedian philosophers' category. Someone else made up another userbox into which you could insert a picture of your favourite philosopher, but I forget where I saw it. Anarchia 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Philosophy has only perception to build on. Correctly understanding how human perception is achieved is thus important. I have an alternate theory of perception which explains many seemly unrelated facts that the more accepted POV (Perception “emerges” following many stages of neural transformations / calculation) cannot. Central to my POV is what I call the Real Time Simulation, RTS, which extrapolates sensory signals slightly ahead in time in parietal computations to compensate for the synaptic delays of conventional “emergent perception.” 
Among the many facts the RTS explains well that are difficult to understand with the standard “emergent perception” POV are the following 10 facts:
(1) The visually perceived / experienced world in front of you is equally sharp and clear for more than 100degree field of perception despite the high resolution retinal data it could “emerge” from comes only from the fovea (less than 2 degrees wide). This experienced clear perception (without blur) does not mean you can read fine text 10 degrees off the point of fixation. (Perception is not the same thing as functional performance.) 
(2) The number of neural fibers coming to the “visual cortex” (V1 & V2) from the parietal cortex (where the RTS is created) is actually greater than coming to V1 & V2 from the eyes (via the LGN) – an essential prediction of the RTS model and totally without any rational in the conventional “emergent” POV.
(3a) Visual hallucinations in stark conflict with retinal images exist. – What did they “emerge” from?
(3b) Visual dreams and recallable mental images exist and are strongest when the eyes are closed. What did they “emerge” from?
(4a) Parietal strokes often make half the world cease to exist for their victims. Yet in the conventional “emergent” version of perception there is little if any visual processing activity in the parietal cortex. For more on this, See: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_neglect[/url]
(4b) The “startle spike” (EEG P300) is strongest over the parietal cortex. It occurs when something unexpected and significant occurs. I.e. in the RTS model the smooth extrapolation of neural signals to compensate for the synaptic delays conflicts with suddenly changed external reality and the RTS must be very briefly paused to re set. The turn on of the RTS again produces the P300 EEG signal.
(4c) The location of the parietal cortex is such as to minimize neural connections (white matter) from and to all of the senses. (An optimal neurological arrangement) Visual cortex is adjacent behind it, tactile sensory cortex is immediately in front of it, audio cortex is to the side, and  memory, taste/smell are just below. To all these areas (and the LGN) there are “retrograde fibers” which the conventional POV cannot find any need for but I believe take the constructed RTS data back to the earlier available input processing stages so the when revisions of the RTS are needed the conflict, (between RTS data & the income sensed data) can be detected at an earlier stage.
(5) To the person with a “phantom limb” his perception of it is just as real and detailed as his perception of his corresponding physical limb. He knows it is not there, but when he is distracted or in a hurry without time to consciously over – rule this perception in his automatic behavior, he behaves as if it is real. For example, one phantom arm extended straight out from the body. When quickly going thru door way etc, he automatically twisted his torso to keep his, perceptually REAL TO HIM, phantom from hitting the door frame. Where did this detailed complex perception "emerge" from? -  Smashed and damaged nerve ends? - I don't think so. It came from memory stored body image and was created in the RTS like everything else that is perceived.
(6a) Our weaker, smaller brained ancestors defeated the Neanderthals. As “emergent perception” can cause up to 0.2 second perceptual delay, knowing where a thrown rock or spear is now is a great advantage in a struggle compared to perceiving where it was a fraction of a second earlier.
(6b) The “Out of Africa” event about 55K years BP can be understood also as the great competitive advantage the RTS gave to the first small in breading human group that evolved a functional RTS.
Read more about the RTS (including how it can remove the conflict between “free will” and bio-chemistry controlling when every nerve in your brain discharges) at:
[url]http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66[/url]
Billy T2 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An explanation of how free will can be consistent with physical laws that control the firing of every nerve. 

message: I think it is a weird  and mental worry by pschyos ! its unreal ans is a natural process of humanity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.84.129 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is global warming real or is a unnessecary worry from pschos? 

message: Hi, this is my first project to join.  Please let me know how I might contribute to ongoing discussions.  Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to Wikipedia and to this project