Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit

[Baalzebutt]

Honestly, how can you make an assertion that consciousness is separate from the brain when you can't even decide what consciousness is?

It is basic scientific practice to use inversion. If something is not true prove that is false, if something is true prove that is not false.

And you have no way to define consciousness... You have to figure out what you are studying before you study it.

I know precisely what I am studying. In the case of consciousness the situation is not that simple.

BTW, your journals weren't rejected because they didn't come from universities. They were rejected because you are a completely certifiable nutcase with no support for your conclusions that are based on poorly developed hypotheses and a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.

If my mind was full of errors do you really think that I could have done what I did? And also have you wondered what compelled Markram to add me in that article? I mean he could have mentioned hundreds of other brain simulations. He could have said that my simulation is at fault, not Modha's (IBM guy). But no, he said that I am using the Hodgkin-Huxley equations (beside countless others) which are much better than Modha's simulation, and for good reasons. Read the article again.

Plus Markram is saying: "Try doing it on a GRID or on desktops". Do you know why? Because he wanted to do it with his group but eventually he changed his mind. On supercomputers where all the nodes / computers are the same it is easy to run simulations. On grid or distributed computing project it is much harder. It is a whole lot more work. Given that a brain simulation can have anywhere between a thousand to hundreds of millions of differential equations and anywhere between tens to thousands of theoretical models, I don't think that most of you have the full understanding for that complexity. If you run sub-particle simulations, that may be somewhat comparable.

Now if Markram would be the only guy that I spoke with since my main findings that wouldn't be much. I also spoke with Erik de Schutter, the former president of Organization of Computational Neuroscience. I told him that I was interested to build a neuromorphic architecture (specialized ASIC chips for neural simulations) and that he could have used it to test some of their models on this platform, but his concern was that I might work on some other research, and I would not be able to support the platform for them. I guess working in various fields and on all kinds of problems, makes me unstable for some repetitive tasks. Perhaps someone should check with Erik that he said that too.

---

Well... I must go now, it is getting late...

I am not denying that you appear to have some knowledge in your field. My problem is that the "science" you are practicing is, at best, meant to reinforce your own beliefs. You are not following the evidence. You are twisting it to fit your presuppositions. You are drawing ridiculous conclusions from data that in no way indicates what you a trying to say it indicates. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is dangerous.

There appears to be little supporting evidence that you have actually done what you claim to have done and less still that it is even possible to do what you claim to have done. You know as well as I do that if you had managed to create the equivalent of a human brain through a computer simulation that there would be no way for you to avoid massive fame and recognition. You also know at a breakthrough of this magnitude would be worldwide news and the respected science journals would be begging to publish your work whether it came from a university or some homeless guy on the corner.

See, what you don't seem to realize is that science is a pursuit of truth, not a pursuit of YOUR truth. The reality is that, if your papers had been worthy of publishing (in other words, if you had been doing real science) they would have been published regardless of the source.

Taking all of this into consideration, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are a somewhat studied crackpot who has delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex. You interpret data incorrectly through a lens of biased hypotheses and make unjustified assertions that support your badly misguided conclusions.