Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit

[oanghelidi]

OH, I hate to disappoint....

Give me a link to your research papers.

IF?!
IF?!
You just went from "I ran the world's largest brain simulation" to "if you do implement the right theoretical models".

I was merely expanding on that to other people. What I was saying was that anyone who will run the same theoretical models will get to the same results.
This is not something that I can only run... and only in the night.. and it has to have the correct room temperature...

---

I havent read or watched anything on the "Discovery Channel" since it`s documentaries are for people who are only just capable of reading.

And I wont start now simply because some runarround christian believes he can make a point on an article from a network which makes "populist science" (dont know the english word)

My posts have very little to do with the Discovery Channel article. Way to bash Discovery Channel...

Godel would be proud...

[Jackalope]

I never published my work nor I am affiliated with any University or research lab. I am an independent scientist. Yet some of my results speak for themselves. Poor me if the neuroscience results are all I got...

For some reason many people assume that you need to be employed in a University or lab to do research. Let them keep assuming that...

So, you've got these results, you haven't published them, you haven't shared your work here...

You've got no credibility, not because you aren't affiliated with a university, or lab, but because nobody but you has seen your results and the data supporting them.

[oanghelidi]

You've got no credibility...

I only care about the truth. Whatever other people feel to care about is not my concern.

[Something completely different]

I havent read any of your stuff cause I dont care.


What does your name mean by the way?


And could you help me find my pants? I somehow lost them in my livingroom 10 minutes ago.

[oanghelidi]

I havent read any of your stuff cause I dont care.

Fair enough.

What does your name mean by the way?

My name is Ovidiu Anghelidi. I am not sure that it means anything.

[Baalzebutt]

I havent read any of your stuff cause I dont care.

Fair enough.

What does your name mean by the way?

My name is Ovidiu Anghelidi. I am not sure that it means anything.

So let me get this straight...

You are a "scientist" who has created neuronal models that have eluded the best minds in neuroscience. You then ran computer simulations on computers more powerful that are currently possible, all without the financial support of a university or corporate lab. You then conclude that because you were unable to create consciences, which you are unable to define in the first place, that it is somehow separate from the brain.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say all of this is true and you have made the scientific breakthrough of the century and will soon be getting the Nobel prize.

Why in the fuck would you be on some Podunk little atheist message board spouting about it? Aren't there slightly more important places you should be talking about this?

[oanghelidi]

You are a "scientist" who has created neuronal models that have eluded the best minds in neuroscience.

I work very hard, I ask the right questions, I get different results.

You then ran computer simulations on computers more powerful that are currently possible, all without the financial support of a university or corporate lab.

I ran a computer simulation on Boinc the distributed computing architecture. SETI is also working on Boinc. I used over 14,000 computers of all models and types from over 7000 volunteers. I am not sure that I need funds to accomplish anything. Basic research has little to do with funding; it is all about theoretical models.

You then conclude that because you were unable to create consciences, which you are unable to define in the first place, that it is somehow separate from the brain.

Yes, that is correct.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say all of this is true and you have made the scientific breakthrough of the century and will soon be getting the Nobel prize.

Not so sure that I care about any prize. The Fields prize might be more appropriate but in the end that is irrelevant.

Why in the fuck would you be on some Podunk little atheist message board spouting about it? Aren't there slightly more important places you should be talking about this?

I am merely attempting to determine the social impact of my findings on the group that is more opposed to that: the atheists.

[genkaus]

Since you seem so reluctant to provide any actual evidence, how about I give some? Members here can draw there own conclusions from them.

You claim to have built the world's largest simulated brain - something that you hold the world record for - but I can't find that record anywhere. All my searches for "World's largest brain simulation" lead me Spaun, developed by University of Waterloo. Even more interesting is the fact that you claim to have simulated 700 billion neurons by Dec 2009 (date of the article), while by all accounts, Spaun's record is held at a meagre 2.5 million neurons by Dec 2012. Something doesn't add up here.

There does seem to be the mention of your name and your claim to fame in the very link you provided. There it is mentioned only in one paragraph in the middle of the interview:

"Ovidiu Anghelidi [Toronto, Canada] actually holds the world record with a 700 billion neuron simulation. In fact, his neurons are much more complex neurons as he uses what is known as the Hodgin-Huxley equations which can capture the subtleties of complex ion channels on neurons. Their simulation took days so it is not optimal, but if they had a supercomputer available this would be really straight forward -- no big technical feat."

Now this is where it gets interesting. Of the entire interview, only that portion is in blue text. Further, here's the link to what appears to be, judging by the answers, pretty much the same interview:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/henry-m...brain.html

None of your claims are validated by the second source.

Also, I did search you by your name. I even didn't find your claim of "largest brain simulator" anywhere - except for a a forum where you have obviously copy-pasted the OP. I did find an interview, in which you talk about simulating the brain, but say nothing about consciousness or anything else. What you do say, however, is that you did submit some papers to journals and they were sent back to you - with suggestions to look to other journals.


Now, given all these questions regarding your credibility, tell me why anyone should give any credence to your claims of having "proven consciousness is external" - especially when you refuse to provide an iota of evidence for it.

[Baalzebutt]

I am merely attempting to determine the social impact of my findings on the group that is more opposed to that: the atheists.
[/quote]

well, I suppose if you managed to prove god, we wouldn't be atheists any more, would we?

And once again, disproving one thing does not make another thing true. All it means is that the one thing you disproved is not true.

[oanghelidi]

You claim to have built the world's largest simulated brain - something that you hold the world record for - but I can't find that record anywhere.

Here is the Discovery Channel article on their web site:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/cat-brain...-hype.html

Now if anyone would like to check the source I strongly invite them to do so. Writing to Markram won't gurantee you a response, but writing to the author / guy that interviewed Markram can get you a response. A researcher from England did that a couple of weeks ago.

All my searches for "World's largest brain simulation" lead me Spaun, developed by University of Waterloo.

Spaun is developed by Eliasmith. I have got nothing to do with that. It is a considerable smaller simulation in terms of size, details and theoretical models employed.

Even more interesting is the fact that you claim to have simulated 700 billion neurons by Dec 2009 (date of the article), while by all accounts, Spaun's record is held at a meagre 2.5 million neurons by Dec 2012. Something doesn't add up here.

It doesn't add. There are two different simulations.

There does seem to be the mention of your name and your claim to fame in the very link you provided.

I am not doing this for fame. You got me wrong.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Of the entire interview, only that portion is in blue text. Further, here's the link to what appears to be, judging by the answers, pretty much the same interview:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/henry-m...brain.html

None of your claims are validated by the second source.

I did change the color of the article. See the link to the Discovery Channel web site above.

Also, I did search you by your name. I even didn't find your claim of "largest brain simulator" anywhere - except for a a forum where you have obviously copy-pasted the OP. I did find an interview, in which you talk about simulating the brain, but say nothing about consciousness or anything else. What you do say, however, is that you did submit some papers to journals and they were sent back to you - with suggestions to look to other journals.

Google is interesting, but their large statistical models are quite simple.

Yes, that is correct. I did submit to some journals but was refused. Obviously science needs to be done by researchers in Universities. Maybe someone may want to check what Grigori Perelman had to say about that.

Now, given all these questions regarding your credibility, tell me why anyone should give any credence to your claims of having "proven consciousness is external" - especially when you refuse to provide an iota of evidence for it.

Like I said in the previous post. I do not care about credibility. I am strying to determine the social impact of my findings. I have posted on other web sites, and I can see that the religious folk has no problem with that. On the other hand the atheists got riled up.

I am a compassionate soul and I am trying to determine the best course of action.

---

well, I suppose if you managed to prove god, we wouldn't be atheists any more, would we?

I haven't prove God. But the results strongly point in that direction.

And once again, disproving one thing does not make another thing true. All it means is that the one thing you disproved is not true.

In math it does. The brain can be formalized with mathematical models so...