Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit

[oanghelidi]

Hello All,

God is Great! I have something to say because IT JUST HIT ME!

My name is Ovidiu and I ran the world's largest brain simulation. See the following Discovery Channel article:
http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.html

If you implement the human brain simulation no matter to what level of mathematical detail you will never get it to be conscious. I have done that and the math is there, but consciousness isn't. There are many leading neuroscientists that are saying that you implement the required neuronal data and the system will be alive. That is false.

I have tried for many years to reconcile the various neuroscience theories regarding consciousness and I never was able to. And I wasn't able to because the theories and hypothesis are wrong. Francis Crick the discoverer of the DNA posited along with Koch that the consciousness is in the claustrum. They are wrong.

That means consciousness is external to the human brain and the body. And that means there is a spirit. And if you believe in the existence of a spirit that leads to one possible conclusion that there is a God.

Best Regards,
Ovidiu
Christian Scientist

[Baalzebutt]

Sure. All you have to do is demonstrate a consciousness WITHOUT a brain and your theory is solid.

Let me know when you accomplish that and then we can talk about your god being real.

[oanghelidi]

> Sure. All you have to do is demonstrate a consciousness WITHOUT a brain >and your theory is solid.

My theory is solid. You are partially right, but not false = true. I did the inverse: I demonstrated that a functional brain is without consciousness.

The implementation of a non-linear dynamic system with hundreds of millions of differential equations that captures the neural code and learns and responds to external stimuli renders a brain unconscious. Hence there must be a spirit.

[genkaus]

Hello All,

God is Great! I have something to say because IT JUST HIT ME!

My name is Ovidiu and I ran the world's largest brain simulation. See the following Discovery Channel article:
http://www.inventikon.com/articles/discovery.html

If you implement the human brain simulation no matter to what level of mathematical detail you will never get it to be conscious. I have done that and the math is there, but consciousness isn't. There are many leading neuroscientists that are saying that you implement the required neuronal data and the system will be alive. That is false.

I have tried for many years to reconcile the various neuroscience theories regarding consciousness and I never was able to. And I wasn't able to because the theories and hypothesis are wrong. Francis Crick the discoverer of the DNA posited along with Koch that the consciousness is in the claustrum. They are wrong.

That means consciousness is external to the human brain and the body. And that means there is a spirit. And if you believe in the existence of a spirit that leads to one possible conclusion that there is a God.

Best Regards,
Ovidiu
Christian Scientist

Is anyone else buying this?

[oanghelidi]

But that's only the beginning. For many years, there was this verse that I had trouble with. The Bible mentions a creature with many eyes.

The obvious question was: "Is there a limitation of the number of eyes that can be created in a being?". The unexpected answer is: THERE ARE NO LIMITIS TO THE NUMBER OF ORGANS THAT CAN BE ADDED TO A LIVING BEING. Thousands of eyes, hands, legs or ears can be added to a being.

The theory of consciousness supports that. Christoff Koch favors the integrated theory of consciousness but he has got no idea where that leads to.

---

Is anyone else buying this?

I would give you the math, but somehow I have the feeling that you do not understand it...

[Neo-Scholastic]

I read the article. I did not see anything in it supporting the idea that creating a sentient computer was impossible. I think they just suggested that it is a long way off. Perhaps you could present a layman's summary for your findings.

Plus there are some physical theories of mind that do not require exact modeling of a biological brain. Your mathematical formula would have to exclude those possibilities as well.

[pocaracas]

After reading that article, I fail to see how you made a functioning artificial brain.
All that article says is that the artificial brain that IBM made (and didn't work) was completely wrong, based on wrong premisses and could never ever work.

How did you make the leap from that to those idiocies that you wrote here?

[oanghelidi]

I read the article. I did not see anything in it supporting the idea that creating a sentient computer was impossible. I think they just suggested that it is a long way off. Perhaps you could present a layman's summary for your findings.

The article has nothing to do with the theory. I listed it in here to add some weight to the discussion. I thought I just did. If a brain system that has the neural code implemented: detailed neuronal models, not the simple point models and glial cells and multiple regions and circuits (not simple networks with multiple layers)...) is not "alive" then the opposite is true.

Plus there are some physical theories of mind that do not require exact modeling of a biological brain. Your mathematical formula would have to exclude those possibilities as well.

Quantum theories? That hypothesis that Richard Dawkins raised? Come on... Informational representation in brain doesn't require quantum mechanics theory so there is no need for that. As there is no need to simulate subatomic particles or whatever other theories. It is like saying: implementing blood circulation in the brain would help the information processing models. No it doesn't.
If the theory that captures information processing in the brain (i.e. "neural code") doesn't employ consciousness then ...

---

After reading that article, I fail to see how you made a functioning artificial brain.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the article has nothing to do with the theory that I just said.

How did you make the leap from that to those idiocies that you wrote here?

Idiocies... Usually the religious people get upset... I highly doubt that you would understand the math...

All that article says is that the artificial brain that IBM made (and didn't work) was completely wrong, based on wrong premisses and could never ever work.

That is correct. Most of the brain simulations fail because they do not capture the relevant information. Markram micro-cortical simulation, Modha-IBM simulation and countless others. But my point is that if you do implement the right theoretical models, consciousness is still missing.
And that is something that I can not get past.

[Baalzebutt]

> Sure. All you have to do is demonstrate a consciousness WITHOUT a brain >and your theory is solid.

My theory is solid. You are partially right, but not false = true. I did the inverse: I demonstrated that a functional brain is without consciousness.

The implementation of a non-linear dynamic system with hundreds of millions of differential equations that captures the neural code and learns and responds to external stimuli renders a brain unconscious. Hence there must be a spirit.

You claim to have created a mechanical brain. If this were the case, you would be awarded the nobel prize.

In any case, demonstrating a brain without consciousness proves nothing. You must demonstrate a consciousness without a brain to validate your premise that the consciousness is separate from the brain.

You are a deluded troll.

[pocaracas]

After reading that article, I fail to see how you made a functioning artificial brain.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the article has nothing to do with the theory that I just said.

How did you make the leap from that to those idiocies that you wrote here?

Idiocies... Usually the religious people get upset... I highly doubt that you would understand the math...

OH, I hate to disappoint....

All that article says is that the artificial brain that IBM made (and didn't work) was completely wrong, based on wrong premisses and could never ever work.

That is correct. Most of the brain simulations fail because they do not capture the relevant information. Markram micro-cortical simulation, Modha-IBM simulation and countless others. But my point is that if you do implement the right theoretical models, consciousness is still missing.
And that is something that I can not get past.

IF?!
IF?!

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

Did I miss something here?
Or are you just talking non-sense? Thus making my qualification of your OP as "idiocy" somewhat better fitting than I originally thought!