Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit

[Baalzebutt]

For the sake of everyone reading this thread, could you please define "consciousness"?

And please, define it in quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable terms.

[oanghelidi]

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

Ever wonder why there is a sudden influx of funds into neuroscience? Europe will pour 1 billion. US will pour 3 billion. Google founders and Apple chairman just created a Science Fund and awarded funds to neuroscientists... And that's just the beginning... Watch the news for anything about mind | neuroscience | brain...

In any case, demonstrating a brain without consciousness proves nothing.

Demonstrating a brain without consciousness but with the the right neural code proves everything.

You are a deluded troll.

Any neuroscientists on this forum? Maybe I'll take my leave.

You must demonstrate a consciousness without a brain to validate your premise that the consciousness is separate from the brain.

So you keep saying. But why would the opposite not be valid?

[Jackalope]

Well, I just ran an even larger simulation and it says you're wrong.

Seriously? How much credibility should we give some random joker who a) hasn't published his work, b) hasn't gone through peer review, and c) who's only citation has, by his own admission, nothing to fucking do with his claims.



You want to know why no one takes Christian "Science" seriously? Shit like this.

[Baalzebutt]

[quote='oanghelidi' pid='407677' dateline='1362094407']

So you keep saying. But why would the opposite not be valid?

Because you are excluded all other possibilities for consciousness. Just because you can make a brain without consciousness, even with all of the proper neural codes, does not automatically mean that consciousness is separate from the brain.

If consciousness is indeed separate from the brain then you should be able to demonstrate it in the absence of a brain.

It is just like trying to explain the origin of life on earth. Just because you prove that A didn't happen, it does not automatically mean that B is the answer. Here on the forum, we call that a "god of the gaps" argument.

So, until you can demonstrate consciousness without a brain, you are making completely baseless assertions which are not supported by your "evidence".

[oanghelidi]

For the sake of everyone reading this thread, could you please define "consciousness"?

And please, define it in quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable terms.

Neuroscientists are saying that consciousness equals information processing in the brain. But if you have information processing and consciousness is not there then what? My point is I have got the information processing and the consciousness is not there.

I do not know how consciousness is defined. What I am saying is that the equality does not hold so another explanation must be employed...

[Jackalope]

Given this....

I do not know how consciousness is defined.

How could you even claim to know this?

consciousness is not there.

[oanghelidi]

[quote='Cthulhu Dreaming' pid='407679' dateline='1362094712']
Well, I just ran an even larger simulation.
[quote]

Doubtful... None of the simulations do not capture the information processing of the brain part. The lack of theoretical models leads to false conclusions.

[quote]
and you are wrong
[quote]

Suit yourself. Believe in what you want...

[quote]
Seriously? How much credibility should we give some random joker who a) hasn't published his work, b) hasn't gone through peer review, and c) who's only citation has, by his own admission, nothing to fucking do with his claims.
You want to know why no one takes Christian "Science" seriously? Shit like this.
[/quote]
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...

[Baalzebutt]

For the sake of everyone reading this thread, could you please define "consciousness"?

And please, define it in quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable terms.

Neuroscientists are saying that consciousness equals information processing in the brain. But if you have information processing and consciousness is not there then what? My point is I have got the information processing and the consciousness is not there.

I do not know how consciousness is defined. What I am saying is that the equality does not hold so another explanation must be employed...

If you can't define something, you can't test it. You just shat on your own tie, my friend. You are a crackpot and a intellectually dishonest charlatan.

The simple fact of the matter is that our current technology is unable to create a computer simulation of the human brain. This fact alone shoots down your entire premise before it ever gets off the ground.

You are taking information from somewhere and bending it to fit whatever wacko idea you happen to be ruminating on. This is not science. This is hardly even a good parody of science.

[oanghelidi]

How could you even claim to know this?

That's what I keep saying. I do not know. But that I know: that if the main assumption is wrong then consciousness is not what is supposed to be. And it is supposed to be about information processing in the brain. Well... that ain't the case.

---

If you can't define something, you can't test it.

If an assumption is invalid the opposite is true.

The simple fact of the matter is that our current technology is unable to create a computer simulation of the human brain.

For sure... What is missing is the computer power. (eyes rolled...)
What most neuroscientists lack are theoretical models. I on the other hand I got that.

You are taking information from somewhere and bending it to fit whatever wacko idea you happen to be ruminating on. This is not science. This is hardly even a good parody of science.

I am using the same neuronal models available in literature. That's where I take them. But I do add to that my theoretical findings.

This is not science.

So you say.

[Something completely different]

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)