Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit

[Jackalope]

Gentlemen, I believe that what we have here is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool kook. A crackpot. A charlatan.

Amirite?

[oanghelidi]

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

Hmm... It seems like it was removed from their web site. Well, that's why I got the copy.

---

Anyway... This has been enlightening. I'll take my leave before getting another bunch of comments about "credibility".

Oh.. Here is the link to what the researcher from England said after checking with Greg Fish:
inventikon.com/articles/peter_newman_reply.png

[Baalzebutt]

The level of delusion you are operating under is staggering.

You know why Christians don't hav e problem with it? Because it reinforces what they believe. When conducting a scientific experiment, one follows where the evidence leads. One does not make baseless assumption based on what they believe and want to the evidence to say.

And I will say it one more time. Proving A wrong does not necessarily make B right in math or any other area of science. All it proves is that A is wrong.

For instance, if I prove that the xtian god does not exist, it does not mean that Allah or any other god does exist. All it means is that the xtian god does not exist (which, incidentally, he doesn't).

---

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

Hmm... It seems like it was removed from their web site. Well, that's why I got the copy.

---

Anyway... This has been enlightening. I'll take my leave before getting another bunch of comments about "credibility".

Hit and run? Coward.

[oanghelidi]

Gentlemen, I believe that what we have here is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool kook. A crackpot. A charlatan.

Amirite?

Suit yourself.

[genkaus]

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

It seems they removed it. I wonder why they would do that if your claim was factual?

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.

Don't need to. Google tells me a lot more.

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.

And yet, it has the distinction of being the largest simulation while yours is nowhere to be found. I wonder why is that?

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

Ofcourse, there are two different simulations. One has references throughout the internet and in multiple journals and the other's only claim to existence is your insistence that it exists.

Oh wait! Is it just me or does that sound suspiciously like your god?

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

I should hope not. It would be just pathetic of you were this bad at both getting famous and getting to the truth.

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

So that means that second website is yours? That explains it. That's why I can't find any support to your claim anywhere other your own website.

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.

Yeah... or maybe it was because your journals were crap. No way of judging that unless you present them here.

Like I said in the previous post. I do not care about credibility.

Clearly, since you have none.

[quote='oanghelidi' pid='407749' dateline='1362101964']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 know. I've noticed it too. All the atheists here get so ANGRY when someone comes around making bullshit claims without backing them up. Its almost as if we cared about what's true and what's not.

[quote='oanghelidi' pid='407749' dateline='1362101964']I am a compassionate soul and I am trying to determine the best course of action.

I think the best course of action for you has been indicated pretty clearly.

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

What results? I haven't seen any.

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.

No, it doesn't. If I disprove 2+2=5, that doesn't make 2+2=3 true.

[oanghelidi]

Hit and run? Coward.

Well... if you guys want me to stay... I wanted to get back to work on another problem. I got this idea about how to make unbreakable encryption. Now this one is easier to understand. If you are a programmer or you work in computers you will quickly get this:

UNBREAKABLE ENCRYPTION

Algorithm Features:
A. dynamic - most algorithms (AES, SHA...) currently employed in the industry are static (i.e. input of the same string data results in the same output string data; regardless of the number and type of operations (i.e. permutations, combinations...) applied against the result); my algorithm has a dynamic result, for the same input data the end result is different each time it is applied

B. differential equations system - most algorithms are using various operations like permutations, combinations applied one after the other, and so on so forth; in my case I am using a fairly large system of differential equations

C. partially output-relevant - most algorithms have the output data relevant to input data; in my case the output is partially relevant to the input, with some of the data having no value whatsoever to the input

D. keyless - most algorithms use public or private keys; I am not using any keys

E. one-way function - very hard to invert

F. unique for each client - most algorithms have the same internal structure (i.e. permutations, combinations...) and all users share it; the system of differential equations can be customized for each user

Disadvantages:
A. more data would be generated as a result of applying the algorithm: for 100 bytes of encrypted data the output data size would be in the range of 100 KBytes or more
B. slower than standard industrial algorithms

The neural code supports self-reference. The information encoded in a part of the brain can be transferred to other parts of the brain and executed without the need to be decrypted.

If (A)lice will send a message to (B)ob from her machine to his, containing neural code in textual format, and ©harlie is eavesdropping and intercepting the message, if Charlie doesn't understand the neural code Charlie can not decode the message. Charlie would have the encrypted information but he would need the neural code theory.

Also if either (A)lice or (B)ob machines would be compromised, that would be useless as well because self-reference insures protection as well.

[Baalzebutt]

Gentlemen, I believe that what we have here is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool kook. A crackpot. A charlatan.

Amirite?

Suit yourself.

No, please. Continue to regale us with your insane rumblings. It amuses us greatly.

[Jackalope]

Gentlemen, I believe that what we have here is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool kook. A crackpot. A charlatan.

Amirite?

Suit yourself.

Oh no... Suit YOURself, Mr. Asserts Much But Demonstrates Nothing.

Your schtick needs work. Only a compete dumbass would find it convincing.

[oanghelidi]

When conducting a scientific experiment, one follows where the evidence leads. One does not make baseless assumption based on what they believe and want to the evidence to say.

I find it interesting that when it comes to consciousness very few experiments have been done. All the scientists are only making hypotheses which is basically creating theoretical models.

One does not make baseless assumption based on what they believe and want to the evidence to say.

I share your viewpoint. I find that way too many researchers are doing that. It is very hard to sift for the truth through the tons of invalid assumptions and false hypotheses. That is exactly why neuroscience is the only field where the basis of the neural code of the brain, has not been understood.

I mean: the neural code is the most basic stuff. Without it you have nothing. You don't know how memories are formed and stored, you don't know how to repair disease, you don't know what sleep is for, why the dual hemisphere is in there, and the list goes on and on...

[Baalzebutt]

When conducting a scientific experiment, one follows where the evidence leads. One does not make baseless assumption based on what they believe and want to the evidence to say.

I find it interesting that when it comes to consciousness very few experiments have been done. All the scientists are only making hypotheses which is basically creating theoretical models.

One does not make baseless assumption based on what they believe and want to the evidence to say.

I share your viewpoint. I find that way too many researchers are doing that. It is very hard to sift for the truth through the tons of invalid assumptions and false hypotheses. That is exactly why neuroscience is the only field where the basis of the neural code of the brain, has not been understood.

I mean: the neural code is the most basic stuff. Without it you have nothing. You don't know how memories are formed and stored, you don't know how to repair disease, you don't know what sleep is for, why the dual hemisphere is in there, and the list goes on and on...

And you have no way to define consciousness...

Honestly, how can you make an assertion that consciousness is separate from the brain when you can't even decide what consciousness is? You have to figure out what you are studying before you study it.

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.