Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divided into the composing parts or not?

#1
Neurocluster Brain Model is the brain model based on neuroscience which demystifies, reveals and explains all religious and occult phenomena.
Millions of people have experienced various religious and occult phenomena however skeptical scientists deny even the existence of such phenomena. The denial of the phenomena is not the solution because the denial provides no explanation why so many people claim to have experienced various religious and occult phenomena. Instead of denial the scientific explanation of underlying mechanisms is needed.
Neurocluster Brain Model provides the scientific explanation of underlying mechanisms of religious and occult phenomena. Neurocluster Brain Model succeeds where other scientific models fail.
For the first time ever all religious experiences (communication with Gods, angels, demons, etc) and psychic powers (mediumship, psychography, telepathy, etc) are revealed and explained in the scientific way.

Brief summary of Neurocluster Brain Model

When a man sees new unknown object for the first time then finite number of neurons in the brain (cluster of neurons) stores information about object's model (how the object looks, how the object moves, how the object behaves, etc).
Information about that object is saved not in the whole brain, but only in the finite “piece of the brain” – the evidence for that are experimental data about brain damage – if the brain is damaged in some local area then brain loses information only about some classes of objects, but not about all objects.
The model of the object is stored inside the “piece of the brain” (cluster of neurons) and this neurocluster acts not only as passive “data file” but also under special conditions this neurocluster can act as “executable file” which can simulate the behavior of stored object for the main personality – this is the underlying mechanism of how religious adepts communicate with spirits/angels/Gods/etc and also the underlying mechanism of other religious and occult phenomena.

Introduction

The human brain contains billions of neural cells however the man perceives himself as having only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, and people who believe in the existence of the soul perceive themselves as having only one(1) soul. Human brain contains billions of neurons however vast majority of people strongly believe that all these billions of neurons contain only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, one(1) soul. This “one human body contains one consciousness” model is sufficient to explain the majority of events in casual normal routine life and this is the reason why this model has become de facto accepted model in all human cultures and societies without ever doubting its validity. Medieval scholars were debating the question “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” (a.k.a. “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”), however nobody has ever raised the question “how many souls can be contained in one human body?” assuming by default that one(1) human body contains only one(1) soul.
However let’s raise a simple question: does this “one human body contains one consciousness” model really can explain all phenomena which happen with human consciousness?
The answer is: “one human body contains one consciousness” model actually fails to explain the vast range of phenomena which happen with human consciousness as it will be shown in this website. Let’s begin with the simple example.
All religions claim that the soul is immortal and indestructible, the soul is unbreakable, and the soul can not be divided into small pieces.
Some religions (like for example Hinduism) claim that besides humans all living creatures have a soul – all animals, plants, trees do have a soul.
What is the source of these claims about soul properties? All religions claim that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired.
Let’s analyze these claims a little bit.
Hinduism claims that every plant has a soul and that the soul is unbreakable and can not be divided into small pieces (Bhagavad-gītā. 2.23-24).
http://vedabase.com/en/bg/2
2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.
2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
(Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. 2.23-24)
http://vanisource.org/wiki/Lecture_on_BG_7.1-3_--_Stockholm,_September_10,_1973
<...> Don't think that the plants and trees, they have no life. They are also living entities. We do not accept this theory that the animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got soul. Even the plants, trees, everyone has got soul. They have got different bodies only. It is not that only human being has got the soul, not others. No. Actually if we make analysis what is the symptoms of possessing soul, you will find everywhere. Even in plants' life you will find. Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, one of the greatest scientist of the world, he has proved by machine that when you cut the trees or the leaves, they feel sensation, pain, and that is recorded by machine. So everyone has got soul. <...>
(A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. Lecture on BG 7.1-3. Stockholm, September 10, 1973)
However let’s analyze a simple phenomenon like plant propagation from cuttings. Plant cutting (a.k.a. as striking or cloning) is a technique for vegetatively (asexually) propagating plants in which a piece of the stem or root of the source plant is placed in a suitable medium such as moist soil, potting mix, coir or rock wool. The cutting produces new roots, stems, or both, and thus becomes a new plant independent of the parent.
Using plant cutting technique we can divide one plant into many pieces and every such new piece now has become a separate plant. Since every plant has a soul, this means that one soul of the original plant was divided into many souls using such primitive technique as plant cutting.
As we can see from this very simple example, religious knowledge (which is claimed to have been originated from divine and supernatural sources) about soul properties contradicts very simple well known experimental facts like plant propagation from cuttings.

Now let’s go to the animal kingdom. The male paper nautilus (a.k.a. argonaut octopus) possesses a specialized, extended tentacle, called a hectocotylus, where packets of sperm are stored. When a male paper nautilus detects a female, the hectocotylus detaches from the octopus body and swims towards the female under its own power. The hectocotylus inserts its load into the female’s mantle and can remain active, depositing sperm in her even as its owner goes on his way. The male, essentially, has sex in absentia. The first scientists to observe the hectocotylus in action actually misidentified it as a parasitic worm attached to the female paper nautilus.
Let’s raise a simple question: has hectocotylus a separate soul or not? Religious sacred texts fail to answer such question.

Those were examples about plants and animals, but what about humans? Anyway, there are many people who believe that only humans have souls and these people believe that plants and animals do not have any soul whatsoever.
Let’s raise a simple question: how many souls are contained in conjoined twins (a.k.a. Siamese twins): one or two souls? Religious leaders get very confused when being asked such a simple question because the fact of multiple human souls residing in one physical body contradicts their religious doctrines.
However let’s raise a simple question: how many souls can be contained in one human body? Humanity did not possess tools and technologies which would allow to investigate this question up until the twentieth century. However in the late 1950s things has dramatically changed when neurosurgeons began experiments with the human brain. Some people have epilepsy. Epilepsy is a phenomenon when a small number of neurons in the brain excite themselves via positive feedback neural circuits which leads to the excitation of nearby neurons and this excessive hypersynchronous neuronal activity spreads through large areas of the brain. There are many ways to treat epilepsy however all these treatments share the same common working principle – in order to eliminate the epileptic seizures you need to suppress the excitement of neurons and you need to suppress the spread of the neural excitement through the large areas of the brain. However in some patients all known treatment methods fail and the patient continues to have frequent and strong epileptic seizures. In the late 1950s neurosurgeons decided to try out new drastic method for dealing with such extra hard epilepsy cases. The hypothesis of new treatment method was the following. Human brain consists of two hemispheres which are connected via link which is called corpus callosum. During the epileptic seizure the synchronous neuronal activity originates in one hemisphere and then via corpus callosum it reaches the another hemisphere thus spreading through the whole brain. If we would cut corpus callosum then synchronous neuronal activity which originated in one hemisphere would be stopped from spreading into another hemisphere and this would eliminate epileptic seizure. Several patients with hardest epilepsy cases were chosen to test out the hypothesis and corpus callosum was cut in these patients. Such patients who have their corpus callosum cut are called “split-brain patients”. The hypothesis of neurosurgeons was confirmed to be correct – the cutting of corpus callosum eliminated or greatly reduced epileptic seizures in split-brain patients. However experiments with split-brain patients revealed very interesting side effect of corpus callosum cutting. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. When interconnection between hemispheres (corpus callosum) is cut then both hemispheres begin to act autonomously from each other. For example, when split-brain sits near his wife, the left hand of the patient hugs and fondles the wife, however at the same time the right hand of the patient angrily beats the wife – different hemispheres of the split-brain patient have made different judgments towards the wife and both hemispheres act independently from each other. In other words, the cutting of corpus callosum created two(2) autonomous personalities, which think differently and make different decisions on the same subject and these decisions might be even diametrically opposite. Experiments with split-brain patients revealed that the cutting of corpus callosum produces two(2) autonomous personalities, two(2) autonomous consciousnesses, and for those who believe in the existence of soul – two(2) autonomous souls. Split-brain experiments revealed that one(1) human consciousness can be artificially divided into two(2) consciousnesses by simple cutting of corpus callosum.

When two hemispheres of the (healthy) brain are connected via corpus callosum link then such man is unable to accomplish two different independent tasks with two hands simultaneously because one hemisphere hinders another hemisphere by sending commands via corpus callosum link. For example, if a man takes a pencil into each of two hands and tries to draw two independent pictures with both hands simultaneously (for example a circle with one hand and a square with another hand) – the man will be unable to cope with such task. You can try doing that yourself and see if you will succeed. However when corpus callosum link is cut then after such surgery the man has no troubles to accomplish two different independent tasks with both hands simultaneously – as for example, drawing a circle with one hand and a square with another hand is an easy task for split-brain patient.

Here is the documentary movie which shows experiments with split-brain patient.

Severed Corpus Callosum.
Length: 10 minutes

For more movies about split-brain experiments please click here.
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/split_brain_experiments_videos.html

For some scientific articles about split-brain experiments please click here.
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/split_brain_articles.html

More detailed description of Neurocluster Brain Model is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com
 
Last edited:
#4
The brain is a filter of consciousness. When you put your finger over the opening in a garden hose and split the stream of water in two, that is a kind of filter.
Atheists use the word “consciousness” instead of the word “soul/spirit”.
The term “consciousness” is exactly the same pseudoscience as the term “soul/spirit”.
Below is the explanation.

In psychology and psychiatry one of the most heavily used terms is “consciousness”.
However let’s raise a simple question: is there any laboratory test which can determine if the concrete object X (man/animal/etc) has consciousness or not? What is the exact list of features which would prove that object X has consciousness? How can we be sure that object X has consciousness or not? As for example, does the amoeba have consciousness or not?
The inconvenient truth is that psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide the exact list of features which prove that object X has consciousness, psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide any experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not.
If you don’t believe that this is true then here is a little exercise for you personally: where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness.
Below is the definition of “agent” from Wikipedia, a good example of “agents” are computer game characters. The agent can interact with environment while being without any consciousness, for interaction with environment the consciousness is not needed. When agent without consciousness interacting with environment is observed by the outside observer, the observer might incorrectly conclude that this agent has consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent (IA) is an autonomous entity which observes through sensors and acts upon an environment using actuators (i.e. it is an agent) and directs its activity towards achieving goals (i.e. it is rational). Intelligent agents may also learn or use knowledge to achieve their goals. They may be very simple or very complex: a reflex machine such as a thermostat is an intelligent agent, as is a human being, as is a community of human beings working together towards a goal.
People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.

1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness.

2) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?

3) “I can recognize myself in the mirror and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“Recognizing yourself in the mirror” (a.k.a. mirror self-recognition test) – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about blind people/monkey/etc who are unable to recognize themselves in the mirror – are they without consciousness or not? And what about robots who are able to recognize themselves in the mirror – does this mean that robots have consciousness?

4) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.

5) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.


The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please go back to our little exercise – where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

And by the way, if speaking about tests – in computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer to questions; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.
The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think".
In the years since 1950, the test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticized, and it is an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.
A lot of scientists write a computer programs which try to pass a Turing test, as for example one of the best human chat simulating program is “A.L.I.C.E.”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Linguistic_Internet_Computer_Entity
A.L.I.C.E. (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity), also referred to as Alicebot, or simply Alice, is a natural language processing chatterbot—a program that engages in a conversation with a human by applying some heuristical pattern matching rules to the human's input, and in its online form it also relies on a hidden third person. It was inspired by Joseph Weizenbaum's classical ELIZA program. It is one of the strongest programs of its type and has won the Loebner Prize, awarded to accomplished humanoid, talking robots, three times (in 2000, 2001 and 2004). However, the program is unable to pass the Turing test, as even the casual user will often expose its mechanistic aspects in short conversations.
However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

We will explain in more detail the essence of the problem.
Suppose we are sending a probe to a distant planet and the task of the probe is to find out whether there are any objects which have consciousness on this distant planet. In order to solve this problem the onboard computer of the probe needs to contain an algorithm/program, which would test the objects on this distant planet for the presence of the consciousness. We need a detailed list of diagnostic features which would allow determine whether the object X has consciousness or not.

Wikipedia provides the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define the term “consciousness”:
1) Question: what is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? Answer: object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.
2) Question: what is the “awareness”, how can do we detect if object X has awareness or not? Answer: object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, thoughts, emotions, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding.
In other words: 1) object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness, 2) object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness. It is obvious that these definitions are circular/recursive definitions. However circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition and have nothing to do with science, here is one practical example of such meaningless circular/recursive definition: “To define recursion, we must first define recursion.” And now let’s raise the question: do such “definitions” of “consciousness” provide any help in making of the algorithm/program which would be able to test the objects for the presence of the consciousness? Obviously, the answer is “no”. It is obvious that such “definitions” have nothing to do with science; such blabber is simply the claptrap. It is important to note that many people have no clue whatsoever about what the word “scientific” means. This is due to the simple reason. Universities have huge number of faculties which actually have nothing to do with science. As for example, many universities have “faculty of theology” or “faculty of literature”, and so on. And these “faculties” issue diplomas with academic degrees like “master”, “doctor”, “professor”, etc. And what is the activity of such “professors of theology”, what do they do? They study the superstitious writings called “sacred scriptures” and then debate each other about what did Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna/etc said and who is superior over whom – Jesus is superior to Muhammad or vice versa. They can debate whatever they want, however that is not science, this activity does not meet the scientific criteria. And then such people from universities with academic degrees write books, give lectures, talk on TV/radio, etc – they simply flood the society with their claptrap material. When average common people read/listen to this claptrap material they get the false impression that this material is “science” – and this is due simple reason: the authors of that claptrap material have scientific academic degrees. As the result of this, majority of the population are totally incapable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. As the result of this, they are totally incapable to detect circular/recursive definitions and they are totally incapable to understand that circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition. That is a huge problem in society.
 
Last edited:
#5
Atheists use the word “consciousness” instead of the word “soul/spirit”.
The term “consciousness” is exactly the same pseudoscience as the term “soul/spirit”.
Below is the explanation.

In psychology and psychiatry one of the most heavily used terms is “consciousness”.
However let’s raise a simple question: is there any laboratory test which can determine if the concrete object X (man/animal/etc) has consciousness or not? What is the exact list of features which would prove that object X has consciousness? How can we be sure that object X has consciousness or not? As for example, does the amoeba have consciousness or not?
The inconvenient truth is that psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide the exact list of features which prove that object X has consciousness, psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide any experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not.
If you don’t believe that this is true then here is a little exercise for you personally: where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness.
Below is the definition of “agent” from Wikipedia, a good example of “agents” are computer game characters. The agent can interact with environment while being without any consciousness, for interaction with environment the consciousness is not needed. When agent without consciousness interacting with environment is observed by the outside observer, the observer might incorrectly conclude that this agent has consciousness.



People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.

1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness.
2) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?

3) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.

4) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.


The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please go back to our little exercise – where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

And by the way, if speaking about tests – in computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.


A lot of scientists write a computer programs which try to pass a Turing test, as for example one of the best human chat simulating program is “A.L.I.C.E.”.


However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

We will explain in more detail the essence of the problem.
Suppose we are sending a probe to a distant planet and the task of the probe is to find out whether there are any objects which have consciousness on this distant planet. In order to solve this problem the onboard computer of the probe needs to contain an algorithm/program, which would test the objects on this distant planet for the presence of the consciousness. We need a detailed list of diagnostic features which would allow determine whether the object X has consciousness or not.

Wikipedia provides the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define the term “consciousness”:
1) Question: what is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? Answer: object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness.
2) Question: what is the “awareness”, how can do we detect if object X has awareness or not? Answer: object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness. In other words: 1) object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness, 2) object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness. It is obvious that these definitions are circular/recursive definitions. However circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition and have nothing to do with science, here is one practical example of such meaningless circular/recursive definition: “To define recursion, we must first define recursion.” And now let’s raise the question: do such “definitions” of “consciousness” provide any help in making of the algorithm/program which would be able to test the objects for the presence of the consciousness? Obviously, the answer is “no”. It is obvious that such “definitions” have nothing to do with science; such blabber is simply the claptrap. It is important to note that many people have no clue whatsoever about what the word “scientific” means. This is due to the simple reason. Universities have huge number of faculties which actually have nothing to do with science. As for example, many universities have “faculty of theology” or “faculty of literature”, and so on. And these “faculties” issue diplomas with academic degrees like “master”, “doctor”, “professor”, etc. And what is the activity of such “professors of theology”, what do they do? They study the superstitious writings called “sacred scriptures” and then debate each other about what did Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna/etc said and who is superior over whom – Jesus is superior to Muhammad or vice versa. They can debate whatever they want, however that is not science, this activity does not meet the scientific criteria. And then such people from universities with academic degrees write books, give lectures, talk on TV/radio, etc – they simply flood the society with their claptrap material. When average common people read/listen to this claptrap material they get the false impression that this material is “science” – and this is due simple reason: the authors of that claptrap material have scientific academic degrees. As the result of this, majority of the population are totally incapable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. As the result of this, they are totally incapable to detect circular/recursive definitions and they are totally incapable to understand that circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition. That is a huge problem in society.
I think this absolutely hits the mark!

I started off being very keen on the idea of AI. To me, it seemed obvious that there would be no difference between (real) artificial intelligence, and artificial consciousness, and I was intrigued by the idea that a computer could be conscious. The idea that digital circuits could shuffle bits, and become conscious in that way, seemed superficially absurd, but then, so did the idea of curved space-time - so I was prepared to suspend judgement! However, I gradually realised that there was no grand theory behind classical AI - just a concerted effort to produce a program that would look as if it were conscious. A program that faked AI was essentially the same as one that exhibited it!

I suppose this was for me the start of my move towards a suspicion that there was a lot more to consciousness than is normally recognised. As you point out repeatedly, physical science has absolutely no grip on the phenomenon of consciousness, all it can ever hope to do is correlate certain things in the brain to conscious phenomena. Even in that limited domain, I suspect it is easy for science to find correlations that aren't real:

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/3/274.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Indeed, I have become fairly sceptical of a lot of scientific claims, as you may have noticed from my posts!

I have had very few experiences that I could honestly call psychic - maybe one, and we also had a cat that seemed to anticipate us coming home (like Sheldrake's dogs) so I think my main reason for leaning towards the concept on a non-material realm of consciousness, is the realisation that consciousness doesn't fit in the physical world. Sheldrake's work, NDE's, and various other experiments serve to strengthen my conviction.

I also agree about conventional religion. I don't want to 'believe' in the religious sense, I am happy to have what I consider strong evidence for a non-material world/possible consciousness after death etc without requiring to have the absurd certainty that religious people claim. IMHO, this form of bogus certainty also fuels a lot of the hatred between religions.

David
 
#6
I think this absolutely hits the mark!

I started off being very keen on the idea of AI. To me, it seemed obvious that there would be no difference between (real) artificial intelligence, and artificial consciousness, and I was intrigued by the idea that a computer could be conscious.
That ongoing problem - definitions. And what I see as a common confusion.

Definitions - IME when it's stated that "the brain doesn't generate consciousness", "consciousness is primary" or "consciousness generates the physical" what is being referred to is not human or animal consciousness. It's a consciousness so vast, powerful and in many ways different that a human couldn't even begin to mentally organize it. Can there be non-organic beings that have something somewhat akin to human awareness? Yes. In fact, I'd wager there already are such beings.

Confusion - for those who know that consciousness is fundamental it's clear that if that primary consciousness chooses to express as non-organic sentience it will. Again, I think it already does.

It seems to me that the arguments made against sentient AI all trace back to a physicalist approach. In such an approach it fits that only certain physical configurations would be capable of "producing awareness."
 
#7
You say,

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “consciousness” as nonexistent hallucinatory object which exists only in the hallucinatory imagination of occultists and pseudoscientists.
Neurocluster Brain Model claims that “consciousness” is a pseudoscientific term which does not match the scientific criteria.

And then you say,

Materialists consider themselves as the stack of material atoms, materialists consider themselves as DNA molecule, and materialists see their “immortality” via the replication of their own DNA molecule, thus materialists desperately desire to produce material children naively believing that production of children supposedly extends the existence of their own “I” – while not the exactly the true “I”, but at least a somewhat corrupted copy of “I” (corrupted copy of DNA molecule).


So, in conclusion, thanks for the laughs...
 
#8
So, in conclusion, thanks for the laughs...
Emotions of TravisMontgomery is not the scientific argument.

As you point out repeatedly, physical science has absolutely no grip on the phenomenon of consciousness, all it can ever hope to do is correlate certain things in the brain to conscious phenomena. <…>
I think my main reason for leaning towards the concept on a non-material realm of consciousness, is the realisation that consciousness doesn't fit in the physical world. <…>
I also agree about conventional religion. I don't want to 'believe' in the religious sense, I am happy to have what I consider strong evidence for a non-material world/possible consciousness after death etc without requiring to have the absurd certainty that religious people claim.
Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science.

Definition of “religious dogma”: a claim which does not match the scientific criteria, a claim which has no experimental evidence.
Definition of “religious adept”: a man who believes in religious dogma.

Question for David Bailey:
David Bailey, please provide at least one evidence that David Bailey has “consciousness”.

Definitions - IME when it's stated that "the brain doesn't generate consciousness", "consciousness is primary" or "consciousness generates the physical" what is being referred to is not human or animal consciousness. It's a consciousness so vast, powerful and in many ways different that a human couldn't even begin to mentally organize it. Can there be non-organic beings that have something somewhat akin to human awareness? Yes. In fact, I'd wager there already are such beings.
Confusion - for those who know that consciousness is fundamental it's clear that if that primary consciousness chooses to express as non-organic sentience it will. Again, I think it already does.
It seems to me that the arguments made against sentient AI all trace back to a physicalist approach. In such an approach it fits that only certain physical configurations would be capable of "producing awareness."
The same identical question for Saiko:
Saiko, please provide at least one evidence that Saiko has “consciousness”.
 
#9
Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science..
You're absolutely right! After careful replications I am still laughing.

So, I'm not quite sure what you're expecting from your theory? You have been trolling it through forums since 2013 and repeatedly are laughed at by layman and scientists alike. Your entire argument is predicated on analogies and you've done no original research to locate these neuronal clusters that apparently house "spiritual worlds". Daydreaming is fine but perhaps try and separate it from your masturbatory fantasies, would you, please? You simply ignore bodies of evidence that counters your theory whilst using others original research to carry yours from the fires of defeat. In, literally, every forum you have presented your work you argue the same question, "please provide at least one evidence that X-person has 'consciousness'."

You do realize step one, which is required of first year high school students who are taking philosophy, is to know that consciousness is subjective and providing external, objective, proof of that is like trying to look both out and in to the window at the same time. So using that as your tour de force is a pretty weak way to start off getting acceptance for your theory.

So, I offer a similar counter proposal if you're so equipped.. provide at least one evidence that these neuronal clusters can give rise to separate consciousness'. Seeing as it's pretty hard to provide evidence for one consciousness, the main "I" as you call it, I am guessing you're going to be at a loss to provide evidence for multiple consciousness residing in a singular brain, no? Let alone ones that are collecting and interpreting information ready to come in to communication with the focal consciousness in the form of hallucinatory telepathy, conversations with deities, ghosts, and all other "occult" phenomena.

Now on to the next joke,

Your software analogy is the same argument proposed when the telephone was invented and the brain was likened to that or, eventually, down the line when the brain is likened to a quantum computer and the next information processing invention until one day we're making brains in vats to process our information and then the brain will be likened to a brain! :P

And you seem to completely exclude the idea put forward long ago about multiple layers of consciousness, i.e., subconscious, superconscious, ego and self. I don't think most people see their brain as an "I" and only one "I". That is an outdated mode so, please, update your finding appropriately. Many scientists consider the mind to be like a society of minds, like you quote the Michio Kaku/Marvin Minsky discussion in his book. So, if that theory is so popular, and I'm not doubting it is, then where is your original research locating these neuronal clusters and studying their ability to generate separate consciousness that have the ability to create elaborate "spiritual worlds" fully furnished with mystical chairs, creatures and whatnot. I think it seems like you're just building off others research without doing any of your own. You're kind of like a child tying shoelaces together and saying you've made a string and then showing it off to the neighborhood.

For example, look at the links you provide to "scientifically" source your "theory" at http://neuroclusterbrain.com/

(which, BTW, was the most annoying four hours of reading I have ever accomplished on my day off. Not because I'm saying you didn't have some interesting things to say but just the format and structure of the paragraphs made it tiring to read. If you want it to reach a large audience then I suggest you mull through it and make it easier to read. Again, not the terminology, just the structure.)

I won't bother to link them because people can just scroll down on the website and find them themselves, I don't want to annoy people, but most are to occult issues and Wikipedia pages... I'm sorry but that is not a scientific method. Wikipedia is not a good place to get your information to make your case.

"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious." - Sigmund Freud.

So, it's not a new idea, and he was building on his predecessors so the idea is, at least, two centuries and counting...

You would think, after learning about subconscious states, it would be pretty easy to elaborate on the idea that there are many layers of minds that are separate and not normally accessible, that may communicate with each other without being in the focal point of "main" consciousness, as you so eloquently call it...


Let's see here...

In the entire 10 sections, 489 pages, of the first-year computational neuroscience textbook, Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems, which is required for any first years, there isn't one mention of your theory. Curiouser and curiouser.. (which apparently, by the way for anyone reading, to grasp his theory you apparently are required to have a working education in physics, information theory, neuroscience and cognitive science.. his words, not mine.)

Also, there is barely even a scrapping of something known as neuronal clusters. Of course there are clusters of neurons but not one mention of them being known to house separate frequencies of electro-activity and therefore separate consciousness. Certainly while working as a post-doctoral fellow at the Hotchkiss Brain Institute one might have come across your theory, or similar theories, providing there was any worth to it... but yet, my funding continues without knowledge of your grand theory. The mystery continues, I suppose... or not.

BTW, repeatedly copy & pasting the same arguments from your website is so annoying (almost as annoying as your inability to put spacing in your arguments since you're too busy copy & pasting them continually) and it isn't putting you on higher ground in your arguments. Your website looks like something my son would put up for his annual science fair.

You link to external forums that have discussed your theories and you, literally, repeat the same b.s. lines every time (and can't space them) and your strawman analogies of "the materialist" and "occultist" are disturbing. Like, you have a pathological issue with being able to differentiate between multiple levels of dichotomy. And your arguments are often ripped apartment by the layman trolls on that forum. *Ahem* lol

Now my question to other Skeptiko members,

For all the materialists here on this forum would you subscribe to neuroclusterbrains definition of materialists?

"Materialists consider themselves as the stack of material atoms, materialists consider themselves as DNA molecule, and materialists see their “immortality” via the replication of their own DNA molecule, thus materialists desperately desire to produce material children naively believing that production of children supposedly extends the existence of their own “I” – while not the exactly the true “I”, but at least a somewhat corrupted copy of “I” (corrupted copy of DNA molecule)."

That is nowhere in my library of definitions of materialists, not to mention his concrete definitions of the occult practitioner.

But, I guess I'll just go back to my nonscientific emotions without being conscious, am I right? Off to Wikipedia I go...

Total jokes.
 
Last edited:
#10
I am still laughing.<…>You <…> are laughed at by layman and scientists alike.<…> But, I guess I'll just go back to my nonscientific emotions <…>
Emotions of TravisMontgomery is not the scientific argument.

In, literally, every forum you have presented your work you argue the same question, "please provide at least one evidence that X-person has 'consciousness'."
That is correct. The question about “evidence of consciousness” is a very good diagnostic tool to identify religious adepts.

The same identical question for TravisMontgomery:
TravisMontgomery, please provide at least one evidence that TravisMontgomery has “consciousness”.

You do realize step one, which is required of first year high school students who are taking philosophy, is to know that consciousness is subjective and providing external, objective, proof of that is like trying to look both out and in to the window at the same time. So using that as your tour de force is a pretty weak way to start off getting acceptance for your theory.
Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science.
The only judge in science is the experiment.
In science the philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

It is very easy to recognize the “religious adept” using the following diagnostic criteria: if a man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence” then such a man is classified as “religious adept”.

Definition of “religious dogma”: a claim which does not match the scientific criteria, a claim which has no experimental evidence.
Definition of “religious adept”: a man who believes in religious dogma.

The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma are scared to death by the idea that other agents/entities might be present in their own brain. That fierce fear of the possibility of other agents/entities being present in their own brain drives these people to fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.

Question for TravisMontgomery: do you have strong religious fanatic faith that you possess “indivisible-single-consciousness”?

which, BTW, was the most annoying four hours of reading I have ever accomplished on my day off. Not because I'm saying you didn't have some interesting things to say but just the format and structure of the paragraphs made it tiring to read. If you want it to reach a large audience then I suggest you mull through it and make it easier to read. Again, not the terminology, just the structure.<….>Your website looks like something my son would put up for his annual science fair.
If TravisMontgomery is able to make a better website about Neurocluster Brain Model then flag into your hands – just go ahead and make it.

The purpose of the text in Official Neurocluster Brain Model site is to test and to debug the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to find out which parts of the material are comprehensive for the average statistical reader and which parts of the material are totally misunderstood. Then, according to the feedback, remake/redesign the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to increase its comprehensibility for the average statistical reader. Very often the sacrifice of accuracy is needed in order to increase the comprehensibility of the material. Sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

most are to <….> Wikipedia pages... I'm sorry but that is not a scientific method. Wikipedia is not a good place to get your information to make your case.
Wikipedia is a good starting point to begin with.
Wikipedia is a good starting point especially for people who are not experts in the required topic.
Wikipedia articles usually provide references to more professional sources, so you can go and read these sources, or you can find these sources on your own.

Anyway, excerpts from Wikipedia articles are provided only as the additional reading material – if you are already expert in the required topics, you can simply skip Wikipedia articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Follow two simple rules:
1) Remember that any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point. <…>
2) Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be evaluated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
the library at Trent University in Ontario states <…> that Wikipedia can be used in any event as a "starting point."<…>
The Gould Library at Carleton College in Minnesota <…> cited Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales' view that Wikipedia may not be ideal as a source for all academic uses, and (as with other sources) suggests that at the least, one strength of Wikipedia is that it provides a good starting point for current information on a very wide range of topics.<…>
BBC technology specialist Bill Thompson wrote that "Most Wikipedia entries <…>forms a good starting point for serious research<…>
Bill Thompson who stated "I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept something that I read there without checking."
 
Last edited:
#11
"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious." - Sigmund Freud.
Appeal to Sigmund Freud (i.e. “appeal to authority”) is a form of logical fallacy.
“Appeal to authority” is the diagnostic criteria which identifies the religious adept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is pseudoscience and does not match the scientific criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
<...>
Psychoanalysis – body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and his followers, which is devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior. It has been controversial ever since its inception. Karl Popper characterized it as pseudoscience based on psychoanalysis failing the requirement for falsifiability. Frank Cioffi argued that "though Popper is correct to say that psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific and correct to say that it is unfalsifiable, he is mistaken to suggest that it is pseudoscientific because it is unfalsifiable. […] It is when [Freud] insists that he has confirmed (not just instantiated) [his empirical theses] that he is being pseudoscientific.
It is interesting to note that the adepts of pseudoscientific claptrap with the name “psychoanalysis” do not even know that Sigmund Freud was “healing” his patients with cocaine, and that Sigmund Freud was cocaine addict himself, and that Freud's psychoanalytical theory was a by-product of his cocaine use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Cocaine
As a medical researcher, Freud was an early user and proponent of cocaine as a stimulant as well as analgesic. He believed that cocaine was a cure for many mental and physical problems, and in his 1884 paper "On Coca" he extolled its virtues. Between 1883 and 1887 he wrote several articles recommending medical applications, including its use as an antidepressant. He narrowly missed out on obtaining scientific priority for discovering its anesthetic properties of which he was aware but had mentioned only in passing. (Karl Koller, a colleague of Freud's in Vienna, received that distinction in 1884 after reporting to a medical society the ways cocaine could be used in delicate eye surgery.) Freud also recommended cocaine as a cure for morphine addiction. He had introduced cocaine to his friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow who had become addicted to morphine taken to relieve years of excruciating nerve pain resulting from an infection acquired while performing an autopsy. His claim that Fleischl-Marxow was cured of his addiction was premature, though he never acknowledged he had been at fault. Fleischl-Marxow developed an acute case of "cocaine psychosis", and soon returned to using morphine, dying a few years later after more suffering from intolerable pain.
The application as an anesthetic turned out to be one of the few safe uses of cocaine, and as reports of addiction and overdose began to filter in from many places in the world, Freud's medical reputation became somewhat tarnished.
After the "Cocaine Episode" Freud ceased to publicly recommend use of the drug, but continued to take it himself occasionally for depression, migraine and nasal inflammation during the early 1890s, before discontinuing in 1896. In this period he came under the influence of his friend and confidant Fliess, who recommended cocaine for the treatment of the so-called nasal reflex neurosis. Fliess, who operated on the noses of several of his own patients, also performed operations on Freud and on one of Freud's patients whom he believed to be suffering from the disorder, Emma Eckstein. The surgery proved disastrous. It has been suggested that much of Freud's early psychoanalytical theory was a by-product of his cocaine use.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-july-dec11-addiction_10-17/
Freud published journal articles proclaiming cocaine was the cure. But he also had a more personal interest in the drug’s effects.
<…>
Freud loved the way cocaine made him feel.
<…>
In the 1890s, after almost killing a patient while under the influence of cocaine, Freud stopped using the drug.

And you seem to completely exclude the idea put forward long ago about multiple layers of consciousness, i.e., subconscious, superconscious, ego and self.
It is very easy to show that Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific claptrap.
Pseudoscientists use intensively terms (invented by Sigmund Freud): 1) id, 2) ego, and 3) super-ego.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction our mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. The super-ego can stop one from doing certain things that one's id may want to do.
Let’s raise simple questions:
1) How can we determine if object X has “id” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “id”? As for example, does the amoebae have “id” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.
2) How can we determine if object X has “ego” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “ego”? As for example, does the amoebae have “ego” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.
3) How can we determine if object X has “super-ego” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “super-ego”? As for example, does the amoebae have “super-ego” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.

Pseudoscientists are unable to provide scientific definitions of the terms “id”, “ego”, and “super-ego”, pseudoscientists are unable to provide the list of criteria which would allow to determine if object X has “id/ego/super-ego” or not.
When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
 
#12
I won't bother to link them because people can just scroll down on the website and find them themselves, I don't want to annoy people, but most are to occult issues <...> I'm sorry but that is not a scientific method.
The purpose of Neurocluster Brain Model is to explain religious/occult phenomena from the scientific point of view.
In order to achieve this goal the religious/occult writings must be analyzed from the scientific point of view – religious/occult writings are the object of scientific research.
The excerpts from religious/occult writings are provided with scientific explanations about the content of these religious/occult writings.

I don't think most people see their brain as an "I" and only one "I". That is an outdated mode so, please, update your finding appropriately. Many scientists consider the mind to be like a society of minds, like you quote the Michio Kaku/Marvin Minsky discussion in his book.
Michio Kaku/Marvin Minsky were on the right way, however the scientific qualification of Michio Kaku/Marvin Minsky was insufficient for the creation of Neurocluster Brain Model.

In the entire 10 sections, 489 pages, of the first-year computational neuroscience textbook, Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems, which is required for any first years, there isn't one mention of your theory.
That’s because the authors of that textbook have insufficient scientific qualification.

In the entire 10 sections, 489 pages, of the first-year computational neuroscience textbook, Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems, which is required for any first years, there isn't one mention of your theory. Curiouser and curiouser.. (which apparently, by the way for anyone reading, to grasp his theory you apparently are required to have a working education in physics, information theory, neuroscience and cognitive science.. his words, not mine.)
Different people have different backgrounds and different qualifications and as the result they have different comprehension levels of the material.
When we write the description of “Neurocluster Brain Model” we try to present everything as simple as possible, however we do admit that we sometimes overestimate the capabilities/qualifications of some common casual readers.
A lot of material about “Neurocluster Brain Model” requires prerequisites in order to understand the material. If the reader does not meet the prerequisites then he will misunderstand some parts of the material or even the whole material.
http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/registration/before/prerequisites
A prerequisite is a course you must have completed before registering for another. Find out about prerequisites prior to registration using university catalogs, the course schedule, or our Prerequisite Check system.
In order to fully 100% comprehend the material about “Neurocluster Brain Model” the prerequisites are: training/qualification in neuroscience, plus training/qualification in computer science, plus training/qualification in physics, plus training/qualification in electronics – and all of them simultaneously at the same time. And how many readers have training/qualification in all of these areas simultaneously at the same time? Not many, to say the least.
If the reader has training/qualification only in neuroscience then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in physics then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in computer science then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in electronics then it is not enough.

The purpose of this thread is to test and to debug the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to find out which parts of the material are comprehensive for the average statistical reader and which parts of the material are totally misunderstood. Then, according to the feedback, remake/redesign the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to increase its comprehensibility for the average statistical reader. Very often the sacrifice of accuracy is needed in order to increase the comprehensibility of the material. Sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.
 
#13
You would think, after learning about subconscious states, it would be pretty easy to elaborate on the idea that there are many layers of minds that are separate and not normally accessible, that may communicate with each other without being in the focal point of "main" consciousness, as you so eloquently call it...
Neurons in the brain are organized into groups/networks/clusters which are specialized in solving various tasks. In other words, the brain consists of multiple modules which independently solve the tasks and present only the final result to the main personality. The main personality is able to observe and control the detailed flow of calculations only in very small number of modules. However majority of modules do not let in the main personality into the process solving the task and these modules solve the task completely independently and only when the final result is ready then this result is presented to the main personality. The main personality was not involved into the process of solving the problem and main personality was even not aware that solving was taking place. The main personality simply received the final answer/solution to the problem and due to the ignorance of the brain physiology people naively believe that they have received “revelation” from “out of this world”. It is interesting to note that religious adepts naively believe that “revelations” which they have received themselves surely must come from divine sources (from God, angels, etc) and not from demons, and that “revelations” received by adepts of competing religions surely must come from demonic sources and not from divine sources. However the truth is that all these “revelations” come from autonomous neuroclusters inside their own brain. These “revelations” sometimes are called as “heart's voice”, “insight” or “intuition”.
In psychology and psychiatry autonomous neuroclusters have ill-defined name “subconscious”, and when autonomous neuroclusters provide ready-made solution for the main personality – psychologists and psychiatrists call such phenomenon as “intuition” while religious adepts call the same phenomenon as “divine enlightenment”.
Official psychiatry/psychology is unable to provide clear scientific definition of “intuition” and is unable to explain the underlying mechanism of “intuition”, however Neurocluster Brain Model provides clear and simple definition:
Intuition is the flow of information from autonomous neuroclusters to the main personality.
It is important to note that when a man’s brain functions poorly then the intuition of such man functions poorly too. This is due to simple reason – intuition is the part of his poorly functioning brain.

Many esoteric schools offer various “intuition training programs” claiming that with “intuition training” you can achieve astral projection, telekinesis, dream control, past life recall, and many more exciting abilities.
There is a very popular myth that it is very good to have high intuition, according to that myth – the higher the intuition the better.
However the reality is following.
The level of intuition is directly proportional to the percentage of autonomous independent areas (neuroclusters) in the brain which do not let the main personality to control calculations which occur in these areas of the brain.
The bigger the number of such uncontrollable independent neuroclusters in the brain – the higher the intuition.
The level of intuition is a measure of how much the main personality does not have the control over neuroclusters inside the brain.
If main personality has 100% control over all neuroclusters in the brain then intuition is equal to 0%.
If main personality has 0% control over all neuroclusters in the brain then intuition is equal to 100%.
If main personality has 50% control over all neuroclusters in the brain then intuition is equal to 50%.
And so on.
By the way, there is one popular claim used massively in the media which says “women have more intuition than men” which is naively presented as an advantage. However, let’s raise a simple question: having no control over his own brain is an advantage or not?

The term “subconscious” has the same problems as the term “intuition” – official psychiatry/psychology is unable to provide clear scientific definition of “subconscious” and is unable to explain the underlying mechanism of “subconscious”, however Neurocluster Brain Model provides clear and simple definition:
subconscious is the array of autonomous neuroclusters which are insubordinate to the main personality.
Autonomous neuroclusters (a.k.a. subconscious) provide only final calculated result to the main personality, they do not allow main personality to observe and control calculations which are done in autonomous neuroclusters. Autonomous neuroclusters can process and store processed information without main personality being aware of that stored information. Main personality can gain some limited access to that stored information (in autonomous neuroclusters) during the dreams and during “spiritual travels”.
The term “subconscious mind” is roughly equivalent to independent autonomous neuroclusters which can carry on a vast number of activities outside of the main personality’s conscious awareness.

Another popular synonym for the term “subconscious” is “unconscious” (a.k.a. “unconscious mind”). The authors who coined the term “unconscious mind” revealed their total lack of knowledge about brain physiology because all neurons in the brain are busy with information processing and all these neurons are “conscious”, in other words “unconscious mind” is the mind which is always “conscious” even when the main personality is not aware of their activity. The term “unconscious mind” is erroneous and obvious oxymoron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) is a figure of speech that juxtaposes elements that appear to be contradictory. <...>
The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective–noun combination of two words. <...> examples of oxymora of this kind include:
● Dark light
● Living dead
● Guest host (also: Permanent guest host)
● Little while
● Crazy wisdom
● Mournful optimist
● Violent relaxation
Less often seen are noun–verb combinations of two words, such as the line "The silence whistles" from Nathan Alterman's "Summer Night", or in a song title like Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence".
 
#14
So, I offer a similar counter proposal if you're so equipped.. provide at least one evidence that these neuronal clusters can give rise to separate consciousness'. Seeing as it's pretty hard to provide evidence for one consciousness, the main "I" as you call it, I am guessing you're going to be at a loss to provide evidence for multiple consciousness residing in a singular brain, no? Let alone ones that are collecting and interpreting information ready to come in to communication with the focal consciousness in the form of hallucinatory telepathy, conversations with deities, ghosts, and all other "occult" phenomena.
It is very easy to prove experimentally that dream-characters do have their own “awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc”. The experiment setup is very easy. Next time when you go to sleep and when you have a dream and when you see some dream-character-of-human-form (father/mother/brother/sister/friend/relative/etc) in your dream, go closer to that dream-character and ask him a simple question: “do you have your own awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc?” and then wait for the answer from that dream-character.
Let’s raise a simple question: who is the best expert to decide whether dream-character has “awareness/consciousness” or not?
The answer is obvious: the best expert in this question is the dream-character himself.
So your job is very simple – just ask the dream-character himself whether he has “awareness/consciousness” or not.

In case if you have troubles to carry out this experiment during the dream (inability to control yourself during the dream) then this problem has easy technical solution – just use the techniques developed by Michael Raduga and you will be able to achieve lucid dream and/or OOBE state.
For more details please read articles in mass media about Michael Raduga's experiments at page:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_articles.html
The techniques for artificial induction of OOBE and/or lucid dreaming phenomena are described in details in Michael Raduga’s books which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_books.html
The more efficient way to get acquainted with techniques of Michael Raduga is to watch video lectures instead of reading books, which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_videos.html

Another experimental proof is experiments of “spiritualistic séances” using thread with the attached needle method as described in previous posts. After you will succeed in invoking the “spirit” simply ask him “do you have your own awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc?” and then wait for the answer from that “spirit”.
Again, let’s raise a simple question: who is the best expert to decide whether the “spirit” has “awareness/consciousness” or not?
The answer is obvious: the best expert in this question is the “spirit” himself.
So your job is very simple – just ask the “spirit” himself whether he has “awareness/consciousness” or not.

It is interesting to note that all “proofs” which pseudoscientists are able to provide trying to prove that they themselves have “consciousness” always can be simplified/reduced into the following scenario: “I tell you that I have consciousness. How do you dare not to believe what I say? I tell you that I have awareness and I have consciousness. You must believe what I say – you must believe that I have consciousness.”
Pseudoscientists say that they have “consciousness” and that is the only “proof” that are able to provide.
And now go and do the described experiment – ask the dream-character/“spirit” himself about whether he has “consciousness” or not.

The difference between the scientist and the religious adept is the following:
1) The scientist does the experiment and checks out if the predictions of the model/theory are confirmed or not, and then based on the experimental results the scientist makes conclusions.
2) The religious adept says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

Neurocluster Brain Model is scientific model, so if you want to check whether it is correct or not – all you need to do is to carry out the experiments which are described in Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not carried out the needed experiments, if you do not have experimental results, then you are not qualified as scientist to make the judgment, your judgment is based purely on religious dogmas.

The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma will fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.

Here is homework task for the development of logical thinking for religious adepts who have strong religious fanatic faith that “man has indivisible-single-consciousness”:
Are you completely sure that your brain is really able to contain one(1) personality? What about the scenario when one(1) personality is unable to fit in the brain, and only half(1/2) or a quarter(1/4) or a tenth(1/10) of personality is able to fit in the brain – how about that? Let’s suppose that we claim that your brain is too small to contain whole one(1) personality, one(1) personality is unable to fit into your brain/head, and we claim that your brain/head contains only tenth(1/10) of personality – flag into your hands, go ahead and try to disprove the claim that your brain contains only tenth(1/10) of personality. The reasoning behind that is very simple: if man’s brain is able to fit one(1) personality then such man is able to carry out scientific experiments to check whether experimental results confirm the predictions of model/theory or not, however if the man’s brain is too small to fit one(1) personality then such man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

Let’s clean this mess and let's make things scientific.

Step #1: Scientific model/theory must be able to make predictions – do you agree with that or not?

Step #2: The predictions of the scientific model/theory must be testable by reproducible experiments – do you agree with that or not?

Step #3: Neurocluster Brain Model is able to make predictions which can be tested by reproducible experiments – so just go and do these experiments instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber.

Step #4: Neurocluster Brain Model predicts that: after prolonged repeatable experimentation with “spiritualistic séances” you have high risk to induce sleepwalking/MPD incidents for the “medium”, during which the “medium” will be moving/breaking/etc various things in his own house, and when after awakening he finds things broken and scattered around his house, he becomes scared and strongly convinced that “evil spirits have possessed his house” – in more advanced cases this leads to the lunatic asylum.

Step # 5: Just go and carry out “spiritualistic séances” using “thread with the attached needle method” for prolonged periods of time as described in previous posts. Please note that it is important to use thread with the attached needle, do not use planchette/cup/glass/saucer (or some other heavy object) as shown in Hollywood movies. This setup (thread with the attached needle) will allow the manifestation of microscopic muscular contractions of the hand controlled by autonomous neurocluster inside the brain of the medium – with this experimental setup you can carry as many reproducible experiments as you wish. Using planchette/cup/glass/saucer will not work for average statistical man. Using planchette/cup/glass/saucer might work for people who are already in the lunatic asylum, but that’s another story. Average statistical man must use thread with the attached needle in order to succeed in “invoking spirit”.

Step # 6: Check out the results – check out if the “medium” has began having sleepwalking/MPD incidents which were not present before the experiment. The easiest and most reliable way to detect sleepwalking/MPD incidents is to use 24/7 video recording. If video recording is not available then sleepwalking/MPD incidents can be diagnosed using simple basic set of questions (however this method is less reliable than video recording).
http://neuroclusterbrain.com
Usually a man is completely unaware that he has multiple personality disorder (MPD), however it can be diagnosed with simple basic set of questions.
Diagnostic criteria for multiple personality disorder are the following:
1) Missing time and gaps in the memory.
Are there any episodes of “missing time” in your life? Are there any gaps in your memory? As for example, maybe you do not remember what you were doing yesterday from 3:00 PM till 8:00 PM, or maybe you do not remember what happened today from 8:00 AM till 12:00 PM, etc.
2) Strange things among your belongings.
Are there any episodes of you discovering the evidence of your actions and tasks that you do not recollect doing?
As for example, maybe you sometimes find new things among your belongings that you do not remember buying? As for example, maybe you have found an ashtray with smoked cigarettes in your home when you are completely sure that you are non-smoker, or maybe you have found leather clothes in your closet which perfectly fits your body however you are completely sure that you hate leather clothes, etc.
Are there any episodes of you finding (perplexing) writings, drawings, or notes among your belongings that you cannot remember doing?
Are there any episodes of you discovering injuries "coming to" in the midst of doing something?
3) Teleportation.
Are there any episodes of your teleportation? Are there any episodes when you have suddenly found yourself at work, in a nightclub, at the beach, or somewhere at home (e.g., in the closet, on a bed or sofa, in the corner) with no memory of how you came to be there?
4) Voices in the head.
Are there any episodes of you hearing voices inside your head that tell you to do things or comment on things that you are doing?
It is important to note that all these symptoms of multiple personality disorder are not attributable to psychotropic substances (alcohol, narcotics, etc) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.
Step # 7: Make your conclusions ONLY after you have done the experiment on statistically large sample of people (acting as mediums). If you have not done the experiment then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

Step # 8: Do you know of any other scientific model/theory which would predict the same outcome as Neurocluster Brain Model (“spiritualistic séances” inducing sleepwalking/MPD incidents)? If “yes” then please show this model/theory to us, it will be very interesting to see it.


If you have not done the experiments then you are not qualified as scientist to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not done the experiments then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.
 
#15
Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science..
That's how some people define science. Obviously it is an example of physicalist paradigms applied to, and then seen as being the definers of, science. There is also the point that "can observe" covers a wealth of approaches not currently employed by status-quo science
 
#16
Hey, I was successful!

He decided to still link directly from his website but at least he took my advice about spacing and sentence structure :)

You go, girl!

And actually I have done research on demyelination of the corpus callosum in cuprizone-fed mice in relation to its effect on multiple sclerosis patients, which is directly related to your split-brain examples. I study the exact "neuronal clusters" and their pain thresholds while the corpus callosum is both intact and severed.

In my research we study that copper is a potent regulator N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), one class of major ionotropic glutamate receptors in the central nervous system. Normally, these cation-permeable receptors mediate cellular communication upon binding of co-agonists glutamate and glycine (or D-serine). However, NMDAR hyperactivity can be toxic to cells via enhanced calcium influx through these receptor-channels. In our recent study, copper chelation reduced receptor desensitization resulting in NMDAR hyperactivity and neuronal death. Enhanced NMDAR activity at spinal cord dorsal horn synapses is involved in neuropathic pain, a symptom experienced by - 50% of MS patients.

So, what original research have you been funded to do? None, according to your website. Niiiiiiice.

Summary of score so far,

Me: One
You: Zero

PS. I have no appeal religious fanatic faith, as you put it, but it seems you are quite a religious zealot about your theory. You seem to pathologically obsess over the idea that your model is the correct one, going so far as to say the people you quote in your articles as references do not have the scientific background to understand your theory. This may be true but at least try and pay some homage to the people you are piggybacking on.

And my appeal to authority is quite justified when you appeal to many other's original research to make your "superior" model that nobody is interested in and will never be published. Do not put me in the same camp as your flawed "occultist" and "materialist" definitions. If you want to discuss logical fallacies how about the few you cued in? Such as, personal incredulity, or tu tuoque, or appeal to emotion, or special pleading, or the black-and-white fallacy. Need I go on?

I'm pretty sure the only fallacy I'm guilty of was ad hominem but I just couldn't resist laughing at you.

If your model is so correct, and your scientific training is so great, then why are you having to pay the website fees yourself to get it out to the public? Couldn't you just write up the proposal and submit it at the university you're employed at? Oh right... but go back to linking more bullshit from your webpage that has less hits than the common blog.

We all look forward to it :)

Sincerely,

Neuronal clusterfuck
 
Last edited:
#17
Swearing is not the scientific argument.

but I just couldn't resist laughing at you.
Emotions of TravisMontgomery is not the scientific argument.

In my research we study that copper is a potent regulator N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), one class of major ionotropic glutamate receptors in the central nervous system. Normally, these cation-permeable receptors mediate cellular communication upon binding of co-agonists glutamate and glycine (or D-serine). However, NMDAR hyperactivity can be toxic to cells via enhanced calcium influx through these receptor-channels. In our recent study, copper chelation reduced receptor desensitization resulting in NMDAR hyperactivity and neuronal death. Enhanced NMDAR activity at spinal cord dorsal horn synapses is involved in neuropathic pain, a symptom experienced by - 50% of MS patients.
Irrelevant/off-topic research does not qualify you to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.

Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science.
The only judge in science is the experiment.
In science the philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

Question for TravisMontgomery #1: have you carried out the experiments described in Neurocluster Brain Model?

If you have not done the experiments then you are not qualified as scientist to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not done the experiments then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

I have no appeal religious fanatic faith, as you put it, but it seems you are quite a religious zealot about your theory.
Question for TravisMontgomery #2: do you have strong religious fanatic faith that you possess “indivisible-single-consciousness”?

Question for TravisMontgomery #3: are you the religious zealot about the blind religious faith that you possess “indivisible-single-consciousness”?

Definition of “religious adept”: a man who believes in religious dogma.
Definition of “religious dogma”: a claim which does not match the scientific criteria, a claim which has no experimental evidence.

The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma are scared to death by the idea that other agents/entities might be present in their own brain. That fierce fear of the possibility of other agents/entities being present in their own brain drives these people to fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.

It is very easy to recognize the “religious adept” using the following diagnostic criteria: if a man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence” then such a man is classified as “religious adept”.
 
#18
So, what original research have you been funded to do? None, according to your website. Niiiiiiice.
<…>
And my appeal to authority is quite justified when you appeal to many other's original research to make your "superior" model that nobody is interested in and will never be published.
<…>
If your model is so correct, and your scientific training is so great, then why are you having to pay the website fees yourself to get it out to the public? Couldn't you just write up the proposal and submit it at the university you're employed at? Oh right... but go back to linking more bullshit from your webpage that has less hits than the common blog.
There are thousands of scientists who are doing fine science without getting published in peer reviewed journals – these are the scientists who work in secret military projects, secret government agencies, commercial companies and so on.
http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
The NSA is building the country’s biggest spy center (watch what you say)
03.15.2012
<…> NSA has quietly been reborn. <...> there is no doubt that it has transformed itself into the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created.
<…>
Some 300 scientists and computer engineers with top security clearance toil away here, building the world’s fastest supercomputers and working on cryptanalytic applications and other secret projects.

https://www.nsa.gov/careers/jobs_search_apply/hirerequire.shtml
National Security Agency
<…>
Hiring Requirements
Qualifications for NSA employment depend on the position for which you are applying. <…> You must also be eligible to obtain a high-level security clearance.
In other words, these are the scientists whose salary does not depend on the requirement of having publications in “peer reviewed journals”.
We will remind that the salary of pseudoscientists who belong to academic institutions vitally depends on so-called “citation index” (i.e. number of publications in “peer reviewed journals”)
These pseudoscientists from academic institutions have no other choice as to get involved in the imitation of useful activity – they have no other choice as to get involved in publishing in so-called “peer reviewed journals”. The salary of these pseudoscientists vitally depends on having publications in so-called “peer reviewed journals”
However scientists, whose salary does not depend on so-called “citation index”, have no need whatsoever to get involved in the imitation of useful activity – they have no need whatsoever to get involved in publishing in so-called “peer reviewed journals”.

Let's look more closely how the imitation of useful activity looks in practice.
Let's look more closely what is the value of “reputable peer reviewed journals”.

Scientific verification of “scientific” papers of psychologists has revealed that at least 80 percent of the “scientific” papers of psychologists are fakes and pseudoscientific nonsense.
That is the classical typical example of the value of so-called “reputable scientists” in so-called “reputable peer reviewed journals”.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test.
A major investigation into scores of claims made in psychology research journals has delivered a bleak verdict on the state of the science.
An international team of experts repeated 100 experiments published in top psychology journals and found that they could reproduce only 36% of original findings.
The study, which saw 270 scientists repeat experiments on five continents, was launched by psychologists in the US in response to rising concerns over the reliability of psychology research.
<…>
John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said.
Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results
(The Guardian. August 25, 2015)
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nts-failing-replication-test-findings-science
Science is the best thing that has happened to humankind because its results can be questioned, retested, and demonstrated to be wrong. Science is not about proving at all cost some preconceived dogma. Conversely religious devotees, politicians, soccer fans, and pseudo-science quacks won’t allow their doctrines, promises, football clubs or bizarre claims to be proven illogical, exaggerated, second-rate or just absurd.
Despite this clear superiority of the scientific method, we researchers are still fallible humans. This week, an impressive collaboration of 270 investigators working for five years published in Science the results of their efforts to replicate 100 important results that had been previously published in three top psychology journals. The replicators worked closely with the original authors to make the repeat experiments close replicas of the originals. The results were bleak: 64% of the experiments could not be replicated.
<…>
Probably the failure rate in the Science data would have been higher for work published in journals of lesser quality. There are tens of thousands of journals in the scientific-publishing market, and most will publish almost anything submitted to them. The failure rate may also be higher for studies that are so complex that none of the collaborating replicators offered to attempt a replication. This group accounted for one-third of the studies published in the three top journals. So the replication failure rate for psychology at large may be 80% or more overall.
This performance is even worse than I would have predicted. In 2012 my anticipation of a 53% replication failure rate for psychology at large was published. Compared with other empirical studies, the failure rate of psychology seems to be in the same ballpark as replication failure rates in observational epidemiology, cancer drug targets and preclinical research, and animal experiments.
Psychology experiments are failing the replication test – for good reason
(The Guardian. August 28, 2015)

Another example of the value of “peer reviewed journal”.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list
Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List”
November 23, 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology
In 2005, two scientists, David Mazières and Eddie Kohler, wrote a paper titled Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List and submitted it to WMSCI 2005 (the 9th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics), a conference then notorious for its spamming and lax standards for paper acceptance, in protest of same. The paper consisted essentially only of the sentence "Get me off your fucking mailing list" repeated many times.
In 2014, after receiving a spam email from the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, Peter Vamplew forwarded Mazières' and Kohler's old paper as an acerbic response. To Vamplew's surprise, the paper was reviewed, rated as "excellent" by the journal's peer-review process and accepted for publication. The paper was not actually published as Vamplew declined to pay the required $150 article processing fee. This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

Another example of the value of “peer reviewed journals”.
http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-researc...puter-generated-studies-get-published-1558725
Fake Research Papers: How Did More Than 120 'Gibberish' Computer-Generated Studies Get Published?
March 01 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...shed-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/
Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish
March 01, 2014

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/computerized-fake-research-papers-get-published/
Scientific world getting duped by computerized fake research papers
February 27, 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...puter-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia
How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
26 February 2014

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...nded_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html
How Gobbledygook Ended Up in Respected Scientific Journals
FEB. 27 2014
We will remind, that “appeal to authority” (i.e. appeal to reputable peer reviewed journal) is a form of logical fallacy.

Religious adepts can be very easily identified by using the following diagnostic criteria:
1) they use the “appeal to authority” as an argument;
2) they are unable to provide scientific definitions for the terms that they use in their texts, and instead of scientific definitions they provide crackpot blabber;
3) they are totally incapable to provide the scientific arguments and instead of scientific arguments they actively use all sorts of bureaucratic muck (write complaints/denunciations, vote “against” at the polls/ratings, etc.).
4) and so on.

“Appeal to authority” is not a the scientific argument; “appeal to authority” is a form of logical fallacy.
“Appeal to authority” is the diagnostic criteria which identifies the religious adept.
And this means that TravisMontgomery is the religious adept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
 
#19
Uh oh.. more logical fallacies from neuronalclusterfuck to make his point when he has no valid science to back it up except youtube videos and wikipedia.

And about those scientists not doing research that is in peer-reviewed journals, they have peer-reviewed papers before being recruited to "secret military projects" because of their outstanding qualifications. Not because of their biased ideas about "religious fanatics" haha Your pathological need for approval on internet forums is very amusing. So amusing I might be conscious ;)
 
#20
You keep quoting your own "paper" claiming it's scientific but your biased assumptions don't draw from the body of evidence-at-hand. You say you can identify religious adepts through your list of behaviors but I do not believe in anything so your arguments are just falling on deaf ears, but they're pretty laughable :)

Enjoy wasting your money on your unpublished, never to be accepted, flawed theory of the mind/brain.

I find it funny that you require a "we" to disarm me but it's failing miserably because you have yet to counter my arguments in my second posting. Please proceed to acknowledge those arguments without logical fallacies and copy & paste.

Have a good day now, ya hear?
 
Last edited:
Top