ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th March 2017, 02:12 PM   #41
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
In other words, by your terrible logic, simulated synapses don't exist.
A illogical post ignoring the fact that I have stated many times that 10^14 simulated synapses existed when they were run on a supercomputer having absolutely no synapses.

20 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Do you know that a computer simulation is not a human being? (i.e. computer simulations do not have the speed of brains)
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Provide sources for "humans as possessing roughly 10^15+ synapses"
A "Wikipedia /synapse references children to have 10^15, and adults to have 10^14" assertion is not a source and suggests that 10^14 is the correct figure.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th March 2017 at 02:15 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 06:21 PM   #42
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,314
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is the reasoning needed to solve the 2 puzzles that is equivalent.
But as DevilsAdvocate clearly explained, the reasoning is not equivalent.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 08:02 PM   #43
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But as DevilsAdvocate clearly explained, the reasoning is not equivalent.
This is the King's Wise Men puzzle
Quote:
Alternative solution: This does not require the rule that the contest be fair to each. Rather it relies on the fact that they are all wise men, and that it takes some time before they arrive at a solution. There can only be 3 scenarios, one blue hat, two blue hats or 3 blue hats. If there was only one blue hat, then the wearer of that hat would see two white hats, and quickly know that he has to have a blue hat, so he would stand up and announce this straight away. Since this hasn't happened, then there must be at least two blue hats. If there were two blue hats, than either one of those wearing a blue hat would look across and see one blue hat and one white hat, but not know the colour of their own hat. If the first wearer of the blue hat assumed he had a white hat, he would know that the other wearer of the blue hat would be seeing two white hats, and thus the 2nd wearer of the blue hat would have already stood up and announced he was wearing a blue hat. Thus, since this hasn't happened, the first wearer of the blue hat would know he was wearing a blue hat, and could stand up and announce this. Since either one or two blue hats is so easy to solve, and that no one has stood up quickly, then they must all be wearing blue hats.
There are 3 placebos and 2 dumb pills. Thus 3 random pills have to contain at least 1 placebo. The robots do not know if 1, 2 or 3 placebos were given (the "at least 1 blue hat" condition) since the pills are indistinguishable to them and given at random according to what they are told (see below). If there was only one placebo pill then the taker of that pill would not see the other two robots speak, would quickly know that he has to have taken a placebo, so he would stand up and announce this straight away. etc. etc.

What turns this inductive reasoning test into a self awareness test is that the humans lie to the robots ! There is only 1 placebo. Two of the robots are physically muted.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2017, 11:07 AM   #44
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A illogical post ignoring the fact that I have stated many times that 10^14 simulated synapses existed when they were run on a supercomputer having absolutely no synapses.

20 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Do you know that a computer simulation is not a human being? (i.e. computer simulations do not have the speed of brains)
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Provide sources for "humans as possessing roughly 10^15+ synapses"
A "Wikipedia /synapse references children to have 10^15, and adults to have 10^14" assertion is not a source and suggests that 10^14 is the correct figure.
Laymen tend to think that simulations of things, don't regard efficacious, useful models.

I still hold (or rather it is scientifically observable) that simulations of synapses, does not suddenly prompt such synapses out of existence....
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2017, 12:12 PM   #45
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 3,962
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Laymen tend to think that simulations of things, don't regard efficacious, useful models.

I still hold (or rather it is scientifically observable) that simulations of synapses, does not suddenly prompt such synapses out of existence....
Again please, in English.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2017, 09:48 PM   #46
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Again please, in English.
Typo fixed:

OLD:
I still hold (or rather it is scientifically observable) that simulations of synapses, does not suddenly prompt such synapses out of existence....



NEW:

I still hold (or rather it is scientifically observable) that simulations of synapses, do not suddenly prompt such synapses out of existence....
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2017, 03:13 AM   #47
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 76,407
Still waiting for it in comprehensible English.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2017, 01:55 PM   #48
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Still waiting for it in comprehensible English.
RealityCheck appears to think that simulated synapses mean such synapses don't exist.

In contrast, simulated synapses mean such simulated synapses exist.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2017, 02:02 PM   #49
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,642
Am I the only one who thinks that processing speed is irrelevant when it comes to intelligence, rationality, intensionality, etc?

A very, very slow thinking person who is totally capable of reasoning, but not too quickly, is still a person. If we take an intelligent machine and add useless loops to slow it down, it doesn't become less intelligent. It might be less well suited for environments in which it has to interact with changing conditions, but it didn't lose its reasoning capacity.

What matters is more about drawing appropriate conclusions, not how quickly they are drawn. Nor do numbers of "synapses". The proof is surely in the pudding, that is, something like the Turing test.

(NOTE: I'm not committing myself to the view that simulating intelligence is a proof of intelligence. That's a difficult question, quite beyond me, but the Turing test is a start, and it doesn't matter if the machine responds promptly or every three weeks.)

Last edited by phiwum; 1st April 2017 at 02:05 PM.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2017, 06:13 PM   #50
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Am I the only one who thinks that processing speed is irrelevant when it comes to intelligence, rationality, intensionality, etc?

A very, very slow thinking person who is totally capable of reasoning, but not too quickly, is still a person. If we take an intelligent machine and add useless loops to slow it down, it doesn't become less intelligent. It might be less well suited for environments in which it has to interact with changing conditions, but it didn't lose its reasoning capacity.

What matters is more about drawing appropriate conclusions, not how quickly they are drawn. Nor do numbers of "synapses". The proof is surely in the pudding, that is, something like the Turing test.

(NOTE: I'm not committing myself to the view that simulating intelligence is a proof of intelligence. That's a difficult question, quite beyond me, but the Turing test is a start, and it doesn't matter if the machine responds promptly or every three weeks.)

Well, your thinking would be invalid.

Brain size_speed/body ratio (or brain to body mass ratio) appears to be a relevant property mapping.

Adult humans have a brain/body mass ratio of 2 percent.
Monkeys have less, and their brains are smaller than human.
Particular whales have more, and their brains are far larger than human.

We don't see evidence of whales or monkeys creating quantum physics literature, or creating sophisticated simulations of our cosmos.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2017, 11:37 PM   #51
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,814
You fixed the wrong bit. This is the gibberish:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Laymen tend to think that simulations of things, don't regard efficacious, useful models....
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 03:06 PM   #52
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Laymen tend to think that simulations of things, don't regard efficacious, useful models.
I am not a layman (an M.Sc. in physics followed by almost 30 years in IT!). The point however is that anyone who can read and understand English can understand that a computer that is not made of computer synapses is not made of computer synapses even when it is simulating computer synapses ! That is as insane as thinking that a computer running a weather forecast program has actual weather in it running in real time (no actual weather, run faster than real time).

IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) is running on a computer with no synapses.
IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) is a simulation of neurosynaptic cores that might be in a future IBM chip.

20 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Do you know that a computer simulation is not a human being? (i.e. computer simulations do not have the speed of brains)
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Provide sources for "humans as possessing roughly 10^15+ synapses"

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd April 2017 at 03:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 03:19 PM   #53
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
RealityCheck appears to think that simulated synapses mean such synapses don't exist.
The simulation of neurosynaptic cores that might be in a future IBM chip exists as in the research paper you cited and I have cited back to you - duh!

Human and other synapses also exist !

It is human synapses running in a human brain in the simulation that do not exist. Thus it totally ignorant to multiply the number of simulated computer synapses by an estimate of the operations per second for human synapses running in a human brain.

Enough emphasis for you?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 03:45 PM   #54
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Brain size_speed/body ratio (or brain to body mass ratio) appears to be a relevant property mapping.

Relevant to what?

Do quadruple amputees suddenly and automatically become geniuses?

Obviously, a neural simulation that performs the same computations as another (e.g. of the same number of simulated neurons and synapses) is equivalent for research even if it runs n times more slowly, provided the cognitive task does not involve real-time demands or constraints. External inputs can be slowed down n-fold for most purposes (exceptions being cases where only realtime real-world input will suffice, like real-world driving when human drivers' reactions to the driving program's actions must be completely realistic), and the results will be identical.

Brain to body mass ratio is irrelevant when talking about neurons simulated via silicon chips.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 04:10 PM   #55
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,650
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
We have all seen robots that can walk and do amazing things but they cannot think for themselves like what we see on sci-fi programs. We have no Robby the Robots, we have no Datas,

If the scientific powers that be get together and actually make an intelligent self-aware machine using today's technology?

I saw that they tried to teach a computer how to play Super Mario. It figured out that if it refused to move from the start, it couldn't die. So it learned, it just learned something we didn't want it to.

I don't think we have the programming to make a real AI. Check back in 20 years.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 04:32 PM   #56
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Brain to body mass ratio is irrelevant when talking about neurons simulated via silicon chips.
We are actually talking about a further level of simulation. IBM is part of the SyNAPSE program
Quote:
SyNAPSE is a DARPA program that aims to develop electronic neuromorphic machine technology that scales to biological levels. More simply stated, it is an attempt to build a new kind of cognitive computer with similar form, function, and architecture to the mammalian brain. Such artificial brains would be used in robots whose intelligence would scale with the size of the neural system in terms of total number of neurons and synapses and their connectivity.
IBM have developed a chip with "one million neurons and 256 million synapses networked into 4096 neurosynaptic cores".

An IBM research lab have run a computer simulation of these neurosynaptic cores (neurons simulated via silicon chips). That simulation had 10^14 synapses (roughly the same as a human brain).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 04:38 PM   #57
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We are actually talking about a further level of simulation. IBM is part of the SyNAPSE program

IBM have developed a chip with "one million neurons and 256 million synapses networked into 4096 neurosynaptic cores".

An IBM research lab have run a computer simulation of these neurosynaptic cores (neurons simulated via silicon chips). That simulation had 10^14 synapses (roughly the same as a human brain).

They're still silicon chips, though. That's why I said "via silicon chips" and not e.g. "via digital logic."
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 07:21 PM   #58
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
They're still silicon chips, though. That's why I said "via silicon chips" and not e.g. "via digital logic."
The IBM chips are still chips but we are not discussing them.
Level 1: Human neurons simulated via silicon chips (the IBM chips, see Brain Power).
Level 2: Simulation of what looks like a proposed IBM architecture for future chips on a supercomputer. That is a simulation of simulation of human neurons in proposed, future chips.

IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) is where they simulate the IBM TrueNorth Cognitive Computing architecture on the Sequoia 96-rack IBM Blue Gene supercomputer.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 03:48 AM   #59
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The simulation of neurosynaptic cores that might be in a future IBM chip exists as in the research paper you cited and I have cited back to you - duh!

Human and other synapses also exist !

It is human synapses running in a human brain in the simulation that do not exist. Thus it totally ignorant to multiply the number of simulated computer synapses by an estimate of the operations per second for human synapses running in a human brain.

Enough emphasis for you?
I don't recall mentioning 'human synapses' running anywhere in ibm machine.

The layman tends to think simulations of things are not meaningful...
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd April 2017 at 03:56 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 03:57 AM   #60
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Relevant to what?

Do quadruple amputees suddenly and automatically become geniuses?

Obviously, a neural simulation that performs the same computations as another (e.g. of the same number of simulated neurons and synapses) is equivalent for research even if it runs n times more slowly, provided the cognitive task does not involve real-time demands or constraints. External inputs can be slowed down n-fold for most purposes (exceptions being cases where only realtime real-world input will suffice, like real-world driving when human drivers' reactions to the driving program's actions must be completely realistic), and the results will be identical.

Brain to body mass ratio is irrelevant when talking about neurons simulated via silicon chips.
I maintain (or rather it is scientifically observable) that my prior comment is optimal.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 05:36 AM   #61
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 3,962
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I don't recall mentioning 'human synapses' running anywhere in ibm machine.

The layman tends to think simulations of things are not meaningful...
No they do not. It's your use of language that is not 'meaningful'.

eg:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I maintain (or rather it is scientifically observable) that my prior comment is optimal.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 01:37 PM   #62
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,479
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I don't recall mentioning 'human synapses' running anywhere in ibm machine.
I never wrote that.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 01:44 PM   #63
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,934
How much would we have to pay Tragic Monkey to contribute to this thread? It has a real lack of whatever it is he brings to the table.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.