Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

 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.
 15th March 2017, 09:12 PM #361 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check The actual calculation shows that it is impossible to achieve your claim by 2020 of roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second. The OP links to a 2014 IBM SyNAPSE chip with "only" 256 million synapses. A claim of 10^14 synaptic operations a second gets to the lower limit of the range that you gave in a little over 8 years (doubling every 2 years), i.e. at least 2025. But your source for this is not an currently working chip - it is a simulation on a massively parallel supercomputer. The rest of the post may need a Duh! because it is just about inevitable that we will have "a brain in a box" sometime - maybe within the next few decades. (A) Don't be afraid of the word "simulation". Simulations may yield proper outcomes. For example, alpha go, the planet's prominent ai, and the planet's initial approximation of general artificial intelligence, used SIMULATIONS of scenarios to acquire its experience. The use of SIMULATIONS did not stop it from destroying Lee Sedol, the planet's human go champion (before alpha go that is) (B) IT IS NOT 10^14 SYNAPTIC OPERATIONS PER SECOND. People in this forum continue to repeat that error. It is 10^14 SYNAPSES. One is SYNAPTIC OPS PER SECOND, and the other is the SYNAPSES themselves. (C) This is why the original post began with 10^16 sops. I could have began with 10^15 synapses, instead of 10^16 sops. The 10^15 synapses is rough for some value x 10^15, or rough for 10^16 sops. People here even till now, still don't get that 10^15 SYNAPSES can be ROUGH for 10^16 SOPS. (They still ignore the units ) __________________ 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; 15th March 2017 at 10:29 PM.
 15th March 2017, 09:18 PM #362 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (A)... Do not be afraid of the word chip! Or working! You need to read your OP ! You wrote "(iv) ... 10^14" and link to a IBM chip with 250 million "synapses" so it is 10^14 computer operations per second. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 15th March 2017 at 09:24 PM.
 15th March 2017, 09:21 PM #363 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Do not be afraid of the word chip! Or working! You need to read your OP ! You wrote "(iv) ... 10^14" and link to an irrelevant IBM chip so it is 10^14 computer operations a second. Once more, the simulation entailed 10^14 synapses. So, the next iteration could entail 10^16 synapses, regardless of the substrate. The point is the calculation could take place on the cardinality of synapses simulated. So your initial point of 10^14 SYNAPTIC OPERATIONS per SECOND, did not exist in the document analysed. You can choose to ignore your error or not. __________________ 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; 15th March 2017 at 09:27 PM.
 15th March 2017, 09:27 PM #364 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Once more, the simulation .... Once again we are talking about working chips, not simulations. Moore's law applies to the number of transistors in chips that are built in factories. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 15th March 2017, 09:28 PM #365 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan You can choose to ignore your error or not. The error was in your OP as you know and as stated in my post: There is no 10^14 in that link in your OP I am the one who fixed your mangled quote about the irrelevant simulation: 10^14 synapses for current machine level wrong because no current machine has 10^14 synapses. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 15th March 2017 at 09:32 PM.
 15th March 2017, 09:30 PM #366 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 BTW, @RealityCheck, you may be the first being qualified to converse about the topic at hand. What do you make of the following? Note: you can answer if you have experience in regression work. (I know you mentioned you have experience on manifolds) Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Here is slightly better description, in loose machine learning terms: Points maintain homeomorphisms, such that for any point p under a transition T on some transformation/translation (pertinently continuous, inverse function) t, p0 (p before T) is a bijective inverse for p1 (p after T); on t. Following the above, topologies maintain homeomorphisms, for any collection of points W (eg a matrix of weights), under some transition T on some transformation/translation sequence (pertinently continuous, inverse functions) s, W0(W before T) is a bijective inverse for W1(W after T); on s, where for any representation of W, determinants are non-zero. Now, topological homeomorphisms maintain, until linear separation/de-tangling, if and only if neural network dimension is sufficient (3 hidden units at minimum, for 2 dimensional W) Otherwise, after maintaining homeomorphism at some point, while having insufficient dimension, or insufficient neuron firing per data unit, in non-ambient isotopic topologies that satisfy NOTE(ii) W shall eventually yield zero determinant, thus avoiding linear separation/de-tangling. At zero determinant, unique solutions for scalar multiplications dissolve, when the matrix becomes non-continuous, or non-invertible. NOTE(i): The state of being "ENTANGLED" is the point before which some de-tangleable classes are de-tangled/made linearly separable. NOTE(ii): Unique solutions in matrices are outcomes that resemble DATA SETS; for homeomorphisms (topologies: where zero-determinant continuous invertible transformations/translations engender OR ambient isotopies: where positive/nonsingular determinants, nueron permutations, and 1 hidden unit minimum occurs, i.e for 1-dimensional manifold, 4 dimensions are required in network) http://i.imgur.com/oIOuGxD.png __________________ 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
 15th March 2017, 09:32 PM #367 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check The error was in your OP as you know: No 10^14 in that link I am the one who fixed your mangled quote about the irrelevant simulation: 10^14 synapses for current machine level wrong because no current machine has 10^14 synapses. (A) I still observe that IBM simulated 10^14 synapses in 2012. Moore's law is not limited to non simulated units. (B) Anyway, your statement there is no machine with 10^14 synapses is invalid. Being simulated doesnt magically erase the 10^14 synapses. (C) Your "correction" merely enforced your ignorance. Simulations do not imply inexistence. __________________ 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; 15th March 2017 at 09:35 PM.
 15th March 2017, 09:34 PM #368 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Moore's law is not limited to non simulated units. Wrong: Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. You do know what an "integrated circuit " is? __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 15th March 2017, 09:36 PM #369 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Wrong: Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. You do know what an "integrated circuit " is? The simulation of synapses is literally a CIRCUITRY OF SYNAPSES, based loosely on the human brain. __________________ 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; 15th March 2017 at 09:37 PM.
 15th March 2017, 10:25 PM #370 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Random highlighting does not make a better description of anything. What might be a cut and paste from a textbook is a waste of space - link to the source. Not random. Also, cut/paste is appropriate; for I am the author, if you look a bit. Originally Posted by Reality Check ETA: looks more like a cut an paste from here which hints of out of context, mathematic word salad from an amateur. Nitpick: Why the redundancy? (as mentioned in the link you referenced/described, the description is amateur) If possible, could you provide us with the correct representation? Otherise, if you can't, how do you know it is "mathematic word salad"? __________________ 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; 15th March 2017 at 10:42 PM.
 15th March 2017, 10:28 PM #371 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check I added some text to the posts you replied to but I will emphasize this: 10^14 synapses for current machine level wrong because no current machine has 10^14 synapses. Even with this imaginary 10^14 synapse machine, you fail to get to 2020. 10^14 * 10 = 10^15 synaptic operations per second. Double this to get to 2019: 2 * 10^15 synaptic operations per second. Double this to get to 2021: 4 * 10^15 synaptic operations per second. That is less than half of the lower limit of your claim. So the claim is debunked even if we ignore the reasonable interpretation of "roughly" + a range as meaning "somewhere in that range" ! Even worse, the mostly likely value in a range of values in the middle of the range, thus: It is standard in science and common in real life that a calculation on a range of values does not use the extremes or values outside of that range FORMULAE : HBS = CMS * 2^n HBS=human_brain_speed (where size corresponds with speed, but I use the size) CMS=current_machine_speed (where size corresponds with speed, but I use the size) n = YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP/rate RATE = 2 So, HBS = 2*10^15 CMS = 6.4*10^14 So, (2*10^15) = (6.4*10^14) * 2^(YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP/2) (2*10^15)/(6.4*10^14) = ( (6.4*10^14) * 2^(YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP/2) )/(6.4*10^14) (2*10^15)/(6.4*10^14) = 2^(YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP/2) 3.125 = root (2^YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP) YEARS_TILL_BRAIN_CHIP = 3.28 So, we roughly have 3.28 + CURRENT_YEAR, which gives us roughly 2020. __________________ 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
 15th March 2017, 10:35 PM #372 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check It is standard in science and common in real life that a calculation on a range of values does not use the extremes or values outside of that range. The reasonable value to use is a value in the middle of the range. That is usually the average or median value. This is why the original post began with 10^16 sops. I could have began with 10^15 synapses, instead of 10^16 sops. The 10^15 synapses is rough for some value x 10^15, or rough for 10^16 sops. People here even till now, still don't get that 10^15 SYNAPSES can be ROUGH for 10^16 SOPS. (They still ignore the units ) __________________ 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
 16th March 2017, 03:42 AM #373 Porpoise of Life Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 2,665 Originally Posted by Reality Check Wrong: Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. You do know what an "integrated circuit " is? You're talking to the guy who calls himself a god because humans can make computer models of the Universe. I don't think he distinguishes between a simulation and the actual thing. Also, he still hasn't given a proper citation for his assumption of 10 SUPS in the human brain. Only a link to an article that admits it's a guess and obliquely references a 1985 book. I don't have that book, but I have found it on Google Books. The search function is very limited, unfortunately, And the only reference to synaptic speed I've been able to find there is a reference to motor neurons sending between 5 and 100 signals per second. This could very well be a failing on my part, but as long as OP has nothing more than a 1989 article by a computer scientist, I'm not going to take his word on matters of neurology.
 16th March 2017, 04:16 AM #374 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 21,380 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan People here even till now, still don't get that 10^15 SYNAPSES can be ROUGH for 10^16 SOPS. (They still ignore the units ) We've asked it time and again. Apart from a single reference in a 30 year old article (where it was a "guess"), where is your evidence that 1015 synapses are equivalent to 1016 synaptic operations per second ? Also: Why have you glossed over the fact that the IBM claim for 1014 synapses in a simulation which was running "only" 1542 times slower than realtime ? Rather than it being a factor of 3 that you're trying to make up, it's a factor in the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands that you'll need to make up.... .... and of course there's significant doubt that Moore's Law will still apply as physical limits are reached. Oh, and even if we somehow get to the "right" number of synaptic operations per second, it assumes that the "software" running is of comparable efficiency to the human brain.
 16th March 2017, 05:56 AM #375 Myriad HypertheticalModerator     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 12,815 What does 10^15 or 10^17 synapses get you? A lot of synapses. A novel has roughly 10^6 alphanumeric characters. But if you string together 10^6 alphanumeric characters, you don't necessarily have a novel. An Intel i7 processor has roughly 10^9 transistors. But if you connect together 10^9 transistors (say, three semi truckloads of 2N2907s), you don't necessarily have an i7 processor. An elephant has roughly 10^28 amino acid molecules. But if you pile up 10^28 amino acid molecules, you don't necessarily have an elephant. There's the part about connecting the things together in the right configurations to consider. I assume you wish for the ten-to-the-whatever synapses to produce the outward effects of human intelligence instead of, for instance, the outward effects of a human coma. How long does that part take? __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 16th March 2017, 04:24 PM #376 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Myriad What does 10^15 or 10^17 synapses get you? A lot of synapses. A novel has roughly 10^6 alphanumeric characters. But if you string together 10^6 alphanumeric characters, you don't necessarily have a novel. An Intel i7 processor has roughly 10^9 transistors. But if you connect together 10^9 transistors (say, three semi truckloads of 2N2907s), you don't necessarily have an i7 processor. An elephant has roughly 10^28 amino acid molecules. But if you pile up 10^28 amino acid molecules, you don't necessarily have an elephant. There's the part about connecting the things together in the right configurations to consider. I assume you wish for the ten-to-the-whatever synapses to produce the outward effects of human intelligence instead of, for instance, the outward effects of a human coma. How long does that part take? There is indication that current configurations are non-trivial, but mind you, as mentioned in the original post, merely human level brain power (i.e. the cardinality of cycles per moment) shall probably be roughly achieved (i.e. artificial human level intelligence in all degrees was not mentioned for 2020) It is observable, that today, that these cognitive models either match human performance in cognitive tasks, or exceed. (Eg alpha go, disease diagnosis neural nets, etc) It would also be silly to ignore that as time/parallelism enhances, these cognitive models do more and more cognitive tasks, well, and have already caused job displacement, and shall probably cause more. __________________ 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; 16th March 2017 at 04:47 PM.
 16th March 2017, 05:01 PM #377 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 The human brain computes on average at 10^17 synaptic operations per second Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan This is why the original post began with 10^16 sops. Yes - the OP has "(iii) The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second" - needs a Duh ! The rational value to use is something in the middle, e.g. 10^17 synaptic operations per second according to your numbers. Taking an OP as correct usually leads to a bit of a derail. In tis case case I took your "(iv) Mankind has already created brain based models that achieve 10^14 of the above total in (iii)." to mean that you had a reference to 10^14 synaptic operations per second as in (iii). Actually you did not. The OP has a wrong link to a 256 million synapse IBM chip. No 10^14 sop there. Later you correct the link to an IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) Quote: Since the final submission of our work on the Compass scalable simulator for the IBM True North Cognitive Computing architecture [1], we have simulated an unprecedented 2.084 billion neurosynaptic cores containing 53 x 1010 neurons, and 1.37 x 1014 synapses, running at only 1542x slower than real time. ...Shepherd [2] estimates the number of synapses in the human brain as 0.6 x 1014, and Koth [3] estimates the number of synapses in the human brain as 2.4 x 1014. That report is about a computer simulation containing 10^14 synapses. That is not 10^14 synaptic operations per second. There is no statement of any "operations per second" in that report. Therefore the simulation of 10^14 synapses cannot be compared to any speed of any computations. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 05:08 PM.
 16th March 2017, 07:00 PM #379 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (1)... An average of two values is the last value - the first value / 2 ! 10^18 - 10^16 / 2 = 4.95 x 10^17. That is roughly 10^17. The human brain computes on average at 4.95 x 10^17 synaptic operations per second __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 07:01 PM #380 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Synaptic operations per second are not synapses Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (2)... Apples are not oranges and synaptic operations per second are not synapses so the two quantities cannot be directly compared. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 07:22 PM.
 16th March 2017, 07:07 PM #381 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 I klnow that you linked to a IBM Research Report from 2012 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (3)... Read my post - I know that: Originally Posted by Reality Check The OP has a wrong link to a 256 million synapse IBM chip. No 10^14 sop there. Later you correct the link to an IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 07:12 PM #382 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (4) I linked to IBM's website, with the relevant url. Later you correct the link to an IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) That PDF is at Dharmendra S Modha's Brain-inspired Computing Blog who is an IBM researcher. His official site at IBM is Dharmendra S. Modha __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 07:21 PM #383 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (5) How silly. High school students learn about dimensional analysis which even works outside of science! Go to a hardware store and ask for 10 feet of pipe and get given 10 cm of pipe - would you pay the price of 10 feet of pipe? Get stopped for going 40 mph in a 30 mph - pointing out that your car is less than 30 miles long will not get you out of a ticket ! Synaptic operations per second are not synapses so the two quantities cannot be directly compared. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 07:28 PM #384 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check An average of two values is the last value - the first value / 2 ! 10^18 - 10^16 / 2 = 4.95 x 10^17. That is roughly 10^17. The human brain computes on average at 4.95 x 10^17 synaptic operations per second There are lower estimations, 10^14 to 10^15 synapses. __________________ 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
 16th March 2017, 07:30 PM #385 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Later you correct the link to an IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) That PDF is at Dharmendra S Modha's Brain-inspired Computing Blog who is an IBM researcher. His official site at IBM is Dharmendra S. Modha Irrelevant, I simply provided a direct link. The initial link still provides an overview while containing a link to that same direct link. __________________ 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
 16th March 2017, 07:47 PM #387 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (A) I had long mentioned, .... You mentioned this many times but it is not in the OP and I do not recall the post where you cite or calculate it. Please link to the post where you cite or calculate the synapses to synaptic operations per second conversion factor for the computer simulation in IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF). I do hope this is not the ignorant act taking the rate at which human synapses fire and multiplying applying this to a computer simulation. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 07:51 PM #388 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check You mentioned this many times but it is not in the OP and I do not recall the post where you cite or calculate it. Please link to the post where you cite or calculate the synapses to synaptic operations per second conversion factor for the computer simulation in IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF). I do hope this is not the ignorant act taking the rate at which human synapses fire and multiplying applying this to a computer simulation. (1) The synapse values (for 2020 calculation) were already given. If one looks for a few seconds, one would probably notice that 10^14 synapses for machine from IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF), and 10^15 synapses for human were but already available... I did not convert to synapses, as they were already provided. (2) The conversion made was from 10^15 synapses for human (already given) to 10^16... sops range mentioned in the original post. __________________ 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; 16th March 2017 at 07:57 PM.
 16th March 2017, 07:59 PM #389 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Your dimensionality reference is irrelevant. That is very wrong. It is not "dimensionality". It is dimensional analysis Quote: In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their fundamental dimensions (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. We are talking about the difference between one quantity and another quantity with different units. dimensional analysis instantly tells us that they cannot be compared unless we use a valid conversion factor ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 08:05 PM #390 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Irrelevant, ... Relevant to your ability to write factual statements The OP misleadingly linked to a "Brain Power" article. An factual statement would be "search this web page for 10^14". A complete, competent citation would be to the PDF and to that article. Stating that a persona blog is an IBM web site is at least ignorant about your source. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th March 2017, 08:17 PM #391 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (1).... Repeating the obvious yet again ! However if you took a few seconds to read your sources (or my posts) then you would know that IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) also quotes and cites human synapse counts (~10^14) ! You started with "The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second". To compare this with computers you need to convert 10^14 computer synapses using computer operations per second per computer synapse. We will then be able to compare computer sops to human sops. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 08:22 PM.
 16th March 2017, 08:20 PM #392 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,702 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (2).... Repeating the obvious yet again ! I have read the OP. I have read the posts in the thread. I know where you got the OP values from. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 08:22 PM.
 16th March 2017, 08:43 PM #393 John Jones Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 10,543 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan The above is heavily garbage bound. [...] Did you forget to abuse the term 'betwixt' again? __________________ Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
 16th March 2017, 09:18 PM #394 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check That is very wrong. It is not "dimensionality". It is dimensional analysis We are talking about the difference between one quantity and another quantity with different units. dimensional analysis instantly tells us that they cannot be compared unless we use a valid conversion factor ! You tend to express words that show shallow mindedness. (1) Dimensionality deals with units, as does dimension. (2) Once more, I had long mentioned that sops were reducible to synapses. Your initial comment was that sops/synapses couldn't be compared, which remains silly. __________________ 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; 16th March 2017 at 09:26 PM.
 16th March 2017, 09:22 PM #395 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Relevant to your ability to write factual statements The OP misleadingly linked to a "Brain Power" article. An factual statement would be "search this web page for 10^14". A complete, competent citation would be to the PDF and to that article. Stating that a persona blog is an IBM web site is at least ignorant about your source. It still remains that the source, was contained in the relevant url, blog or not. __________________ 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
 16th March 2017, 09:25 PM #396 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by Reality Check Repeating the obvious yet again ! However if you took a few seconds to read your sources (or my posts) then you would know that IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) also quotes and cites human synapse counts (~10^14) ! You started with "The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second". To compare this with computers you need to convert 10^14 computer synapses using computer operations per second per computer synapse. We will then be able to compare computer sops to human sops. (1) Once more, for the calculation of 2020 value, 10^14 synapses for machine (IBM), was used with 10^15 synapses for human (wiki, etc). All already existing, and not needing conversion. (2) No comparison needed to be made with 10^16 to 10^18 sops for humans directly, as the above 10^15 synapses for human value was ALREADY AVAILABLE. Footnote: You may have noticed the 2020 value. That value emerged from the roughly 10^15 synapses for humans, and roughly 10^14 synapses for machines. So, I started with 10^15 synapses, as indicated by 2020 calculation and sources. __________________ 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; 16th March 2017 at 10:22 PM.
 16th March 2017, 10:18 PM #397 ProgrammingGodJordan Muse     Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 704 Originally Posted by MikeG Do you work for IBM, PGJ? Why are you so interested in their stuff, yet, for instance, ignored the stuff about the more advanced Chinese computers a few pages back? Merely an example. There are other neuromorphic chips. The tianhe-3 may not be as efficient as these small/low in power consumption as these neuromorphic chips. For example, if I recall correctly, simulating 240 trillion synapses, ibm synapse chip consumes merely 82.19 kW, (compared to human consumption (~20 W), but still x1542 slower than human brain), while supercomputers like k computer, in a similar year range, simulated a small 10 trillion synapses, at 9.9 MW. Like k-computer, tiahne-2 ran in the mega watt range, 17.6 megawatts, although at the quadrillion range, above the trillion range of ibm. This means that architectures like ibm are more efficient, especially the later versions at 70 milliwatts, capable of 46 billion synaptic operations per second. __________________ 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; 16th March 2017 at 11:01 PM.
 16th March 2017, 11:37 PM #398 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 18,511 Yeahbbut...........do you work for IBM? __________________ The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
 16th March 2017, 11:41 PM #399 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 18,511 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan ........At 10 impulses per second.......... So many words. So much tripe, because it is all based on this unsubstantiated guess. Until you can justify this figure (here's a tip: you can't), you make yourself look foolish every time you repeat it. __________________ The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
 17th March 2017, 01:03 AM #400 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 21,380 Originally Posted by Reality Check Repeating the obvious yet again ! However if you took a few seconds to read your sources (or my posts) then you would know that IBM Research Report from 2012 (PDF) also quotes and cites human synapse counts (~10^14) ! You started with "The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second". To compare this with computers you need to convert 10^14 computer synapses using computer operations per second per computer synapse. We will then be able to compare computer sops to human sops. ....yes, not least because the simulation was "only" running at 1542 times slower than realtime

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit