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 15th March 2017, 09:12 PM   #361
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 )

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 10:29 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 09:18 PM   #362
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th March 2017 at 09:24 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 15th March 2017, 09:21 PM   #363
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 09:27 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 09:27 PM   #364
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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 15th March 2017, 09:28 PM   #365
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th March 2017 at 09:32 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 15th March 2017, 09:30 PM   #366
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
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 View Post
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
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 15th March 2017, 09:32 PM   #367
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 09:35 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 09:34 PM   #368
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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?
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 15th March 2017, 09:36 PM   #369
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The simulation of synapses is literally a CIRCUITRY OF SYNAPSES, based loosely on the human brain.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 09:37 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 10:25 PM   #370
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 View Post
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"?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 10:42 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 10:28 PM   #371
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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 15th March 2017, 10:35 PM   #372
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 )
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 16th March 2017, 03:42 AM   #373
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,429
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
Porpoise of Life 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 16th March 2017, 04:16 AM   #374
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
The Don 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 16th March 2017, 05:56 AM   #375
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,179
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 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 16th March 2017, 04:24 PM   #376
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 04:47 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 05:01 PM   #377
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Exclamation The human brain computes on average at 10^17 synaptic operations per second

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 05:08 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 16th March 2017, 05:56 PM   #378
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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)

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.
(1)
At 10 impulses per second, and 10^15 synapses (based on older estimations, and some newer estimations for the child brain), we get 10^16 sops, so OP is okay, at 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.

Where did you get 10^17 from?



(2)
OP did not express 10^14 sops, but 10^14 of the above range in (1). I later mentioned many many times, that 10^14 synapses of the above range, rather than sops were used.



(3)
From (2), ibm contained 10^14 synapses, as mentioned extensively throughout this thread, and mentioned in prior responses to you.



(4)
I linked to IBM's website, with the relevant url.



(5)
How silly.

Why can't synapses (simulated or not), be compared to sops, when sops are reducible to synapses?

An above average toddler could make the above comparison. (although this is performable by established computational neuroscientists)




(6)
Challenge yourself, and ignore the trivial 2020 estimation (such is not this thread's core topic, as I revealed many times prior). Let us discuss manifolds/super-manifolds, as it relates to neural modeling.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 06:28 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 07:00 PM   #379
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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
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 16th March 2017, 07:01 PM   #380
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Exclamation Synaptic operations per second are not synapses

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(2)...
Apples are not oranges and synaptic operations per second are not synapses so the two quantities cannot be directly compared.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 07:22 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 16th March 2017, 07:07 PM   #381
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Exclamation I klnow that you linked to a IBM Research Report from 2012

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(3)...
Read my post - I know that:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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)
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 16th March 2017, 07:12 PM   #382
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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
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 16th March 2017, 07:21 PM   #383
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.
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 16th March 2017, 07:28 PM   #384
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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 16th March 2017, 07:30 PM   #385
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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 16th March 2017, 07:34 PM   #386
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

(A)
I had long mentioned, (and also such is the case whether or not I mention) that sops are reducible to synapses.

Your initial statement was that synapses couldn't be compared to any speed. (your quote).

That was shown to be a nonsensical statement, as sops may be reduced to synapses.




(B)
Your dimensionality reference is irrelevant.

I have not violated any laws in expressing that 10^15 synapses is rough for 10^16 sops. (These are within the same range, especially when I repeat many many many many times, that sops are reducible to synapses, and did calculations in the same forms)

For example, I didn't apply 10^x synapses for one side while 10^x sops for another side of moore's law equation, I applied synapse values, for both sides, as seen in early pages in this thread.





(C)
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan

Challenge yourself, and ignore the trivial 2020 estimation (such is not this thread's core topic, as I revealed many times prior). Let us discuss manifolds/super-manifolds, as it relates to neural modeling.
Otherwise you are merely "flogging a dead horse", as your prior statements have been shown to fail.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 07:45 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 07:47 PM   #387
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.
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 16th March 2017, 07:51 PM   #388
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 07:57 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 07:59 PM   #389
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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 !
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 16th March 2017, 08:05 PM   #390
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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 16th March 2017, 08:17 PM   #391
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 08:22 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 16th March 2017, 08:20 PM   #392
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2017 at 08:22 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 16th March 2017, 08:43 PM   #393
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,889
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The above is heavily garbage bound.

[...]
Did you forget to abuse the term 'betwixt' again?
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 16th March 2017, 09:18 PM   #394
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 09:26 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 09:22 PM   #395
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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 16th March 2017, 09:25 PM   #396
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 10:22 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 10:18 PM   #397
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 16th March 2017 at 11:01 PM.
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 16th March 2017, 11:37 PM   #398
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
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.
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 16th March 2017, 11:41 PM   #399
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
........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.
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 17th March 2017, 01:03 AM   #400
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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
The Don 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 11:15 PM.
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.