Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

 Notices Sadly I have to announce that Locknar is leaving the moderating team. He's contributed massively to keeping this place going over the years. Thanks for all your hard work especially dealing with the new registrations (yeah really thanks for leaving me with that!)

 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.
 14th March 2017, 06:25 AM #201 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by MikeG Maybe you could get your 3 year old nephew to carefully explain to you that if this is the figure for the lower bound of the human brain, then you shouldn't have used "10^16 to 10^18" in all your claims prior to this thread. Maybe your three year old nephew could also explain to you that 10^18 is a thousand times higher a number than 10^15, and that therefore it is inconceivable that human brains vary between your upper and lower bounds. One or more of these figures is made up. Your 3 year old relative might also help you understand that 10^15 is not "roughly" 10^16 as you claimed. The former is only 10% of the latter. (A) WHY DID I WRITE 10^16 SOPS? At 10 impulses per second, and at a guess of 10^15 synapses, we have a total of 10^16 synaptic operations per second. So, 10^15 synapses corresponds to the source in original post, which yields 10^16 sops. (B) The lower bound 10^16 sops =10^15 synapses. And so 2020 was computed using 10^15 synapses (aka 10^16 sops) PS: 10^15 synapses was rough value. The actual figure was some small value x 10^15. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:07 AM.
 14th March 2017, 06:31 AM #202 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan .........At 10 impulses per second, and at a guess of 10^15 synapses, we have a total of 10^16 synaptic operations per second........ Obviously 10 times 10^15 = 10^16. Now, justify both figures. Where does that 10 SOPS figure come from? Where does 10^15 come from, and why were you using a different figure (10^16 to 10^18) previously? __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 06:33 AM #203 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Originally Posted by Aridas More specifically, the 10^16 to 10^18 refers to something completely different than the 10^15. Saying that the 10^15 is roughly the 10^16 is utterly fallacious from the get go because they're entirely different things, before the orders of magnitude issue can even come into play. Yeah, I've asked about the units once or twice. They're still not clearly laid out anywhere. __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 06:35 AM #204 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by MikeG Obviously 10 times 10^15 = 10^16. Now, justify both figures. Where does that 10 SOPS figure come from? Where does 10^15 come from, and why were you using a different figure (10^16 to 10^18) previously? 10^15 synapses is given in the original source. (Koch Christof, biophysics of computation 2004) The 10^15 corresponds to the 2020 year computation, and it also corresponds with 10^16 sops. So, 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, all in the original post. In other words, I am not using "different figures". Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:03 AM.
 14th March 2017, 06:38 AM #205 Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 19,877 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan They had already achieved 10^14... Not only does that appear not to be true, but it also has nothing to do with the post you quoted. __________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
 14th March 2017, 06:43 AM #206 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan 10^15 synapses is given in the original source. (Koch Christof, biophysics of computation 2004) The 10^15 corresponds to the 2020 year computation, and it also corresponds with 10^16 sops. So, 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, all in the original post. In other words, I am not using "different fugues". Where does the 10 SOPS/ second figure come from? __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 06:47 AM #207 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by MikeG Where does the 10 SOPS/ second figure come from? 10^16 sops. There is a way of getting from synapses to sops. This is why I get from 10^15 synapses to 10^16 sops. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:05 AM.
 14th March 2017, 06:49 AM #208 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Where does the figure 10 come from? Have you just made it up? How do you know there are 10, rather than 8.8 or 127 or whatever? Is it even a valid way of measuring brain activity? __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 06:54 AM #209 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by abaddon The quote in context So first, this occurs at 19:38 in the video, but PGJ wont tell you that. Second, it is an aspiration and nothing more. Third, the number he aspires to is 1010. Wrong. 10^10 neurons, not 10^10 synapses. The 10^10 is closer to number of neurons in human brain. (See the same source provided in original post) Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 06:59 AM.
 14th March 2017, 06:58 AM #210 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by MikeG Where does the figure 10 come from? Have you just made it up? How do you know there are 10, rather than 8.8 or 127 or whatever? Is it even a valid way of measuring brain activity? See the sources provided.
 14th March 2017, 07:02 AM #211 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Not only does that appear not to be true, but it also has nothing to do with the post you quoted. See the original post source for 10^14. They did achieve 10^14 synapses. (As mentioned in original post) http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ105...000=1489498856 Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:05 AM.
 14th March 2017, 07:11 AM #212 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Aridas You still have yet to give any reason to accept that 10^15 or 10^16 were valid to use in the first place, given that your 10^15 referred to something notably different than what you claimed and your 10^16 still appears to be pulled out of thin air, given that nothing in either of those links supports it at all. Again, what is your lower bound actually based on at this point, if not you trying to cover up your mistakes? You've utterly failed to support it meaningfully. Ironically, 10^15 was not "notably different" than 10^16 synaptic ops per sec. At 10 impulses per second, 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic ops per sec. (Which was long mentioned in original post) Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:22 AM.
 14th March 2017, 07:18 AM #213 Porpoise of Life Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 4,181 So, where did you get 10 impulses per second from? I can't find it in any of your sources.
 14th March 2017, 07:21 AM #214 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Aridas ETA on this part: Incidentally, lying about how you actually said that in the original post rather than talking about it being at least 10^15 in computational size isn't a point in your favor. . You'd have much less of a hard time if you just admitted your error and the conversation just moved on from there. Even if your conclusion is correct for other reasons, when one invokes bad logic, one should be prepared to be called out on their bad logic. Simply running away in the face of being completely unable to defend your claim isn't really a good thing, regardless. The following response applies: Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Ironically, 10^15 was not "notably different" than 10^16 synaptic ops per sec. At 10 impulses per second, 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic ops per sec.
 14th March 2017, 07:24 AM #215 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life So, where did you get 10 impulses per second from? I can't find it in any of your sources. I had 10^16 sops in original post, and used 10^15 synapses (which corresponds to 10^16 sops) to get year 2020, as minimum year for which 10^16 artificial sops (or 10^15 artificial synapses) shall probably be achieved. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 07:30 AM.
 14th March 2017, 07:37 AM #216 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by abaddon Nope. 1015 is well outside your claimed range of 1016 to 1018. Furthermore, since you are suggesting an AI at least equal to human level, we must perforce use the maximum figure. Otherwise, your suggested 1015 figure is one thousandth what humans are capable of. I intentionally quoted your numbers from the OP so that you could not dodge. The following better disregards your "10^15 is well outside of your claimed range of 10^16 etc" accusation: Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Ironically, 10^15 was not "notably different" than 10^16 synaptic ops per sec. At 10 impulses per second, 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic ops per sec.
 14th March 2017, 08:03 AM #217 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 24,642 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Ironically, 10^15 was not "notably different" than 10^16 synaptic ops per sec. Please don't consider a career in any profession where missing by a factor of 10 is considered important. Heck, I'm scratching my head trying to think of any career in which 1 of something isn't "notably different" to 10 of something. I think even suggesting this is an indication that what you're doing isn't working.
 14th March 2017, 08:13 AM #218 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,054 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Small correction: Unity 3D was used in item iii. For typical neural network code, see some other items, like items ii, iv or v: I had a look but they 404. The other repositories I looked at are equally trivial apart from a potentially interesting javascript learning library you forked from elsewhere. Yeah, some of us know git, java, etc. Nothing to see here folks, move along. __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 14th March 2017, 08:31 AM #219 Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 19,877 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan See the original post source for 10^14. They did achieve 10^14 synapses. (As mentioned in original post) http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ105...000=1489498856 That paper also says that human brains have 1014 synapses. Any particular reason you're ignoring that part of it? __________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
 14th March 2017, 08:33 AM #220 Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 19,877 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan I had 10^16 sops in original post, and used 10^15 synapses (which corresponds to 10^16 sops) to get year 2020, as minimum year for which 10^16 artificial sops (or 10^15 artificial synapses) shall probably be achieved. So you derived 1016 by starting from 1015 and multiplying by 10 operations per second, and you got 10 operations per second because you started with 1016 and needed to derive 1015? This doesn't strike you as at all circular? __________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
 14th March 2017, 08:34 AM #221 Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,041 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan They had already achieved 10^14... Of something else. You're trying to say that an order of magnitude between notably different things should be treated as if it's just an order of magnitude, by that logic. By that kind of logic, 20000 ameobas can be treated as if they weigh more than 2 elephants. There's a 10^4 difference in number, after all! Nevermind anything else that might be of relevance to the calculations. That's not to say that number is everything, again, though. How something is used tends to be much more important, and it's distinctly possible that even 10^14 could potentially outdo the 10^17 which would be just as much in the range of your assumptions. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan My 3 year old nephew understands that the range was (1) not my conjuring. You've yet to show it. That your nephew understands it doesn't mean that it's actually true or that others should just accept it blindly. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (2) the precise range is pointed out in sources linked. Where? So far, you've substantiated the 10^15 number that you popped out later with something quite irrelevant to the point you were trying to make and have repeatedly tried to misuse it. You've given no indication where you got the 10^16 number at all. The 10^18 number is the only one that you've backed up at all. So no, your statement here is entirely unacceptable. __________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 14th March 2017 at 08:45 AM.
 14th March 2017, 08:59 AM #222 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan See the sources provided. I have done. There is no mention of this figure as far as I can see. Could you explicitly quote chapter and verse, with a link, so that we can verify this number. __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 09:03 AM #223 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Originally Posted by The Don Please don't consider a career in any profession where missing by a factor of 10 is considered important. Heck, I'm scratching my head trying to think of any career in which 1 of something isn't "notably different" to 10 of something. I think even suggesting this is an indication that what you're doing isn't working. I'm thinking seismologist. The Richter scale is logarithmic, with a force 6 earthquake being one tenth as powerful as a force 7. Our buddy could announce to the world that the quake which just flattened, say, San Francisco, was "roughly 7 or 8" on the Richter scale. No-one would notice........ __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 09:52 AM #224 Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,041 Alright, though. I'll accept that you're intent on staying your course of failing to back up your points. With that said, then... I'll actually respond to your OP. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (i) Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization: (source: mit physicist, Jeremy England proposes new meaning of life) Looking at the link, it doesn't support the claim that you look like you're making here. The link just addresses a proposal to redefine life, yet again, by the look of it. There's already a bunch of definitions for life floating around, though, and being used for various purposes in science and otherwise. There's not much to say of note here, then, beyond that "Life's meaning" is pretty much exclusively used in a completely different way. Namely, one directly in line with the age old question of "What is the meaning/purpose of life?" Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (ii) Today, artificial intelligence exceeds mankind in many human, cognitive tasks: (source: can we build ai without losing control over it?) Yup. The moment that self-optimizing and learning functions were figured out, it was pretty much only a matter of time and resources before such became possible. This is hardly new news, though. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (iii) The creation of general artificial intelligence is so far, mankind's largely pertinent task, and this involves (i), i.e. optimization. This is an empty assertion based solely on opinion and little more. As I'm sure other posters noted, though, pertinent is being misused here. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second. Links are fixed in this version, by the way. Still, this is pretty much a "So what?" bit of information. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (iv) Mankind has already created brain based models that achieve 10^14 of the above total in (iii). And? Raw numbers, even if impressive, don't answer the more important questions about the ability of an AI. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan If mankind isn't erased (via some catastrophe), on the horizon of Moore's Law, mankind will probably create machines, with human-level brain power (and relevantly, human-like efficiency), by at least 2020. Economic forces have been projected to interfere with Moore's Law, regardless. When it comes to human level brain power, though, there's still the very real question of what that actually means. By at least a few measures, computers overtook that long ago, for that matter, on a quick look. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (v) Using clues from from quantum mechanics, and modern machine learning, I have composed (am composing) a naive fabric in aims of absorbing some non-trivial intelligence's basis. This does not lend itself to meaning something in English. The words, individually, do have meanings, but combined, it does not lead to any meaningful interpretation. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (vi) Criticism is welcome/needed. My first direct question, then, is "What is the point of this thread?" It is not obvious at all. Going from the very general gist of (v), was this just an unnecessarily complicated attempt to show off a bit of the work that you're proud of and hopefully get some helpful pointers for how you could improve it? If so, you communicated such extremely poorly and threw in lots of distractions, and have compounded on your errors since then, by the look of it. __________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
 14th March 2017, 01:48 PM #225 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Aridas Of something else. You're trying to say that an order of magnitude between notably different things should be treated as if it's just an order of magnitude, by that logic. By that kind of logic, 20000 ameobas can be treated as if they weigh more than 2 elephants. There's a 10^4 difference in number, after all! Nevermind anything else that might be of relevance to the calculations. That's not to say that number is everything, again, though. How something is used tends to be much more important, and it's distinctly possible that even 10^14 could potentially outdo the 10^17 which would be just as much in the range of your assumptions. You've yet to show it. That your nephew understands it doesn't mean that it's actually true or that others should just accept it blindly. Where? So far, you've substantiated the 10^15 number that you popped out later with something quite irrelevant to the point you were trying to make and have repeatedly tried to misuse it. You've given no indication where you got the 10^16 number at all. The 10^18 number is the only one that you've backed up at all. So no, your statement here is entirely unacceptable. No. (A) Roughly 10^15 synapses is given in the original source. (WikiPedia link 1, Koch Christof, biophysics of computation 2004) The 10^15 corresponds to the 2020 year computation, and it also corresponds with 10^16 sops. So, roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, all in the original post. (B) If you look back from the original post to now, my expressions have aligned with the above. I was repeating that it (10^15) was included in source, and beings (including yourself) did not want to accept that roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic operations per second. (C) So, you guys did not want to accept that roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, (in original post), regardless of the instance that I had indicated this in reply #115: Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (A) The artificial synapses correspond with the speed. (D) As for your response in reply #224 above, the criticism is redundant and or garbage. Read the material carefully, please. FOOTNOTE: Try to not refer to other posters' opinions to justify your responses. As is observed, the other posters were wrong. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 02:17 PM.
 14th March 2017, 02:03 PM #226 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim So you derived 1016 by starting from 1015 and multiplying by 10 operations per second, and you got 10 operations per second because you started with 1016 and needed to derive 1015? This doesn't strike you as at all circular? No. Please read carefully. The expressions differ, in terms of rate/size Thus, roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic operations per second. ....where the LHS is the size, while the RHS represents the number of operations the LHS size can perform. (So, lhs corresponds with rhs, i.e. speed) Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 02:41 PM.
 14th March 2017, 02:31 PM #227 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by The Don Please don't consider a career in any profession where missing by a factor of 10 is considered important. Heck, I'm scratching my head trying to think of any career in which 1 of something isn't "notably different" to 10 of something. I think even suggesting this is an indication that what you're doing isn't working. This comment of mine applies: Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan No. Please read carefully. The expressions differ, in terms of rate/size Thus, roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic operations per second. ....where the LHS is the size, while the RHS represents the number of operations the LHS size can perform. (So, lhs corresponds with rhs, i.e. speed) Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 02:41 PM.
 14th March 2017, 02:48 PM #228 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Wudang I had a look but they 404. The other repositories I looked at are equally trivial apart from a potentially interesting javascript learning library you forked from elsewhere. Yeah, some of us know git, java, etc. Nothing to see here folks, move along. The coding of neural nets and new programming language(s) (like the language and neural nets I programmed, from reply 189) may be hard to some. I observe where highly intellectual beings tended to be intrigued by neural nets, from basic ones such as (item iv from reply 189) to slightly more complicated ones, such as (item ii from reply 189) I am curious. One of my repositories (the one from the original post) naively compounded supermanifolds & reinforcement learning, using clues from quantum computing basis. Since you find manifolds and deep learning 'trivial', where manifolds are observed to be potential ways to solve SEVERE ISSUES within deep learning, do you have any tips for me? Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th March 2017 at 03:19 PM.
 14th March 2017, 03:27 PM #229 MikeG Now. Do it now.     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 23,316 Constantly restating that you multiplied one figure by ten to get to another figure doesn't even begin to explain why you used the figure 10. Unless you address this, the entire thread will grind to a halt, as no-one is going to let you get away with plucking an oh-so-convenient figure like this right out of thin air. Where does your figure of 10 "synaptic operations per second" come from? No-one will take your word for it, so please support anything you say with evidence, including direct quotes and links. Your sloppy thinking is bogging this thread down in the mire. __________________ "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.
 14th March 2017, 03:33 PM #230 fagin Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 5,818 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan I am curious. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061834/ __________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
 14th March 2017, 10:19 PM #231 Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,041 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan No. (A) Roughly 10^15 synapses is given in the original source. (WikiPedia link 1, Koch Christof, biophysics of computation 2004) The 10^15 corresponds to the 2020 year computation, and it also corresponds with 10^16 sops. So, roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, all in the original post. (B) If you look back from the original post to now, my expressions have aligned with the above. I was repeating that it (10^15) was included in source, and beings (including yourself) did not want to accept that roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic operations per second. Yet, there's no reason to accept the conversion when the only thing that you've presented to back it up is, so far, empty assertion. Assertion that would seem to be very much in doubt given that the 10^18 number is the only one that you gave any evidence for in the first place, which points to a conversion rate more like 1000x rather than 10x. More like 10000x, if we're going by the numbers in the one Modha paper, for that matter. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (C) So, you guys did not want to accept that roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops, (in original post), regardless of the instance that I had indicated this in reply #115: Which you've based on what? Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (D) As for your response in reply #224 above, the criticism is redundant and or garbage. Read the material carefully, please. So, no answer for the only truly important question there? Again, what was the intended purpose of this thread? There wasn't any clear purpose in the first place, which has made it fairly inevitable that it get bogged down on the distractions you provided. Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan FOOTNOTE: Try to not refer to other posters' opinions to justify your responses. As is observed, the other posters were wrong. You simply asserting that someone is wrong isn't especially convincing, quite frankly. __________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 14th March 2017 at 10:34 PM.
 14th March 2017, 11:08 PM #232 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 17,664 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Originally Posted by The Don Please don't consider a career in any profession where missing by a factor of 10 is considered important. Heck, I'm scratching my head trying to think of any career in which 1 of something isn't "notably different" to 10 of something. I think even suggesting this is an indication that what you're doing isn't working. This comment of mine applies: Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan No. Please read carefully. The expressions differ, in terms of rate/size Thus, roughly 10^15 synapses = 10^16 synaptic operations per second. ....where the LHS is the size, while the RHS represents the number of operations the LHS size can perform. (So, lhs corresponds with rhs, i.e. speed) Nope. All that tells us is that you trod in a basic math error and tried to insert random numbers just to escape from that error. It isn't working. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...
 14th March 2017, 11:49 PM #233 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by abaddon Nope. All that tells us is that you trod in a basic math error and tried to insert random numbers just to escape from that error. It isn't working. Here is a publicly available data, showing 10 impulses per second: http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html
 15th March 2017, 12:14 AM #234 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim That paper also says that human brains have 1014 synapses. Any particular reason you're ignoring that part of it? Your comment revealed AN ERROR OF MINE. This event has lead to the correction of a figure on wikipedia, by myself (where this would be my first wikipedia public data edit).. ///////(A) MY ERROR (1) I had initially encountered this source, where I observed the 10^15 estimation synapses value for human brain. (2) Source is (1) seemed potentially outdated, so I did brief WikiPedia, where I found orders of magnitude link, that contained 10^15 synapses. (which I took to be probably updated) (3) I briefly read IBM source, and did not detect that koch source was referenced as 10^14. In my quick reading, I related the 10^14 to ibm's chip. ///////(B) SMALL WIKIPEDIA UPDATE BY ME (1) Based on (A), I had recently came to recognize that 10^15 was potentially a bad listing on wikipedia's orders of magnitude link. (the link from original post) (2) This particular WikiPedia link presents HEADINGS in short/long scale. This essentially means that after HEADING 1012, for example, we won't see 1013 as a HEADING, but we may see 1013 under the heading 1012. (3) From (3), I concluded that 10^15 was invalid on the wikipedia's orders of magnitude link, both by approximation, and naturally, by position on page. So, now, on wikipedia before and after my edit looks like: You can view the edit history of the orders of magnitude edit HERE, or go to orders of magnitude link, and click view history, to see my edit record. ///////(C) IMPLICATIONS Essentially, I had done my computations based on this source, but now I see that it is outdated, based on the above. This means that IBM has already achieved roughly similar number of artificial human level synapse, but those artificial synapses are still rough, although they are of unprecedented efficiency. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:17 AM.
 15th March 2017, 12:17 AM #235 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 24,642 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan Here is a publicly available data, showing 10 impulses per second: http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html From your link: Quote: We might count the number of synapses, guess their speed of operation, and determine synapse operations per second The 10 operations per second was just a guess for illustrative purposes to demonstrate how the calculation could be made not an accurate measure based on any kind of research
 15th March 2017, 12:32 AM #237 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by The Don A lot of your recent links come back to Ralph C Merkle's site. I don't know about his background or his qualifications but I would note that he is very keen on the singularity and may not be the most impartial source of information. (a) Read carefully. 10 impulses per second comes from: Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985. (b) Please edit out or update my prior quote, because: (1) It lengthens the post more than it needs to. (merely 2 of 7 links relates to Ralph C Merkle's site, and those two links are the same link.) (2) I removed the red headings. (3) You were invalid to say that relied on the site only, as seen in (a). Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 12:38 AM.
 15th March 2017, 12:38 AM #238 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 24,642 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (a) Read carefully. 10 impulses per second comes from: Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985. Don't have access to that text but the use of the words "guess" and "roughly" seem to indicate that it is neither a precise nor accurate figure.
 15th March 2017, 12:40 AM #239 The Don Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 24,642 Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan (b) Please edit out or update my prior quote, because: (1) It lengthens the post more than it needs to. (merely 2 of 7 links relates to Ralph C Merkle's site, and those two links are the same link.) (2) I removed the red headings. (3) You were invalid to say that relied on the site only, as seen in (a). I never said the highlighted - stop creating strawmen
 15th March 2017, 12:41 AM #240 ProgrammingGodJordan Banned   Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Jamaica Posts: 1,718 Originally Posted by The Don Don't have access to that text but the use of the words "guess" and "roughly" seem to indicate that it is neither a precise nor accurate figure. Originally Posted by TheDon I never said the highlighted - stop creating strawmen You based your reference merely on the instance that I took from Ralph, which was invalid (reply 236). You didn't mention the source that Ralph actually referred to, so you only mentioned that I used ralph. No 'strawman' neccessary. Anyway, you don't need to quote the entire sequence, as (merely 2 of 7 links relates to Ralph C Merkle's site, and those two links are the same link.) So please edit your previous post, by removing my long quote, and keeping the link (although your criticism was invalid), as you were wrong based on your initial expression; both about supposedly "most of the links" reaching back to the Ralph link, and the instance explained atop this response. FOOTNOTE(1): I edited the last link in the quote you quoted (in 236), to fix such a link. FOOTNOTE(2): BOTH the authors (Eric R. Kandel and the late James H. Schwart) from Ralph's website reference in question are NEUROSCIENTISTS, so unlike Ralph, now you know the background of the 10 impulses per second reference. FOOTNOTE(3): Observing footnote (2), you may probably see why your quote is invalid: Originally Posted by TheDon The 10 operations per second was just a guess for illustrative purposes to demonstrate how the calculation could be made not an accurate measure based on any kind of research. Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:15 AM.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit