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 14th March 2017, 06:25 AM   #201
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:31 AM   #202
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
.........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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:33 AM   #203
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:35 AM   #204
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:38 AM   #205
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 14th March 2017, 06:43 AM   #206
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:47 AM   #207
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:49 AM   #208
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:54 AM   #209
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 06:58 AM   #210
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 07:02 AM   #211
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 07:11 AM   #212
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 07:18 AM   #213
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,990
So, where did you get 10 impulses per second from? I can't find it in any of your sources.
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 14th March 2017, 07:21 AM   #214
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

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.
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 14th March 2017, 07:24 AM   #215
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 07:37 AM   #216
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 08:03 AM   #217
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,344
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 08:13 AM   #218
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,661
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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
Wudang 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 14th March 2017, 08:31 AM   #219
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 14th March 2017, 08:33 AM   #220
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 14th March 2017, 08:34 AM   #221
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
(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.
Aridas 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 14th March 2017, 08:59 AM   #222
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 09:03 AM   #223
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 09:52 AM   #224
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
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 View Post
(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 View Post
(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 View Post
(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 View Post
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 View Post
(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 View Post
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 View Post
(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 View Post
(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.
Aridas 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 14th March 2017, 01:48 PM   #225
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 02:03 PM   #226
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 02:31 PM   #227
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 02:48 PM   #228
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
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.
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 14th March 2017, 03:27 PM   #229
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,329
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.
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 14th March 2017, 03:33 PM   #230
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,366
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

I am curious.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061834/
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 10:19 PM   #231
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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 View Post
(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 View Post
(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 View Post
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.
Aridas 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 14th March 2017, 11:08 PM   #232
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,962
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:49 PM   #233
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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
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, 12:14 AM   #234
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
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, 12:17 AM   #235
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,344
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 12:20 AM   #236
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,344
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
http://i.imgur.com/SXRniwT.jpg

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 concuded that 10^15 was invalid on the wikipedia's orders of magnitude link.

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 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.

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.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 12:32 AM   #237
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
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, 12:38 AM   #238
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,344
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 12:40 AM   #239
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,344
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(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
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 12:41 AM   #240
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
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
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 06:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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