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, 12:42 AM   #241
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,061
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(3)
From (3), I concuded that 10^15 was invalid on the wikipedia's orders of magnitude link.
I'm sorry, it's comparatively early here and so I haven't had enough coffee. Have you just edited the Wikipedia article so that it agrees with your figures (and then intend to use the Wikipedia article to support your argument) ?
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 15th March 2017, 01:05 AM   #242
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,810
So, you've got a computer geek's 1989 paper as your prime source, and then Wiki entries, not directly on the subject. Your original source is where you picked up your awful "roughly" habit of guessing withing a range of 2 orders of magnitude:

Quote:
so the brain is roughly 100 to 10,000 times larger than the retina
You should also have noted that your original source gave two very different figures for the size of the brain. This alone should have stopped you stating brain size here unequivocally.

At least you have acknowledged your cock up. That's a step forward. It may encourage you to be more careful with your claims in future. What it hasn't done, though, is get you to use Wiki properly. Go to the noted source for the figure, in this case:

Quote:
18 Koch, Christof. Biophysics of computation: information processing in single neurons. Oxford university press, 2004.
You'll find that here.

Read it, to find out if it says what Wiki claims it says. You see, with people like you editing Wiki, there can easily be inaccuracies.

Finally, just put "number of synapses in human brain" into your favourite search engine, and you might come up with some interesting stuff. For instance, did you know that males have a much larger number of synapses than females? And that the number of synapses declines with age? Here. Thus any one single figure for the number of synapses in a brain is inevitably wrong for most cases. That undergraduate paper, by the way, gives the total number of synapses in the neo-cortex alone (ie only about 75% of the brain) as between 0.85 x 10^14 and 1.7 x 10^14, with the first figure being of young males, and the latter figure being for 90 year old females.

It also seems that you build and lose synapses all the time, and by that I mean on a daily basis. There are, it seems, variations of between 35 and 50% in the number of synapses in the brain when you are asleep compared with when you are awake. Here is a paper on that subject, but not the source of the above figure.

I don't have the time to do this more thoroughly now, but what this shows is that any simplistic figure for brain size (in synapse terms) is wrong. It is much more accurate to describe the total number of neurons in the brain, rather than the temporary and transient synapses, which are constantly making and remaking themselves (you've hear of "brain plasticity" no doubt).
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile

Last edited by MikeG; 15th March 2017 at 01:07 AM.
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 15th March 2017, 01:11 AM   #243
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,810
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
.......
10 impulses per second comes from:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985...........
A 32 year old paper on the brain? Really!?! You'd give that credence? They hadn't even started MRI scanning the brain in 1985. (Which, by the way, is how they quickly disposed of the left brain/ right brain theory). It wouldn't take you long to find later papers on the subject.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 01:20 AM   #244
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
So, you've got a computer geek's 1989 paper as your prime source, and then Wiki entries, not directly on the subject. Your original source is where you picked up your awful "roughly" habit of guessing withing a range of 2 orders of magnitude:



You should also have noted that your original source gave two very different figures for the size of the brain. This alone should have stopped you stating brain size here unequivocally.

At least you have acknowledged your cock up. That's a step forward. It may encourage you to be more careful with your claims in future. What it hasn't done, though, is get you to use Wiki properly. Go to the noted source for the figure, in this case:



You'll find that here.

Read it, to find out if it says what Wiki claims it says. You see, with people like you editing Wiki, there can easily be inaccuracies.

Finally, just put "number of synapses in human brain" into your favourite search engine, and you might come up with some interesting stuff. For instance, did you know that males have a much larger number of synapses than females? And that the number of synapses declines with age? Here. Thus any one single figure for the number of synapses in a brain is inevitably wrong for most cases. That undergraduate paper, by the way, gives the total number of synapses in the neo-cortex alone (ie only about 75% of the brain) as between 0.85 x 10^14 and 1.7 x 10^14, with the first figure being of young males, and the latter figure being for 90 year old females.

It also seems that you build and lose synapses all the time, and by that I mean on a daily basis. There are, it seems, variations of between 35 and 50% in the number of synapses in the brain when you are asleep compared with when you are awake. Here is a paper on that subject, but not the source of the above figure.

I don't have the time to do this more thoroughly now, but what this shows is that any simplistic figure for brain size (in synapse terms) is wrong. It is much more accurate to describe the total number of neurons in the brain, rather than the temporary and transient synapses, which are constantly making and remaking themselves (you've hear of "brain plasticity" no doubt).

(1)
I had already mentioned that I briefly read the first source, and related all instances of 10^14 to ibm's chip.
Even now, you may still find sources that report 10^15 overall.
But I use wikipedia's neuron url as final reference.


(2)
A more general approximation is roughly 10^15 for children, and roughly 10^14 for adults...



(3)
I had already encountered the koch link https://christofkoch.com/biophysics-book/ and also the same book via google books, long before you had posted them.
I could not find any pertinent data.



(4)
The wikpedia correction was made by me, but the previous value was not written by me.
This is clearly seen in edit history, as I mentioned in post #234.



(5)
I created the wikipedia account today, to make the correction.
It appears people like you had not noticed the error, and so it would have gone unchecked, if not for beings like me.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:30 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 15th March 2017, 01:26 AM   #245
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,495
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1)
I had already mentioned that I briefly read the first source, and related all instances of 10^14 to ibm's chip.
Even now, you may still find sources that report 10^15 overall.
But I use wikipedia's neuron url as final reference.
You just edited that article to fit your beliefs! You don't get to edit an article to agree with you and then claim it as a source for claims you made before the edit.
You're being very dishonest.
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 15th March 2017, 01:31 AM   #246
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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)
Yes. Can you please explain exactly what sources you used for the figures of 1015, 1016 and 10, please? A source for all three, please.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 01:32 AM   #247
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,061
Just to summarise the position......

ProgrammingGodJordan is suggesting that we're less than three years away from having human-comparable A.I.. The basis for this is a measure of the processing capacity of the human brain, the processing capacity of current A.I. systems and an application of Moore's Law to get from the latter to the former.

As I see it, the major problems ProgrammingGodJordan's assertion has are as follows:
  • Attempts to quantify the processing capacity of the human brain are speculative at best.
  • The processing capacity of current A.I. quoted was vastly overstated (by several orders of magnitude)
  • Even by his own, flawed, methods of calculation and dodgy sources, the human brain is between 100 and 10000 times more powerful than the current A.I., instead ProgrammingGodJordan has used a factor of 3
  • As the physical limits of chips are being approached, it's very likely that Moore's Law no longer applies

It seems that we have a whole lot of nothing here - unless of course I have misunderstood the cut and thrust of this thread.

Last edited by The Don; 15th March 2017 at 01:33 AM.
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 15th March 2017, 01:32 AM   #248
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
You just edited that article to fit your beliefs! You don't get to edit an article to agree with you and then claim it as a source for claims you made before the edit.
You're being very dishonest.
No.


(A)
The article was already off, before I got there.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
(5)
I created the wikipedia account today, to make the correction.

(B)
If you pay a little more attention, you would realize that 1014 is now there instead of the prior 1015.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:33 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, 01:35 AM   #249
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yes. Can you please explain exactly what sources you used for the figures of 1015, 1016 and 10, please? A source for all three, please.
Sources were already provided.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 01:36 AM   #250
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Just to summarise the position......

ProgrammingGodJordan is suggesting that we're less than three years away from having human-comparable A.I.. The basis for this is a measure of the processing capacity of the human brain, the processing capacity of current A.I. systems and an application of Moore's Law to get from the latter to the former.

As I see it, the major problems ProgrammingGodJordan's assertion has are as follows:
  • Attempts to quantify the processing capacity of the human brain are speculative at best.
  • The processing capacity of current A.I. quoted was vastly overstated (by several orders of magnitude)
  • Even by his own, flawed, methods of calculation and dodgy sources, the human brain is between 100 and 10000 times more powerful than the current A.I., instead ProgrammingGodJordan has used a factor of 3
  • As the physical limits of chips are being approached, it's very likely that Moore's Law no longer applies

It seems that we have a whole lot of nothing here - unless of course I have misunderstood the cut and thrust of this thread.

Yes, like your comrades' writings, this last writing of yours shows misunderstandings.

(1)
I had stated modern AI as 10^14 synapses, according to IBM source. This was not 'vastly overstated', because IBM reported roughly 10^14 synapses.


(2)
By my references, IBM had actually already achieved human level numbers, of roughly 10^14 synapses, in 2012 (but these are not synapses to exactness).
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:40 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, 01:39 AM   #251
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
So, basically, you skimmed the first paragraph, saw what you thought was information which backed up what you'd like to believe is true, and then cited it as fact? That doesn't sound like a rigorous methodology to me. Why should anybody take you seriously after such an admission?

Quote:
Essentially, I had done my computations based on this source, but now I see that it is outdated, based on the above.
If you now believe that the information in that paper can be dismissed, then why are you using it as a source of 10 synapse operations a second?
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 01:42 AM   #252
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
10 impulses per second comes from:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.
If that's the source of the information, then that is what you should cite. If you want to use that paper as a source, you will have to link to that.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 01:43 AM   #253
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, basically, you skimmed the first paragraph, saw what you thought was information which backed up what you'd like to believe is true, and then cited it as fact? That doesn't sound like a rigorous methodology to me. Why should anybody take you seriously after such an admission?



If you now believe that the information in that paper can be dismissed, then why are you using it as a source of 10 synapse operations a second?
Small nitpick: 10 impulses per second.


(A)
Anyway,

I didn't need to believe any of the data.

I observed the data to be probably valid.

Also, I couldn't find any later data regarding impulses per second.


(B)
Apart from IBM, other regions are approaching human level brain numbers by 2020.


(C)
I actually read through the entire paper, but I related 10^14 with ibm's chip.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:46 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, 01:45 AM   #254
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,495
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Small nitpick: 10 impulses per second.

Anyway,

I didn't need to believe any of the data.

I detected the data to be probably valid.

Also, I couldn't find any later data regarding impulses per second.
The man admits in his article that it's a guess. He even uses the word guess, and there is no reference to any research there.
You just cherrypick what you want to believe and ignore the rest, and sometimes you edit your own sources to agree with you.

You have nothing.
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 15th March 2017, 01:46 AM   #255
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,061
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Yes, like your comrades' writings, this last writing of yours shows misunderstandings.

(1)
I had stated modern AI as 10^14 synapses, according to IBM source. This was not 'vastly overstated', because IBM reported roughly 10^14 synapses.
Errr... no

See this exchange - 1014 seems to be overstated by several orders of magnitude.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Third, the number he aspires to is 1010.
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That's odd.

I gathered that they had already achieved 10^14 in a relatively recent paper:

http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ105...000=1489431888
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You didn't actually watch the video you cited? Oh dear.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Might want to check the dates there bubba. They have rowed back on the claims big time.
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 15th March 2017, 01:47 AM   #256
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
The man admits in his article that it's a guess. He even uses the word guess, and there is no reference to any research there.
You just cherrypick what you want to believe and ignore the rest, and sometimes you edit your own sources to agree with you.

You have nothing.
(A)
I see that you are late as usual, in multiple ways.

The guy referenced work by neuroscientists:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.


(B)
The source already said 10^15 when I got there.

It was I who edited it TODAY, to the correct approximation, 10^14.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 01:49 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, 01:49 AM   #257
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm sorry, it's comparatively early here and so I haven't had enough coffee. Have you just edited the Wikipedia article so that it agrees with your figures (and then intend to use the Wikipedia article to support your argument) ?
Yup. And replaced a figure taken from an undergraduate and graduate university neuroscience textbook with one taken from what is essentially a promotional article by IBM.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 01:51 AM   #258
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,449
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I see that you are late as usual, in multiple ways.

The guy referenced work by neuroscientists:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.

What do these neuroscientists say about the number of operations per second?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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, 01:51 AM   #259
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yup. And replaced a figure taken from an undergraduate and graduate university neuroscience textbook with one taken from what is essentially a promotional article by IBM.
Wrong again.



(A)
The 10^14 would actually disregard my initial calculation, as it would mean that IBM had already computed human level brain numbers. (although those synapses would still be crude)



(B)
I edited wikipedia, today based on other wikipedia data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ber_of_neurons

Also, Wikipedia had already made reference to Koch (2004), which is entailed to express 10^14. I simply updated the 10^15 to reflect the initial reference. So, the IBM edit reference is valid.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:17 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, 01:52 AM   #260
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Sources were already provided.
The whole issue seems remarkably unclear. For the sake of clarity, please provide a source for each.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 01:53 AM   #261
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,061
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(A)
I see that you are late as usual, in multiple ways.

The guy referenced work by neuroscientists:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.
And what did that 30 year-old source have to say on the subject ?


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(B)
The source already said 10^15 when I got there.

It was I who edited it TODAY, to the correct approximation, 10^14.
That's as valid as me editing the account of the 1997 FA Cup final to make Middlesbrough FC 3-2 winners
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 15th March 2017, 01:56 AM   #262
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
And what did that 30 year-old source have to say on the subject ?




That's as valid as me editing the account of the 1997 FA Cup final to make Middlesbrough FC 3-2 winners
You may be blind sometimes, but try to see the following:


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
I edited wikipedia, today based on other wikipedia data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ber_of_neurons


Also, Wikipedia had already made reference to Koch (2004), which is entailed to express 10^14. I simply updated the 10^15 to reflect the initial reference. So, the IBM edit reference is valid.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:17 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, 01:57 AM   #263
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,637
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I didn't need to believe any of the data.

I observed the data to be probably valid.
You're contradicting yourself.

And, speaking of contradicting yourself, if you're now claiming that the human brain has 1016 operations per second (10 impulses per second multiplied by 1015 synapses - or would that be 10 impulses per second multiplied by 1014 synapses?), why have you just posted this:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Separately, the human brain roughly performs <= 10^18 synaptic operations per second.
Quote:
I actually read through the entire paper, but I related 10^14 with ibm's chip.
Yes, you skimmed it without paying attention to what it actually said. Why do you think this speaks in your favour?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 15th March 2017 at 01:58 AM.
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 15th March 2017, 02:02 AM   #264
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're contradicting yourself.

And, speaking of contradicting yourself, if you're now claiming that the human brain has 1016 operations per second (10 impulses per second multiplied by 1015 synapses - or would that be 10 impulses per second multiplied by 1014 synapses?), why have you just posted this:


Yes, you skimmed it without paying attention to what it actually said. Why do you think this speaks in your favour?
I have not scrutinized other users here, despite the mountains of errors they have made.

(1)
See exascale computing on wikipedia for 10^18 estimation. (as provided in original post)


(2)
You may need to believe redundantly in science or other paradigms, but such is not necessary for others, like Neil deGrasse tyson, or myself.

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Originally Posted by NeilDegrasse Tyson (2013)
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Quote source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY



(3)
I had long mentioned:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
The 10^14 would actually disregard my initial calculation, as it would mean that IBM had already computed human level brain numbers. (although those synapses would still be crude)
See also, response #234, especially the implications section.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:12 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, 02:05 AM   #265
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,449
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I edited wikipedia, today based on other wikipedia data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ber_of_neurons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...erated_content
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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, 02:06 AM   #266
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Irrelevant.

WikiPedia data was used to update Wikipedia data, as is done daily.

I didn't take data from personal blog etc.

Also, Wikipedia had already made reference to Koch (2004), which is entailed to express 10^14. I simply updated the 10^15 to reflect the initial reference. So, the IBM edit reference is valid.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:17 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, 02:18 AM   #267
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,495
If you're going to edit an article, please at least do it right.
You've put your 1014 number under the 1012 header instead of making a new one.
Also, the source in the footnote says 1015.
You were too lazy to find another primary source that agrees with you, so you just lie about the actual source that's cited.
Stop this nonsense.
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 15th March 2017, 02:22 AM   #268
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
If you're going to edit an article, please at least do it right.
You've put your 1014 number under the 1012 header instead of making a new one.
Also, the source in the footnote says 1015.
You were too lazy to find another primary source that agrees with you, so you just lie about the actual source that's cited.
Stop this nonsense.

(A)
You should have read my comment at reply #234. (Especially the section "(B) SMALL WIKIPEDIA UPDATE BY ME")

10^14 would not belong to HEADER 10^15, as per requirements of that particular wikipedia page.

See short/long scale metric.




(B)

For example,

Look in the 1012 section.

Do you notice that 1014 values, and 1013 value are UNDER 1012 HEADING?

Do you not notice that there is no 1014 HEADER, and no 1013 HEADER?

The above is such, for the reason, as seen in the top of the wiki page, regarding SHORT/LONG SCALE metric.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:37 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, 02:30 AM   #269
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,495
The article in footnote 18, which is given as a source states 1015
Find a source that supports your edit and cite it in the article.
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 15th March 2017, 02:34 AM   #270
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
The article in footnote 18, which is given as a source states 1015
Find a source that supports your edit and cite it in the article.
I am looking now.
Where do you see 10^15 synapses in Koch's text?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 02:37 AM   #271
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,495
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I am looking now.
Where do you see 10^15 synapses in Koch's text?
That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.

Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 15th March 2017 at 02:38 AM.
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 15th March 2017, 02:40 AM   #272
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
In the available repositories there are no neural nets.
Quote:

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)
In the available repositories there are no neural nets.
Quote:

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?
There are no examples of deep learning in any of your available repositories. The "manifold" link for some reason redirects from github to somewhere I have to register with google+ or facebook. I have no intention of so doing just to read more of your homework.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 02:41 AM   #273
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.
I am still looking, but from where I am, I can't access page 15.

Anyway, I can either revert, or refer to wiki-neuron-source-a and wiki-neuron-source-b
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 03:05 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 15th March 2017, 02:44 AM   #274
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
In the available repositories there are no neural nets.

In the available repositories there are no neural nets.


There are no examples of deep learning in any of your available repositories. The "manifold" link for some reason redirects from github to somewhere I have to register with google+ or facebook. I have no intention of so doing just to read more of your homework.
That's odd:

(1) basic neural net (technically a deep net of 3 layers as is, but can be extended):

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...ETIC-SENTIENCE



(2) deep neural network for heart irregularity detection, using residual neural networks:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...ETECTION-MODEL



(3) an experiment for enhancing deep neural net:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...H-OSCILLATIONS

etc
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 02:49 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, 02:52 AM   #275
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,537
Seriously?
public class NeuralNetworkTopology extends ArrayList <Integer>
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 02:57 AM   #276
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Seriously?
public class NeuralNetworkTopology extends ArrayList <Integer>
That class merely describes a simple topology of layers, that is, the number of neurons per layer. (I tend to avoid hard coding even simpler components, where possible)

To see the neural network operations, see NeuralNetwork.java, or Neuron.java.

You can also download and run the neural network (via class DisplayConsole.java , using BlueJ, and java 1.7 at minimum) to see that it classifies successfully as described in the README.md.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 03:03 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 15th March 2017, 03:11 AM   #277
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.
I don't see the 10^15 value on page 15.

Can you link me to page 15 of your copy?


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

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 03:12 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, 03:21 AM   #278
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,061
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I don't see the 10^15 value on page 15.

Can you link me to page 15 of your copy?


http://i.imgur.com/omF718j.png
That's not the link Porpoise of Life provided

You're on page 12, page 15 has the figure
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 15th March 2017, 03:28 AM   #279
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That's not the link Porpoise of Life provided

You're on page 12, page 15 has the figure
I already mentioned that I could not access page 15 using Porpoise of Life's link.

As seen in the screen shot provided (top right), that is page 15, not 12, from my copy.

Furthermore, advancing 3 pages on my copy, still does not yield any thing.



See the screenshot below, (uses Porpoise of Life's link);


Page 15 is not accessible, to me.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 03:32 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, 03:31 AM   #280
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That class merely describes a simple topology of layers, that is, the number of neurons per layer. (I tend to avoid hard coding even simpler components, where possible)

To see the neural network operations, see NeuralNetwork.java, or Neuron.java.

You can also download and run the neural network (via class DisplayConsole.java , using BlueJ, and java 1.7 at minimum) to see that it classifies successfully as described in the README.md.
Apologies. A quick look shows that is indeed a standard neural network
__________________
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
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 03:50 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.