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, 03:36 AM   #281
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Apologies. A quick look shows that is indeed a standard neural network
Yes, I learnt how to write basic neural net from scratch in roughly 3 hours (perhaps typical), then I wrote the first item.

That first item above is nothing more than basic, as indicated in Readme.

However, the second item, the residual neural network (for heart irregularity detection) though standard, has an underlying that is non-trivial, while the top layers are from an easy to manipulate machine learning library, called mxnet.
__________________
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 03:38 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, 03:38 AM   #282
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,417
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I have not scrutinized other users here, despite the mountains of errors they have made.
So what? Do you believe that that means that your claims shouldn't be scrutinised? Leaving aside the fact that you specifically asked for your ideas to be examined in the OP, if you don't want your claims to be scrutinised, then you shouldn't post them on a sceptic's message board.

Quote:
(1)
See exascale computing on wikipedia for 10^18 estimation. (as provided in original post)
Then why are you using a figure of 1015 in this thread, rather than 1018?

Quote:
(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:

Quote source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY
Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with you only skimming a paper and then misrepresenting the contents because you didn't understand what you were reading. It certainly doesn't explain why such behaviour is consistent with your ideas being well-founded or your reasoning being something that anybody should take even remotely seriously.
__________________
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, 03:42 AM   #283
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So what? Do you believe that that means that your claims shouldn't be scrutinised? Leaving aside the fact that you specifically asked for your ideas to be examined in the OP, if you don't want your claims to be scrutinised, then you shouldn't post them on a sceptic's message board.



Then why are you using a figure of 1015 in this thread, rather than 1018?



Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with you only skimming a paper and then misrepresenting the contents because you didn't understand what you were reading. It certainly doesn't explain why such behaviour is consistent with your ideas being well-founded or your reasoning being something that anybody should take even remotely seriously.
(1)
There is hardly any data from that paper that I cannot understand.
After-all, I do have an understanding of the mathematics behind quantum computing's basis:

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quant...rdan-Bennett-9




(2)
I had long expressed that 10^15 synapses = 10^16 sops was used to compute a minimum year, using the minimum value 10^15.
One can easily compute a year, for the maximum value 10^18.



(3)
Do you know any quantum computing?
__________________
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 03:44 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, 03:49 AM   #284
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 20,744
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Page 15 is not accessible, to me.
Did you access it using Porpoise of Life's link ?

All I did was then click on the blue highlighted link on that page (reproduced below)

1 The Membrane Equation

...and scroll down
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, 04:07 AM   #285
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,152
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Did you access it using Porpoise of Life's link ?

All I did was then click on the blue highlighted link on that page (reproduced below)

1 The Membrane Equation

...and scroll down
Worked for me. To quote the most relevant sentence, "At about 1 billion chemical synapses per cubic millimeter of cortical grey matter, there are lots of synapses in the nervous system (on the order of 10^15 for a human brain)."
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 04:07 AM   #286
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Did you access it using Porpoise of Life's link ?

All I did was then click on the blue highlighted link on that page (reproduced below)

1 The Membrane Equation

...and scroll down


I did but strangely nothing showed up for page 15.

Anyway, data to keep in mind:

(1) The prior wiki data expressed 10^15. (a 2004 estimation)
(2) Other wiki data expresses 10^14, (2012 estimation)

What do you think is the next optimal move?


PS: My initial 2020 calculation is correct after-all, at 10^15 syapses = 10^16 sops, with respect the sources linked the.
PS(2): Thanks for link "Porpoise of Life" this confirms the original post data, with respect the sources linked then.
__________________
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 04:20 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, 04:18 AM   #287
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
.......One can easily compute a year, for the maximum value 10^18.........
I did:

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Moore's Law, hey. That one where we get a doubling in performance of silicon chips every two years? The right law, I take it?

OK, well, let's have a look. 2020 is 3 years away. At the moment you're own figures for computer performance has the best of them at 10^14 (somethings), which is one ten-thousandth of the level of humans, again, according to your own figures. Applying Moore's Law to those figures suggest computers will be at around approximately 3 ten-thousandths of that of humans by 2020. In fact, by applying Moore's Law alone, it looks as though it will take computers approx. 15 years to get to that same level, or approx. 2032.

As I probably said before, you just make **** up.
__________________
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, 04:19 AM   #288
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I did:
The minimum though, remains at 2020, if we use 10^15 synapses, koch christof, as I had long stated (See original post)
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
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, 04:20 AM   #289
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
....... My initial 2020 calculation is correct after-all, at 10^15 syapses = 10^16 sops, with respect the sources linked the.........
Like I said, you make **** up. This figure is not justified.
__________________
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, 04:20 AM   #290
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I did but strangely nothing showed up for page 15.

Anyway, data to keep in mind:

(1) The prior wiki data expressed 10^15. (a 2004 estimation)
(2) Other wiki data expresses 10^14, (2012 estimation)

What do you think is the next move?
The next move is to find a citation that backs up your number or undo your edit.
I've checked the sources in the other wiki article and could not find anything referring to number of synapses. As far as I can tell all three articles only mention number of neurons.

Also, if 2004 is too old to be reliable, then could you explain how you can base your estimation of 10 signals per second per synapse on a 1985 article (and without citing the article itself, only another article that cites it as a source)?
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, 04:21 AM   #291
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The minimum though, remains at 2020, if we use 10^15 synapses, koch christof, as I had long stated (See original post)
It's not a minimum, FFS. The word you want there is earliest.
__________________
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, 04:26 AM   #292
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
The next move is to find a citation that backs up your number or undo your edit.
I've checked the sources in the other wiki article and could not find anything referring to number of synapses. As far as I can tell all three articles only mention number of neurons.

Also, if 2004 is too old to be reliable, then could you explain how you can base your estimation of 10 signals per second per synapse on a 1985 article (and without citing the article itself, only another article that cites it as a source)?
As long mentioned, I could not find anything later for impulses per second.

As for the wikipedia articles, that is not a thing for a blog post, and so later estimations are listed, as observed on Wiki/neuron, and Wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.
__________________
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 04:27 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, 04:26 AM   #293
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 20,744
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
PS: My initial 2020 calculation is correct after-all, at 10^15 syapses = 10^16 sops, with respect the sources linked the.
PS(2): Thanks for link "Porpoise of Life" this confirms the original post data, with respect the sources linked then.
Now you need to show how 1015synapses is equivalent to 1016 SOPS all you have is a 30 year old guess

Then you have the issue that the current state of play isn't 1014 SOPS (IBM have rolled that one back) - but even if you accept that it is, IBM claim to be "only" running 1542 times slower than real time so you have.....

A factor of 100 in capacity (1014 vs 1016)

A factor of 1542 in speed

giving 154200 in total

Even if Moore's law holds (and remember according to informed sources, due to physical limitations it no longer does), it'll take quite a while to overcome that shortfall....
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, 04:30 AM   #294
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Now you need to show how 1015synapses is equivalent to 1016 SOPS all you have is a 30 year old guess

Then you have the issue that the current state of play isn't 1014 SOPS (IBM have rolled that one back) - but even if you accept that it is, IBM claim to be "only" running 1542 times slower than real time so you have.....

A factor of 100 in capacity (1014 vs 1016)

A factor of 1542 in speed

giving 154200 in total

Even if Moore's law holds (and remember according to informed sources, due to physical limitations it no longer does), it'll take quite a while to overcome that shortfall....
Some-else here mentioned that IBM "rolled back", expressing 1010, instead of 1014. (I had been referring to 10^14 synapses, but the being appeared to be unaware of the distinction between neuron/synapse number)

I trivially showed that that IBM was referring to the number of simulated neurons (1010, which is a smaller number than the number of simulated synapses (1014), so no such roll back occurred, it had always been 1014, synapses.

Just to clarify, what did you mean by IBM rolled back?
__________________
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 04:33 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, 04:37 AM   #295
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 20,744
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Just to clarify, what did you mean by IBM rolled back?
The fact that it's running 1542 times slower than realtime
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 04:39 AM   #296
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As long mentioned, I could not find anything later for impulses per second..........
And as "long mentioned" (couldn't we speak English?) that source describes this figure as a guess.
__________________
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, 04:44 AM   #297
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
And as "long mentioned" (couldn't we speak English?) that source describes this figure as a guess.
Anyway, that value (by neurosientists) did not influence my edit of wikipedia.

With regards to the original, post, based on the 2020 forecast, as far as I could find, "10 impulses per second" exists.
__________________
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 04:46 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, 04:47 AM   #298
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,417
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1)
There is hardly any data from that paper that I cannot understand.
Whether or not you can potentially understand it is moot. You didn't understand it because you didn't pay attention while skim-reading it. How can anybody be expected to take you at all seriously if you formulate theories and come to conclusions based on on papers that you admit you haven't even read properly?
__________________
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, 04:47 AM   #299
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Anyway, that value (by neurosientists) did not influence my edit of wikipedia.

With regards to the original, post, based on the 2020 forecast, as far as I could find, I found 10 impulses per second.
So you didn't find it.
You made it up because that would make your estimations correct. That's not evidence, that's circular reasoning.
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, 04:48 AM   #300
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Like I said, you make **** up. This figure is not justified..
I already linked to those values, as expressed by neuroscientists.
__________________
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 04:57 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, 04:49 AM   #301
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
So you didn't find it.
You made it up because that would make your estimations correct. That's not evidence, that's circular reasoning.
You fail to understand.


Simply, the 10 impulses per second process was found first.

...and hence after, I searched for later estimations. (none found)

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

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 04:50 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, 04:53 AM   #302
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Whether or not you can potentially understand it is moot. You didn't understand it because you didn't pay attention while skim-reading it. How can anybody be expected to take you at all seriously if you formulate theories and come to conclusions based on on papers that you admit you haven't even read properly?
I didn't formulate some grand theory.

Simply, that value was quickly used to compute the 2020 year, for which human level brain like machines would arrive.


Other sequences of mine, such as the works below, are runnable, and testable, providing accurate results:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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 04:54 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, 04:56 AM   #303
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The fact that it's running 1542 times slower than realtime
I had long mentioned that the artificial synapses by IBM, were crude approximations. (So they are not as efficient)

They still provided unprecedented efficiency, and achieved state of the art in machine learning, cognitive tasks.
__________________
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, 04:59 AM   #304
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,421
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I had long mentioned that the artificial synapses by IBM, were crude approximations. (So they are not as efficient)

They still provided unprecedented efficiency, and achieved state of the art in machine learning, cognitive tasks.
Is it your estiation that they will run in real time by 2020?
Or do you count 'same number of operations as humans, but 1000 times slower' as human-level?
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, 05:00 AM   #305
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Is it your estiation that they will run in real time by 2020?
Or do you count 'same number of operations as humans, but 1000 times slower' as human-level?
I referred to ibm's current 10^14 as human level numbers (that is, minimum), but not efficiency.

Using public estimations (such as links from original post) we will have human level numbers + efficiency by at least 2020.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism" ( "Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor , where "non beliefism" = atheism minus theism ):
http://nonbeliefism.com

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

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th March 2017 at 05:03 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, 05:08 AM   #306
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,417
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, that value was quickly used to compute the 2020 year, for which human level brain like machines would arrive.
Which is the subject of this thread, and which was based on incorrect data - data which was incorrect because you were basing it off sources that you didn't actually take the time to read properly.

So, again, why should anybody give any credence to your methodology when you admit that you get your data from sources that you don't even bother to read properly? This is a sceptic's board.
__________________
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, 05:20 AM   #307
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Which is the subject of this thread, and which was based on incorrect data - data which was incorrect because you were basing it off sources that you didn't actually take the time to read properly.

So, again, why should anybody give any credence to your methodology when you admit that you get your data from sources that you don't even bother to read properly? This is a sceptic's board.
To make things even clearer, the subject of this thread is not the 2020 date.

The subject of this thread is 'thought curvature', which uses my mathematical understanding of quantum computing, and modern machine learning.


Once again:


(A)
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

Other sequences of mine, such as the works below, are runnable, and testable, providing accurate results:



(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
In the above testable, runnable sequences, that provide accurate results as it relates to neural systems, it is clear that detailed readings were performed.




(B)


You need consider that I am human, and I can't validate every string of wikipedia/ibm data, especially when that data does not influence the computation of my works as you see above.
In situations that don't regard the coding of my works, I do simplistic probabilistic weightings.
__________________
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 05:30 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, 05:34 AM   #308
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Worked for me. To quote the most relevant sentence, "At about 1 billion chemical synapses per cubic millimeter of cortical grey matter, there are lots of synapses in the nervous system (on the order of 10^15 for a human brain)."

It may be the case that the source could still probably contain 2.4 x 1014 as indicated by ibm, as the above values appear vague

However, I have already spent too much time on that matter, as it does not regard the coding of my works.
__________________
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 06:06 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, 05:42 AM   #309
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,152
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
It may be the case that the source could still probably contain 2.4 x 1014 as indicated by ibm, as the above values appear vague.
It could also simply be out of date or a rough calculation. The 10^14 area seems to be better substantiated at present, either way, by the looks of it.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
However, I have already spent too much time on that matter, as it does not regard the coding of my works.
And that is true enough. I apologize that I don't have anything in the way of insights into how to improve your coding, though, given that I'm not a programmer. Thank you for belatedly, if seemingly unintentionally, answering the one important question that I posed regarding the OP, either way.
__________________
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 15th March 2017, 05:47 AM   #310
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It could also simply be out of date or a rough calculation. The 10^14 area seems to be better substantiated at present, either way, by the looks of it.



And that is true enough. I apologize that I don't have anything in the way of insights into how to improve your coding, though, given that I'm not a programmer. Thank you for belatedly, if seemingly unintentionally, answering the one important question that I posed regarding the OP, either way.
No problem.
__________________
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 05:55 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, 05:55 AM   #311
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649



I spent 2 more minutes to find evidence that ibm's 2.4 x 1014 reference was proper:

Koch's text makes reference to 240 trillion synapses in human cortex on page 87. (This falls UNDER the quadrillion boundary of 1015, and PARTICULARLY in the trillion range of +1012)

I have updated wikipedia to reflect this truth.
__________________
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 06:02 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, 05:57 AM   #312
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,421
thanks
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, 06:29 AM   #313
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 3,902
Silly memes, as used by 12 year olds, don't really enhance your arguments.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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, 06:45 AM   #314
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,417
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
To make things even clearer, the subject of this thread is not the 2020 date.
It's certainly one of the main things you've been banging on about. And, again, is demonstrative of your admittedly poor methodology. You can't admit how poor your methodology is and then just ask everybody to pretend that you haven't.
__________________
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, 06:48 AM   #315
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's certainly one of the main things you've been banging on about. And, again, is demonstrative of your admittedly poor methodology. You can't admit how poor your methodology is and then just ask everybody to pretend that you haven't.
I don't ask anyone to do anything.

I still observe my prior reply in post #307.

Its time to focus on the paper in the original post.

Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
__________________
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 jsfisher; 18th March 2017 at 09:09 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, 06:59 AM   #316
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
.........I have updated wikipedia to reflect this truth.
I'm horrified that someone who thinks that figures differing by an order of magnitude are "roughly the same" could be let loose anywhere near Wiki. Could you do us all a huge favour and stay away from it, please. Leave it to people who have some regard for accuracy and truth.
__________________
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, 07:04 AM   #317
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
http://i.imgur.com/eoWtEuR.jpg


I spent 2 more minutes to find evidence that ibm's 2.4 x 1014 reference was proper:

Koch's text makes reference to 240 trillion synapses in human cortex on page 87. (This falls UNDER the quadrillion boundary of 1015, and PARTICULARLY in the trillion range of +1012)

I have updated wikipedia to reflect this truth.
I don't believe you because...
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
And this...
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
And this...
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(A)
That does not appear to be the case.

(1) I asked you (in reply #11) why you criticized the numbers.

(2) You responded (in reply #12) regarding my misuse of the word "pertinent".

How did your response in reply #12, sensibly answer my query in reply #11?



(B)
There was no claim of mine, about "technology being wonderful".

My statement was that models have already achieved 10^14 artificial synaptic operations per second:
SOURCE: http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ105...000=1489394675

That 10^14 figure was not a claim.
You didn't look it up, you have been spamming the same paper throughout this thread.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 07:06 AM   #318
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I don't believe you because...

And this...

And this...


You didn't look it up, you have been spamming the same paper throughout this thread.
No.

Read carefully.

I expressed that ibm achieved 10^14, and they did just that.

IBM: "We have simulated an unprecedented 2.084 neurosynaptic cores containing 53 x 1010 neurons, and 1.37 x 1014 synapses."

http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ105...000=1489540048

Your writings show blindness in more ways that one.
__________________
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 07:12 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, 07:15 AM   #319
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I'm horrified that someone who thinks that figures differing by an order of magnitude are "roughly the same" could be let loose anywhere near Wiki. Could you do us all a huge favour and stay away from it, please. Leave it to people who have some regard for accuracy and truth.
Why do the writings of a majority of the beings here display slow understanding?

Anyway,

(1)
The rough value I was referring to regarded, for eg, 10^15, and some multiplier.
So, where I write 10^15 somewhere, that is a rough sketch of 2 x 10^15.



(2)

You may have missed the post above:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
I spent 2 more minutes to find evidence that ibm's 2.4 x 1014 reference was proper:

Koch's text makes reference to 240 trillion synapses in human cortex on page 87. (This falls UNDER the quadrillion boundary of 1015, and PARTICULARLY in the trillion range of +1012)

I have updated wikipedia to reflect this truth.
__________________
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 07:17 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, 07:24 AM   #320
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,412
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Why do the writings of a majority of the beings here display slow understanding?........
If you think that slurring your interlocutors in this conversation is a good way forward then you will soon fall foul of the rules. We aren't "beings", and I am not slow. It was you who wrote "10^15 is roughly 10^16". We've had long conversations about it.............have you forgotten already?
__________________
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
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 09:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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