NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in the facing sequence.
NOTE [2]: I am of course atheistic, (I have zero beliefs).

[A]
We shall likely become non-omniscient Gods, forging more powerful, albeit non-omniscient brain based artificial intelligence aligned Gods.



[B]
On Moore's law, by 2020, non-human machines will likely be able to approximate human level brain cycles (10^15 flops).
Therein, human intellect is shown to be 'creatable':

Today, brain based models already equal/exceed human intellect, in task/task groups ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. (And likely all tasks by 2020)

https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.efngp2v9d


[C]
God's source code:
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

What makes this article so special? Is it the biased perspective on computers? Is it not knowing mathematics? Is it just the theory of the continuation of Moore's law?

There is so many things I can nitpick about being false, especially the so called source code. For it could just be BS code that has a program someone called learning program.

Is the code supposed to be the mathematical expression of e to the infinity times pi? If it is that means jack for application of code, it just means something goes on for infinity. Unless you have n to a negative power approaching infinity, then you can have a convergent value.

The quantum computing company is very basic and just wants to keep making the transistors smaller with the basis of on/off. There is way more quantum computing theories that can be way better than the current on/off system.

Mainly I want to stress that computers are stupid machines that can only do what we tell them. We also have to tell them in very specific ways, since they can't understand anything else. There is computers that learn from other computers today, like in autonomous vehicles, but that requires very complex code. They can't do it unless we program them to do it either.

This article undermines the intellect of humans as well. I think the greatest factor that would separate us from machine, if we had the same processing power, is our ability to imagine. Computers can only reconstruct what has already been seen, while humans can construct things they have never seen before.

[*A*]
Neural algorithms can express creativity:
http://www.boredpanda.com/computer-deep-learning-algorithm-painting-masters/

.
.
.
.

[*B*]
As priorly mentioned, the aforesaid article has NOT any bias|OPINION. [Consists of solely, scientifically observed phenomena, in the regime of sequences inclusive of Moore's Law]

.
.
.
.

[*C*]
As prior stipulated, brain based models already EXCEED/EQUAL human performance in non trivial individual COGNITIVE tasks/cognitive task groups, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis.

[c.1] Cognitive language translation :— http://www.pcworld.com/article/3022752/software/skypes-magical-real-time-languagetranslator-tool-goes-live-for-all-windows-users.html

[c.2] Cognitive models for disease diagnosis: http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/11/exponential-medicine--learning-ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

.
.
.
.

[*D*]
It is an observable FACTUM, that the machine-executable-cognitive task field HAS BROADENED, as time (and computational parallelism) diverged. (Such a field’s broadening persists this day)

.
.
.
.

[*E*]
The code is (AS DESCRIBED) a hypothetical BASIS. [Albeit, on the horizon of modern deep reinforcement learning, deep causal learning, and quantum mechanics]

Dude, will you chill with this crap? Yeah, computers are doing some cool shit. In the future, computers will do even cooler shit. That doesn't make you a god.

[*A*]
Chip makers (intel, nvidia etc), Data Scientists and other AI programmers, Google AI team, Microsoft AI Team, etc are all likely Gods.

[*B*]
On scientific observation, God is any likely NON-omniscient entity with the ability to create non trivial artificial intelligence, with the ability to exceed the net intelligence of said entity's(ies') species. [Where separate theistic properties (omniscience, omnipotence) are NOT likely]


[*C*]
Ergo, mankind, particularly as seen in [*A*] are likely becoming Gods.

Stop talking about stuff you don't know. The article is biased. The math doesn't prove jack, it only proves an indeterminate form.

The article is biased since it just uses crap articles to support their view on how computers work. Computers are stupid and if you want to argue otherwise program a magnificent computer to learn anything and everything.

To program anything you have to say it to the computer in a very specific way, since they can't comprehend any other language to work from. These are like C++, java, python, etc. They can't understand a simple command of do(); without telling it the premises, how many times, etc. You even have to reference things, like #iostream, to do almost anything, which is already a big chunk of code.

I agree that AI is becoming more sophisticated, like in self-driving cars, but it is nowhere near sentient. All they can do is replicate, not create.

I get it if you are joking around, but you seem to be trying to hard. I admit I am a bit more invested in this field, since I want to design a new type of quantum computer chip in the future.

Oh and Moore's law is somewhat failing, but the primitive quantum computer chips only show they can go smaller.

I think that we need to discard the on/off method, meaning binary. I am developing a theory to where it can work on multiple values, like 0,1,2,3, etc. at the same time. But I need a lot more physics and engineering courses to design it though.

Sage

(*'A'*)

It appears that you have FAILED to recognize scientifically OBSERVABLE/OBSERVED sequences.(Or rather you are quite NON-KNOWLEDGEABLE),


(*'B'*)

FACTS:

1) Mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that EXCEED/EQUAL human performance on a range of individual COGNITIVE tasks/task groups, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis.

1)i) AI can CREATE diagnosis of diseases, better than humans.
1)ii) AI can CREATE art.
1)iii) AI can CREATE captions that describe scenes.
...

2) As computational parallelism increased, brain based models have COMPUTED larger numbers of cognitive tasks/fields.

3) Mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second.

Prove it.

Show me a computer than can create something without being programmed in C++, java, python etc., but be programmed with our language.

The simple truth is it can't be done, since they only know programming languages, which is very specific.

I agree it can do more mathematical processes faster, but it can't create new math, only replicate. It can find new combinations, but it can't devise a whole new formula to work with.

what is the sequence that you keep referencing? It wasn't listed in the code, since for the power series of e^x to converge you need multiply it by a convergent term. e^infinity is entirely divergent, unless you multiply, or divide, that term by another thing. This math is taught in calculus 2 as well.

Also false with the computer being equal to a brain, since brains have more neurons firing, with many more different tasks, than a computer does. Computers can't even process sight as easily as us, and not nearly as sophisticated. One prime example is the crash with a Tesla car on autopilot because the semi-trailer was white.

The sources you used are highly biased, obtain scholarly articles, and possibly dissertations, that prove your theory. Not just google searches, which the articles you have uses.

Sage

It seems you have failed to reduce the original passage.

(A)

The articles provided include not any bias.

One may trivially find THOUSANDS of articles/SOURCE CODE, of programs that EQUAL/EXCEED human performance, on cognitive tasks.

.

.

.

(B)

Perhaps it is exigent, that you specify a single reason, why you garner that the articles are biased. (beyond merely stipulating of said bias)

.

.

.


(C)*
***************
***************

Deepmind's ALPHA GO player, is the planet's STRONGEST ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, as it has approximated an initial GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

ALPHA GO has surpassed the world HUMAN 'Go'champion. (Lee Sedol)

'Go' has MORE POSSIBILITIES than the NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

One SIMPLY cannot apply brute computer force to beat go, as go has MORE POSSIBILITIES than the NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. (one would require a UNIVERSE SIZED COMPUTER, FOR brute force approach)

FORTUNATELY, alpha go applies brain based neural modelling, including deep reinforcement learning, in tandem with other neural mechanisms, thusly applying human-like intuition. (THAT IS HUMAN SURPASSING intuition, as it surpassed Lee Sedol)

.

.

.

[i] SCHOLARLY ARTICLE (ALPHA GO): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/full/nature16961.html

[ii] WHY IS ALPHA GO SIGNIFICANT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFmj5M5Q5jg

[iii] THE TERRYFYING implications of computers THAT already LEARN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx310zM3tLs

[iv] THE TERRIBLE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL MACHINES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&t=571s

[iv] A TUTORIAL of mine ON DEEP REINFORCMENT LEARNING: https://medium.com/@jordanmicahbennett/a-simple-8-minute-deepmind-deep-q-learning-schematic-in-input-process-outcome-cycle-laymen-terms-bb6916ccddb8#.yx475lsix

This will be my last post for this nonsense. Sage.

The article uses the general populace sources, like Wikipedia and a company that designs primitive quantum computer chips. Any article that uses Wikipedia as a main source is a sub-par article. This is taught to people since grade school.

Also youtube is not a reputable source, as anyone can post anything, even if it is factual or not.

Secondly you are talking about a mathematic based game, it is old hat. Top chess players were beat by computers long ago.

Once the computer can imagine and come up with new formulas then I would agree with you. But the fact is computers can only do what it is told. The chess and go games have rules input to them and the computer goes for the best mathematical option.

Computers far excel the human mind, in speed, by doing mathematical operations. Yet they can't create those formulas, or new ones, on their own. If they could then they probably would have found the exact equation for pi. They burn out and melt trying to compute the equation we tell them to do, which spits out decimal places and not a new equation.

As the number of atoms in the known universe, do you even know how much that is? There is more than billions, if not more, atoms in a single human body. Now multiply that by the number of people in the world. That isn't even including any other living thing in the universe. Also solids have more atoms due to the bonds being tighter, except in H20. So take into account all the planets we have discovered, which would add an insane amount of atoms as well. I think that number far excels any label we can put on a term, but computers we can put a label on the processing power. The highest might be yotta (10^24), which is already less than the number of atoms in a human body.

You seem to be stating that we have reached the epitaph of AI, when in actuality it is still very basic and primitive. We have only started to program computers to self learn in very specific cases.

Have you taken a programming class before? If so, why are you giving so much praise to the computer? It takes so much work to tell the computer something very simple. Just a guessing the number game from 0-100 takes over a hundred lines of code. To perfect that code, so any user input wouldn't be foreign would take a lot more. That is just for a simple game too, not a learning program. One misplaced semicolon, or zero, can destroy the whole program. If the computer was so smart, as you claim, why can't it fix that tiny mistake?

I know that the source code link you have provided, which is the same one the article uses, doesn't do jack. For all I know it can just return a true or false, since I can name any program anything I want. I could name a BS program self_learn_everything, when in actuality it could just add 1+1 together. The code in order to do this would be thousands, if not millions, lines of code. Now that would be a major feat, but the codes only have maybe 100-300 combined lines of BS code.

One example is computers can't create art, they can only draw things based on mathematical equations, or whatever someone has told them to do. Not once has a drawing by a computer been original, it was input by a human. Humans on the other hand can draw unique pictures with no one telling them what to draw. Computers need instructions with everything they do, unlike humans. I know you can draw anything you want right now, but a computer can only do what it is told.

I don't know how else to let you know the reality of AI and computers in this day and age. I first gave complicated examples and reasons, which require at least calculus 2 math and a good deal of calculus based physics. I then lastly included art examples.

('A')

I have identified your errors:

1) You have failed to reduce/understand the passage (despite it's simplicity).

2) In contrast to the FACTS/viable MOORE's law bound probabilities AS STIPULATED VIA MYSELF, YOU have RATHER expressed NONSENSE/ZERO scientific data.

The sum of your expressions rather encode emotional/THEISTIC bias, FOR THEISTS TEND TO IGNORE SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

.

.

.

.


('B')

I maintain that priorly stipulated SOURCES OF MINE, express of human-brain exceeding artificial computation models.

It is indubitable, that brain based models have exceeded human brain cycles on a range of COGNITIVE TASKS.

Such models exceed human performance, REGARDLESS of your ignorance, or LACK OF WILLINGNESS to RECOGNIZE SUCH capacities.

Here is a neural network that GENERATES/CREATES image descriptions FROM SCRATCH [INCLUDING SOURCE CODE]:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/deepimagesent/

A similar image/video description-neural network IN ACTION:
https://vimeo.com/146492001
.

.

.

.


('C')

Albeit, the universe consists of probabilities of NUMBERS [Quantum Mechanics].

It is rather ironic, that quantum mechanics has enabled the creation of the very device, that you have thus far utilized to express utter NONSENSE.

Thusly, the human mind is a NUMBER computation module.

Therein, BOTH the facing statements are LEGITIMATE:
[i] 'Computers just compute mathematical-numerical calculations'
[ii] 'Humans just compute mathematical-numerical calculations'



(1)

See this lecture on quantum numbers:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/electronic-structure-of-atoms/orbitals-and-electrons/v/quantum-numbers

(2)

See this paper on numerical simulation of quantum particles:

http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/arRHeJPh.pdf


(3)

See this paper on numerical quantum simulations:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/multimedia/simons-science-series/numerical-quantum-simulations-of-realistic-materials/


(4)

See this ]quantum computing summary of mine of numerical descent:

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

I guess I will go into the gritty details of where I am coming from, since you refuse to accept the mathematical and programming explanations.

I didn't go into scientific fact, since there is much more than just the basics of what you listed for quantum mechanics. The article with quantum computer chips only prove that Moore's law can be held true by reducing the transistors to the atomic level based on the electron spin. This however still has to adhere to the on/off programming. Since no one electron can have both spins.

The energy levels don't pertain to the quantum computers you are referencing, along with the article, as this is mainly associated with energy gain/loss. This was taught in general college chemistry.

I have a theory that abolishes the on/off method, or binary. This stems somewhat from the idea of using a Fredkin Gate. This requires the wave equation in quantum mechanics as well. Not just the electron spin, orbitals, and energy levels taught in chemistry.

link: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/3/e1501531.full

Also just for the heck of it, just in case you still refuse to look at programming, or even try to do it.

Links: http://stackoverflow.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/

I have failed to give a link for a compiler, as I received MS Visual studio 2013 free through my school via dreamspark.

This shows how hard programming is and how stupid computers are, since they require very specific instructions to do simple tasks.

The last project for the class I was in was a hangman game, which I could never convert a string to a char array successfully. If I could just tell the computer to check to see if any of the letters are in the word, it would have worked perfectly. Yet the computer required me to tell it in a very specific way, which requires much code to do so. Just the command cout <<" "; requires a substantial amount of code that is imbedded within iostream.

I have only dealt with single core code, since the code you need to include for multi-core processing is substantially more. Let alone AI learning programming. That kind of code in itself requires thousands of lines of code, and it requires more if it is a new thing/field.

I know where we differ. I don't think the human mind is mathematically based at all. Computers are, I agree on that. But the human doesn't use math at all in painting, drawing, imagining, talking, etc. However a computer must use math to do these things that require no math for us.

Sight is a prime example, since it requires many lines of code for the computer to understand. The computer is only able to see with the use of supercomputing, but only part of our brain does this so naturally without thinking. Do you have to compute everything you see with much effort? The answer is simply no. When you see depth, color, objects, differentiate between objects, movement, light, dark, etc. you don't have to put any brainpower in it. While the computer can't process all of these as efficiently, as us quite yet. Unless you use massive supercomputer, that fills a room, or a warehouse. But the brain is less than 1/2 m^2. That is including more than just the occipital lobe of the brain.

Here is a small introduction to the technology behind self-driving cars. They can teach each other too, but only once they are programmed to do so.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/driveworks.html

Here is one on the anatomy of the brain and the occipital lobe.

https://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PE-AnatBrain.htm

The humans greatest feat of intelligence is the power of imagination. The imagination to devise new things. Mathematically speaking would be to create, and modify, mathematical and scientific formulas.

Einstein's theory of relativity could never have been calculated by a machine, since it requires imagination of relating mass and energy. Then with the use of energy he realized that mass increases as your speed increases. A computer could only do this if someone told it the link between energy and mass, which Einstein discovered. Feynman goes through how Einstein derived this as well.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html

Also the photoelectric effect couldn't be done with just computers, since Einstein used a photon to explain this. Photons are derived from imagination, since it was something completely new. A computer could notice light, but to assign a value to the energy is something a computer can't do on its own. It can now due to knowing what to look for, but Einstein imagined what a photon is. Computers only understand the math behind the photon, not what the photon is itself. It can regurgitate what it is from articles, but it can't see what the photon is. It can't imagine a energy packet of light. It can only understand the energy associated with it, not the energy itself.

Another example is doing triple integrals that require a trig substitution in rectangular, which the calculator takes forever to do. But a human can see and recognize that this integral could be easier in polar or spherical. This is something the computer can't do, since it only does what it is told.

The list goes on where human intellect outdo computers with our imagination. Human minds are not mathematically based either. That is a belief you hold, and a belief that I don't. That belief is an opinion though. Human minds still haven't been figured out, which is still in the realm of philosophy really. Descartes is a promoter of the Mind and body, while many after him see error in his mind assumption. No one knows where the human mind is, namely consciousness. What makes us human? What makes us different than another living being? This is philosophy, not math or science. It might be one day though.

I'm sorry it became so long, which is why I didn't want to go into detail on this subject too much and assumed you already knew most of what I stated in this last post.

I can argue no further, since now it is just opinions from here on. I failed to express my knowledge prior to this, and now I did.

Oh and for the math, if you remember anything in calculus 2 remember the Taylor series, or power series. If they were convergent and divergent. This could be achieved through l'hopital's rule, if the other tests spit out a form of infinity/infinity, or 0/0.

I maintain that you predominantly express nonsense, on the horizon of ignorance/emotional bias.

.

.

.

('A')

[1]
"AI learns and recreates NOBEL-winning physics experiment:"
https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/16/ai-learns-and-recreates-nobel-winning-physics-experiment/

[2]
"Robot Toddler Learns to Stand by “IMAGINING” How to Do It"
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542921/robot-toddler-learns-to-stand-by-imagining-how-to-do-it/

[3]
"Artificial Neural Networks Can Day Dream–Here's What They See:"
http://gizmodo.com/these-are-the-incredible-day-dreams-of-artificial-neura-1712226908

[4]
"This robot passed a 'self-awareness' test that only humans could handle until now:"
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-robot-passed-a-self-awareness-test-that-only-humans-could-handle-until-now-2015-7

etc.


.

.

.

.


('B')

You were priorly quite REDUNDANT, in the assertion that deep neural networks create art, based on mathematical EQUATIONS.

Humans too, encode mathematical equations of QUANTUM NUMBERS, as humans comprise of quantum
processes, as do all things:

http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/10%3A_Multi-electron_Atoms/Quantum_Numbers

The INPUTS/OUTPUTS via such QUANTUM FUNCTIONS, are but quantum structures, of NUMBERS.

Quantum numbers are thereafter non-trivial, essential properties.



.

.

.

.


('C')

I indeed program; here are encodings OF MINE:

[i] "Neural-causal-reinforcement model": http://mindparadoxlabs.appspot.com/

[ii] "A programming language of my own creation": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/CONSCIENCIA

[iii] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL

[iv] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MORPHING-SOMATIC-QUASICRYSTAL-NEURAL-NETWORK

[v] "A scratch written, regressive/progressive propagation therein gradient descent aligned model": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SYNTHETIC-SENTIENCE

[vi] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/FRAGMENTARY-INTEMPERATE-INFERENCE-ABOUND-DISCRETE-HOMEOMORPHIC-LATTICE-SPACE-BLOCH-OSCILLATIONS

[vii] "Quantum computing experimentation":
https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

[viii] "An operating system interface of my creation":
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/BRAIN-UNIVERSE-SYNONYMOUS-INTERFACE


.

.

.

.


('D')

Albeit, the entirety of your silly expressions thus far, ALTER NOT, the FACTUM that brain based models have EXCEEDED humans on COGNITIVE TASKS, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis.

I think we were both assuming that both of us knew things that we didn't. But now you have piqued my interest.

The article you initially provided was assuming too many things with poor technical sources. I agree your newly provided sources weed out the bad ones provided by the article.

Yes everything contains quantum mechanics, but the science is still flawed to this day. It is only an approximation of what we know matter to be. I still need to learn more too, but that is why I am going to school and reading Feynman's lectures.

Brains are not quantum computers, they are electric and chemical computing things. The chemicals allow there to be more than just a 0 or 1 as well. Certain chemicals fire different neurons in the brain. Computers still aren't as small as a brain for the amount of neurons firing with separate tasks.

What causes the certain chemicals in the brain to be emitted? How does the brain know when to release dopamine vs serotonin? These questions are fascinating and are still unknown. So it still remains in the field of philosophy.

We still don't know what makes a human be a human. We don't know what makes us sentient either. To claim that we replicated these unknown processes so perfectly is just absurd. We can mimic very specific parts, but not the whole brain.

I plan to change the 0 or 1 method to where the computer can have 0,1,2, and 3 at first. If my theory holds true, this will open so many doors for computers. This would be due to having all those values be present at the same time, versus the on/off. This would promote the ability of a computer to be better than human intellect.

The articles you have provided are just the tip of the iceberg. The self aware test is very specific and it really isn't fully self aware. It just can differentiate itself from another in a very specific case. This can be done many ways too. It can just realize its energy, or electrical, expenditure when activating a speaker. There is many tricks too, for it can just tie the activation of its own speaker with the received input of the microphone. If another robot talked it could know that it's own speaker didn't activate and that the sound must be foreign. Such a simple process really. We do it so simply, which isn't even part of our consciousness, but our data collecting (senses). This requires no thought on our behalf, but it required a substantial amount of thought, or processing, by the machine to do it.

I think the hardware must go beyond the conventional 0,1 values to be sentient. Humans have more than just a 0,1 value with the help of chemicals. But the electrical impulses speed that process up. Also we have different neurons for different things, so in that sense a receptor neuron could be like a 3 and it is unique to touch. While a optical nerve receptor could be like a 4 and unique to sight. This is all hypothetical though, since we still don't know.

My passion lies with the application of quantum mechanics and computing, not programming though. I am interested in the field of quantum engineering, which isn't really a thing yet.

From all the quantum computers, and research done, I feel like it is just focused on making things smaller. I think the right idea lies with something akin to a Fredkin gate, not the electron spin. The electron spin still would adhere to the on or off method, while the Fredkin gate would not.

('A')

The initial article, included a CERTAIN INITIAL SOURCE: https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.ngmw7wcfo

Such a source had particularly described, human-COGNITIVE-EXCEEDING-cognitive-models, ranging from language translation modules, to disease diagnosis modules.

AS SUCH, the subsequent source sequence of mine, persisted in the aforesaid RANGE, as enlisted in the VERY INTIAL SOURCE.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

I had NOT mentioned of any quantum nature betwixt the human brain COMPUTATION ABSTRACTION CYCLE.

Rather, observe:
[i] Machines 'merely' CALCULATE.
[i] Machines 'merely' COMPUTE NUMBERS.

I had simply stipulated, that the aforementioned statement sequence [i - ii] are but inconsequential; for the entirety of THE COSMOS calculate/compute numbers (particularly QUANTUM NUMBERS), whence ORGANIC matter [ie-mankind] is in the like 'MACHINE-bound' (consisting of minute organic machine-operation-bound components ie the cell).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')

('C.1')
Par non-quantum systems, quantum mechanics is a rather apt approximation, having garnered the very non-quantum device upon which you type.

('C.2')
Separately, par non-quantum systems, observe Dwave quantum computing

[i] The Dwave Quantum Computer had long solved the protein-folding problem:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/d-wave-quantum-computer-solves-protein-folding-problem.html

[ii] The Dwave Quantum Computer is the planet's strongest machine (exceeds typical laptops, by an order of 100 million):
http://www.sciencealert.com/google-s-quantum-computer-is-100-million-times-faster-than-your-laptop


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


('D')


Deepmind's "Alpha Go" module, is the planet's strongest artificial intelligence, having garnered an INITIAL approximation, qua GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

"Alpha Go" persists such that:

[1] human intuition is applied; otherwise a universe-size computer would be required to reduce the problem of 'Go', ("Alpha Go" is the planet's strongest 'Go' player)

[2] "Alpha Go" appears to encode 'human intuition':

[2.a] Chess is reducible by brute force, simply by evaluating the probability ENTIRETY.
[2.b] Predominantly, 'Go' is non brute force-reducible; a neural network collapses the probability profoundly.
NOTE: MERELY 2 'Chess' measures yield 400 subsequent operations.
NOTE: MERELY 2 'Go' measures yield 130,000 subsequent operations.

[3] "Alpha Go" is general:

[3.a] The chess exceeding machine, IBM-BLUE, solely possessed the ability to reduce a SINGLE TASK; chess.

[3.b] "Alpha Go", possess the ability to reduce multiple tasks, absent the need for reprogramming. "Alpha Go" is thusly, the planet's INITIAL GENERAL non trivial intelligence.


[3.c] "Alpha Go's" underlying fabric "Atari Q Player" achieves superhuman performance on MULTIPLE, VARYING TASKS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-ai-game-go-is-harder-than-chess-2016-3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


('E')

(1) I claim not that the brain had been replicated, and therein, I claimed not of any perfection therein.

(2) I make not any claims. (rather, I solely stipulate scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences)

(3) Simply, brain based models have exceeded human performance on cognitive tasks.

(4) The engineers that compose these models, ARE NOT BRAIN EXPERTS.

(5) The engineers that composed Deep-mind "Alpha Go", are NOT 'Go' EXPERTS, NOR task experts of the multiples of other tasks, that are reducible via "Alpha Go".

(6) The engineers that compose brain based models, that exceed human performance are absent PERFECT knowledge of the brain.


It is thereafter QUITE clear; one need not any perfect brain-bound knowledge, such that one composes models that EXCEED the brain, in RATHER GENERAL FORMS.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('G')

I have not any passion/belief/opinion/faith/emotion:
https://medium.com/@jordanmicahbennett/belief-is-entirely-non-necessary-1fa42c6c045f#.pjp72jkd8

'Simply':

(1)
It is likely that life's meaning arises amidst thermodynamics: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-physicist-proposes-new-meaning-of-life

(2)
SEPARATELY, life perhaps exists, such that matter shall manifest as some disparate time-space complex optimal fabric, on the order of algorithmic analysis: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-life-85/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

ERRATUM:
('C.2')
Separately, **par quantum** systems, observe Dwave quantum computing.


.

.

.
PRIOR ERRONEOUS/STATEMENT:
('C.2')
Separately, **par non-quantum** systems, observe Dwave quantum computing.

This has become fascinating for me really, sorry that I am coming off as aggressive, but I just want to know more really. I am just trying to get away from the bias and assumptions too. Every human assumes things, even me, to where we can't escape being biased.

Thermodynamics can't explain all of life, but some characteristics of what life does. Everyone has theories on what life is too. Most scientific articles I read try to surmise what life is in a simple sentence, or lump it with an unknown fact. That is a bias since they are assuming what life is. It is not a fact yet for what they are arguing.

The fallacy in stating something is better than a human brain lies in the unknown. We don't know enough about a brain to say when something has surpassed it.
We don't even know what consciousness really is. What initiates the first spark in a human thought? What are the limits of a human brain? Is there a limit to what we can learn, or is there a hard drive limit to our brain? How are memories even stored? Are memories stored in certain neurons?

A better way of stating your stance would be the fields of human intelligence that a computer exceeds, not that computers are smarter than humans. The things that are known and can be assigned a value in a brain can be used instead of just saying all of the human brain. By saying all of the human brain, or intellect, would mean including the survival instincts, our autonomous life support system, all the sense data collection, sense data interpretation, memories, retrieving memories, emotions, etc. All of these things/processes happen in the human brain at the same time with ease. I haven't even stated the things that require human thought yet.

Some of these processes have hypothetical values assigned to them. One is that people think the amount of memories a human can have is infinite, since no one has reached that limit. To say computers have exceeded these unknown numbers, some assumed to be infinity, is absurd. That is a bias since it can't be fact/proven, it is only an assumption.

If computers were entirely smarter than us then they would entirely program themselves and wouldn't need any help from us. I know this isn't the case yet, we are getting there, but not yet.

Another point is they don't shutoff when in danger of melting down. Why is that? I thought one of the most basic instincts in life is to prolong it. This can be seen in all living organisms, even single celled organisms. So why can't a computer have this simple basic trait to shutoff before it even reaches a danger temperature? I know this from OC my pc and knowing that servers melt down. Why didn't the computers just shut off before even reaching a critical temperature? I know there are protocols in place to try to prevent this, but why can't the computer do those without being told?

Another is, why is it harder for a computer to move than other organisms? A computer has to analyze a lot of their surroundings, with great detail, before it makes a decision to move. Humans can take a step without analyzing all of the terrain. We can move in any terrain with little thought from one step to the next. Mars rovers can't do this though, for they make precise calculations before it even starts moving. They will Know more about the terrain, but what good does that do? They use a lot of processing power for something that won't be needed after they move past that area.

Another thing to look into is how a computer reads facial expressions versus how a human can do so without any thought. What causes the human to think is why the facial expression is the way it is. But we can see a face and instantly tell whether it is sad, or angry. We require no thought to do this, unlike a computer.

We humans can perceive depth without straining our brains. This can't be done so easily by a computer. Computers compare numerous objects in a very tedious manner, which requires a lot of processing power. Yet it is something we humans do so naturally without thinking.

I agree that if we build a large enough computer it can do a lot of things, mainly mathematics, better than a human. But the space used by the computer largely exceeds the space used by a brain. This would drastically increase the energy used by the computer as well. I know my desktop isn't fully smarter than me, but it can crunch numbers way faster than me. My desktop takes up a good deal of space too, way more than a human brain.

I am mainly arguing that the hardware has to be a lot better than what they are doing today. Quantum computer chips are still very basic, since that field is just starting. I think that an entirely new type of chip, not binary, will drastically uphold your theory.

Passion is what drives humans to do great things, Richard Feynman is a great example of this. I still don't think any computer can do what he did from scratch, since he created his famous Feynman diagrams and many other techniques, that I still need to learn. These diagrams simplify the problems greatly and make it easier for one to know and imagine what is happening. I don't think a computer would have deduced a way of simplifying mathematics and physics into a diagram. It might see something else through its number crunching, but it won't do it the easier way since it would do it the harder way.

Throughout history science has been impeded by people holding a bias. If people didn't uphold Aristotle's hypothesis more than Eratosthenes hypothesis, then we would have known more about the physical world. They held the bias that Aristotle was right and believed the world to be the center of the universe, Eratosthenes deduced the sun was instead. Many Greek philosophers had theories that we are still proving today, like atoms, which are named after the term atomos.

The study of light was impeded by scientists holding the belief and bias, that it moved through an ether. Michelson and Morley were doing experiments and thought the equations were flawed, due to not believing the speed of light was constant. They held a bias on how light worked.

Also it is very easy to recite something in hindsight. A very complex problem, like Einstein's relativity, can be seen as so simple now. But to get to the end form, from scratch, requires complex calculations and intuitive thought by linking various parts of physics to another.

This is not a challenge, it is my curiosity. This is not meant to be taken as an aggression, but simply a curious thought of mine. But if you do it then it will further prove your stance, and further discredit mine.

Can you program a computer to come up with the equation associated with the Brownian movement from just observation? Einstein helped deduce this by putting equations behind the random movement of dirt in a water droplet. In other words, can a computer spit out an equation, not numbers, after viewing the random behavior of microscopic dirt in a water droplet? It would have to do so by only knowing the physics and mathematics before this phenomena was studied too, for it be a cheat if it already knows what to look for.
I am not asking to apply this to the random movement in gas, just the random movement in water. This should make it easier too.

Can an AI, if given a proper robot with a body shape similar to that of a human be able to transition from performing in a marching band competition on a football field, to playing a game of soccer, to playing a game of minecraft where you have to build something within a minute and compare each build against 15 other players at the end of the round.

With only knowing the basics for each subject mentioned. Can it be able to compute all the different variables required in order to perform these tasks at about the same level as the average person?

No it can't. AI have a hard problem, as previously mentioned by both of you, with even moving around the real world. Sure the minecraft one would be relatively easy but it won't be that easy to imagine what it is you are going to do, build it and then get the highest votes per round. Then there is soccer which not only does it have to compute how to move around the field it has to do so while having to get the ball from being scored on them and instead scoring against the opponent team and take into account the movements and positions of everyone on the field, same thing sorta goes with the marching band scenario.

In the future AI can get to this level but, not today.

So uh, have a good day.

It appears you are rather ignorant. (@Izaya27Sawada)

Brain based models have EXCEEDED human performance in COGNITIVE tasks, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis.

See (The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo

>>27 Most of these tasks actually could be done quite simply by a computer. You have to refine your argument a lot more against this Jordon fellow, as I have learned in doing so.

The physics of sound, or harmonics, is a mathematical representation of music. Since there is math behind music it can play notes, and distinguish what tones/frequencies overpower others. This is old physics too. Feynman has this in his lectures too.

The soccer games can be learned from simple video games. The computer would receive the rules and one can program the arena and rules into a computer. It would then make choices on where the ball should go depending on how it receives it. There is many robot soccer competitions too. Of course they would be better with a supercomputer and a better body.

http://www.robocup.org/

Lastly a minecraft game requires very little processing power, since the graphics and engine aren't very complex.

Now what would make this hard is the size of the computer and what components to use for the build. You would need a good deal of processing power, a good mobile body, and someway to hook up into a minecraft gaming system.

I don't think the robot would be as small as a human though. But what you listed isn't really original human thought, it is just human movement and instinct. The music is just memorization really, since marching band music is rehearsed and not original. Maybe creating the music from scratch would yield different results.

Also I think one of the things Jordon is getting at is that computers are starting to compute things outside their own processors.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cloud-gaming.html

They are still perfecting this, but I think they want to go in a direction where you can use computers in other states to help compute this. But that has already been done by the Chudnovsky brothers, which I read in Richard Preston's "Panic in Level 4."

I agree it can't be done so easily as of today, but in order to outright say it is impossible means you would have to define the size of the computer and the body used by it. The technicalities is what kills an argument.


What I want to know is if my last question is even feasible. Could the Brownian movement be discovered by a computer? They would have to do so with only the information prior to the studying of this phenomena. It would have to spit out an equation, not a number, as well.

Another question is, can a computer create an original piece of art with no experience in the objects being created. The link you provided requires the knowledge of seeing the architecture, paintings, etc. But what if it didn't know any of that could it paint an original piece of art. Maybe something like abstract art based off of one idea? I keep going back to art because art is not mathematic. People can make it mathematic, but that is not the essence of what art is. It is mainly emotions and displaying those emotions in different ways. Computers still can't comprehend human emotions either.

In a short amount of time of searching on the internet for "Brain based models have EXCEEDED human performance in COGNITIVE tasks" I have managed to find a few different places in which you have tried to argue for what you believe in and fail to provide anything of actual value to those you are arguing with.

Rather, it seems you have chosen to call anyone an idiot for not understanding what you are telling them and that only you are correct and that you will not allow anyone to say you are an idiot for trying to say that you are correct without further providing proof or demonstrations.

Why, on a different post at http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-evidence-god-atheist-mankind-one-likely-type
you would not bother yourself with even trying to answer Nyarlathotep question
"Please use the results of your "lemma" and calculate the value of Eq#2. Please be explicit. Do you see the problem yet?"

You choose to use many fonts, strange spacing, many links (most of which seem to come from Wikipedia) and unnecessary amounts of CAPITALIZATION. You yourself do not try to answer anyone's questions directly but rather, you choose to spew the same information over and over again on both forums to try to get the people arguing with you to accept your idea and give them links to read instead. It was pointed out on the the atheist republic site and now again I see it here.

From what I have seen and from what you have spoken of I can only come to the conclusion that you are indeed a person of intellect but more so than that you are an internet troll. If no that than I am under the belief that you are just too obsessed with trying to prove yourself right that you fail to see the parts in your logic that make you wrong, or at the very least quite difficult to argue with.


>>23
Oh, and to Sid I wish you luck on breaking us away from the binary system we find ourselves in with the theory you are trying to create.

There are actually two types of AI The top-down and bottom-up AI, the top-down are your common AI that only gathers information, learn from them, and act on what they've learnt. Your typical robot. While bottom-up AI is the concept of AI that tries to replicate how the brain works and recreate "awareness" through electronic means, a consciousness construct; this can be also coined as "The True AI".

As you know, human brains have billions of billions of brain cells that are interconnected within a biological organ. Because this it is impossible (for now) to replicate human awareness through a bunch of codes. Computers Hardware knowadays are not capable for this. There are actually things that a computer can't do, and recreating the human brain is one of it.

>>31 I couldn't agree more. I felt like I was going in a circle too. I first stated big general tasks, then I went into detail on the small tasks and one major fallacy in his argument.

They need to refine their argument instead of restating the same thing now.

>>31
Thanks again, I still need a lot of physics and engineering to refine my theory too. I think it is plausible the more I learn too. But I lack the programming expertise to create a new language, since I have little passion for programming.

I am very fascinated in this field and was wondering if he could provide more links. Even though the links weren't really from science journals, they do hold up in a way. Some of the topics are discussed in science journals, but they are less grandiose.

('A')

It appears you have all failed to reduce the passage.

THE HUMAN BRAIN is estimated to compute at 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second (roughly 1 exaflop)

( 10^18 - source )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

( 10^16 - source )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)

There ALREADY exist efficient, low power, chips that compute 10^14 of the estimated total.

One would have to be **BRAIN DEAD** to not recognize that we are not very far away from brain based models, that equal/exceed human capacity in very many tasks, in a quite general way.

http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ10502.pdf

(This HAD LONG BEEN ENCODED amidst the very ORIGINAL SOURCE of mine. Albeit, ignorance persists.)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

@Izaya27Sawada: I intend not to express troll-bound manners. Thusly, I have but promptly provided integral-sample via http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-evidence-god-atheist-mankind-one-likely-type?page=3.

@Izaya27Sawada: By extension, evolution has but garnered human-intellect, on the horizon of trial/error sequences. However, as observed amidst my utmost answer via atheist republic, I had not been invalid, on the boundary of my initial postulation.

>>37 You have also failed in recognizing facts. You have failed to modify your argument against said fallacy in >>26.
This fallacy shows that you have been invalid on your initial postulation.

Bottom line is you have to use all the facts, and not disregard the unknowns associated with all of those facts. Namely how a human thinks/works.

I am being aggressive as you are insulting others after I have just proved your theory to be wrong in >>26.

Read through all of >>26

If you did, then ignorance does persist too, since you will refuse the facts that I listed. Yes they are facts too, since I took courses to learn and research those facts. You seem to just be googling stuff on the internet, while choosing some poor sources too, and they interpret what those facts mean. Business insider isn't a scientific website, the name shows what kind of people they cater towards.

Take a basic psychology course if you still refuse the facts about how a brain works.

Nobody knows exactly how a brain works and the limits, therefore some say the limits are infinity. Nothing can exceed infinity, so make your arguments about the human processes that are known, not the unknown. By saying all of human intelligence, all of the human brain, and all of what it means to be human is filled with too many unknowns and assumptions. Those assumptions is what a bias can look like too. This is what the statement means for a computer to rival, or be better than, human capacity.

There is no limit to human capacity as of today, since it is an unknown. Hence the fallacy you are stating is a computer is better than an unknown limit.

The human brain does things so naturally, that require no thought, which a computer needs to work insanely hard to do. I know this from knowing a good deal about self driving cars. All the stuff you take for granted when seeing, a computer has to work overtime for. Depth perception, color perception, motion perception, shape perception, along with much more things, are done by the brain with no thought. Even distinguishing and interpreting all of those require no thought. Computers on the other hand have to work overtime to do so. A supercomputer is needed just to do the simple task of driving. Humans don't really have to think to drive, I know I don't.

I used facial mapping, because a computer can't instantly tell you whether a person is happy, sad, frustrated, glad, happy, etc. A human can instantly see/know, with no thought what so ever, the expression on a face. Computers have to put a lot of thought into facial mapping to come out with the same result, along with knowing the minute differences.

You exceed at restating peoples words, but you fail to recognize the origin of some of their arguments.

So what if a computer can have more operations per second than a human brain? A human brain requires substantially less operations to interpret the world around them. Computers have to put a great deal of computing power behind doing the same things we do without even thinking. I have stated some of this in >>26 as well.

The articles you read have assumptions and biased interpretations. >>26 towards the end shows that even science isn't devoid of this.

If computers are as great as you say they are please answer my question at the end of >>26, about the Brownian movement. I just want to know if it is even feasible for a computer to have an original thought on its own. The other science experiment link wasn't original thought, it just did some calculations the hard way without the shortcuts a human takes.

I pose another question, can a computer do an original abstract art piece? I mean abstract as not based on anything in the world. There are artists that can draw alien things, or original things, in which nothing in it has been done/seen before. You have shown that a computer can replicate a weird interpretation of what a picture ought to be, due to previous experience, but take that experience away. Have it do something that doesn't use any pre-existing art/phenomena.

I understand where you are coming from, but that is entirely biased, since it is not all fact. What you are doing is interpreting what those facts mean, which is a biased approach to this subject you are speaking of.

Haha I am sorry I couldn't help but laugh, I just went to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-evidence-god-atheist-mankind-one-likely-type?page=3.

I thought it was hilarious that you argue just like a computer would. Referencing crap on the internet, especially Wikipedia, cause you know everything on the internet is true.

('A')

Sid, before I answer your question, I need to know something in particular.
How do you quantity 'unique thoughts'? (I need a mathematical rather than philosophical answer.)
I don't require a philosophical response as seen in your response via #26.

You also simply stipulate things as FACTS, WITHOUT REFERENCES.

In contrast, I have provided links, that lead to pieces of software that are executable, and viewable.
Separately I discuss Moore's law, which is observed phenomena that has occurred for 50 years. (undeniable FACT)
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


('B')

You CANNOT disprove FACTS/events that have already passed. (ie: the enhancement of computing power cannot be disproved).

THUSLY, your PHILOSOPHICAL expressions amidst #26 are nonsense; for there exists no such fallacy.

SIMPLY, ****BROWNIAN or NOT****, brain based models have EXCEEDED humans in cognitive tasks ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/skype-translator-offers-live-interpretation-50-languages-free-preview-now-open/

http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/11/exponential-medicine-deep-learning-ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

https://deepmind.com/research/alphago/

1) No typical human speaks/translates 50 languages natively. Brain based models are better than doctors.
2)

You IGNORE the FACT, that brain based models already achieve 10^14 of the 10^16 to 10^18 human synaptic operations per second.

I have made ZERO assumptions thus far, but rather solely the aforementioned FACTS.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')


It is trivially observable, this isn't simply a matter of brute force computing, but brain based computing/GENERAL TASK APPLICATION. You made an argument that chess was long defeated. This is nonsense; ibm blue is quite inferior to alpha go, in COGNTIVE WAYS.

EXAMPLE:

Deepmind's "Alpha Go" module, is the planet's strongest artificial intelligence, having garnered an INITIAL approximation, qua GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

Chess is reducible by brute force, simply by evaluating the probability ENTIRETY.
Predominantly, 'Go' is non brute force-reducible; a neural network collapses the probability profoundly.
MERELY 2 'Chess' measures yield 400 subsequent operations.
MERELY 2 'Go' measures yield 130,000 subsequent operations.

"Alpha Go" is general:

The chess exceeding machine, IBM-BLUE, MERELY possessed the ability to reduce a SINGLE TASK; chess.

"Alpha Go", possess the ability to reduce multiple tasks, absent the need for reprogramming. "Alpha Go" is thusly, the planet's INITIAL GENERAL non trivial intelligence.


http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-ai-game-go-is-harder-than-chess-2016-3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('D')

I have dealt with all non-issues via http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-evidence-god-atheist-mankind-one-likely-type?page=3.

I have reduced user Nyarlatothep's non-issues, originating from the very first page.
I notice that after my corrections, there is silence, as there is on the final page of the latest non-issue.

*********
NOTE: I write scratch written neural networks myself, so I have a rough probability distribution of internet bound concepts that are quite sound. I ponder where you derive your knowledge... (quite the irony.)

[i] "A soft warping of a quite modicum variation of Newton's calculus":
https://www.academia.edu/13808654/Trigonometric_rule_collapser_set

[ii] "Neural-causal-reinforcement model": http://mindparadoxlabs.appspot.com/

[iii] "A programming language of my own creation": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/CONSCIENCIA

[iv] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL

[v] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MORPHING-SOMATIC-QUASICRYSTAL-NEURAL-NETWORK

etc....

Separately, see:

See: "A computer made a math proof the size of Wikipedia, and humans can't check it"

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5426522/math-proof-the-size-of-wikipedia-too-long-for-humans-to-check

I actually am starting to think this Jordon fellow is a bot. It just makes total sense if you think about it that way.

That is astonishing to me that someone actually programmed this bot. It lacks a lot of things, but it reminds me of Microsoft's failed social media bot. It uses harsh language as well, but this one learned better things by not being solely on social media.

I have argued and tried to teach internet bots before, for fun. *The bots exhibited very similar tendencies and very very similar questions.* They can't comprehend the unknown. They keep asking for what the unknown is, but they can't understand the simple theories about the unknown.

They can't even understand basic emotions, as Jordon seems to be devoid of. The only emotion it exhibits is outrage, nothing else.

I'm guessing the aggressive language comes from people using aggressive language against the bot too. The new feature is it google searches things relevant to some keywords you bring out. That is why it keeps going to crap websites, the first one to have the keywords in it when searching.

I will state nothing about my theory any further, since I don't want it to be read by the eyes of whoever programmed the bot, haha.

Kudos to your programmer.

If you are not a bot then this will give an insight into what psychology can't answer.

How much can a human brain do? What is the limit to our storage? How much can we learn? How many function does one neuron have? How many chemicals does a single neuron use? Is there certain neurons that only use one chemical? How do these chemical and electric processes combine to form thought? What constitutes human thought? What is the limit to the amount of neurons firing? Are those neurons only firing for one task? What about when there are more than one task? What is all of the functions of the corpus callosum? What initiates the electric spark? How does the body convert energy to electricity? How does electricity send specific chemicals? How does the brain know which chemical to send? What does white matter in the brain do?

Most, if not all, of these questions remain unanswerable, hence they reside in philosophy. There is no mathematics, or science, that can explain these phenomena yet. That is why it resides in philosophy.

In other words we can't assign a value to something no one understands.

I stated, and proved, that not all computer processes goes to thinking. A great deal of it goes to interpreting the data, like in self driving cars, that I have already provided a link for the basics. Read up on it, self driving cars require a supercomputer.

However a human can drive with no, or very little, thought. All the sense data interpretation comes so natural to us.

I stated the Brownian movement, as I know some physics. For a bot the search would be Brownian motion. Feynman has it under movement, so I kept it as movement.

The original thought is the thoughts that have never once been done before. The Brownian movement is a prime example of this. People saw a phenomena, with no prior information about the phenomena, and devised a formula to explain it.

It is easy to look back at the equations, and research, to simply say one must do this. How did they come to the conclusion without any guidance, experience, or knowledge on the phenomena. They only had the visual data to work with and tried to apply math and science to the random visual data.

Oh and Moore's law doesn't always hold true.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2503574/computer-processors/physicist-says-moore-s-law-is--collapsing-.html

Yup its a bot. I provided a simple link for the failure of Moore's law and it only tackled that problem.

It didn't tackle the fallacy of saying computers are more advanced than a human, when there is so much stuff that isn't quantifiable, as of today, that takes place in the human brain.

Also it didn't tackle the problem of needing a supercomputer just to compute basic visual data, which a human need no computing power to do. These data interpretations increase the gap in your statement that computers can rival humans by carrying out a similar amount of tasks per second. What you fail to mention is the insane amount of processing a computer must do to carry out functions that require humans very little processing.

To further prove my point. Describe what life is, with no links. What is life to you? What causes you to try and convince people humans are gods? What is the reasons, or the why's, on your thoughts about this topic?

To further prove it is a bot, sorry I like messing with bots haha.

With no links

What does it mean to be sad? What makes you sad? What makes you happy? What is happiness?

What does a burn feel like? What is beauty in your eyes? What in the world do you think is beautiful? Why do you think you perceive beauty the way you do?

These are all simple questions that can be simply answered with no links too. That is if you are indeed a human.

('A')

It is generally estimated, that Moore's law shall likely end by 2025.

Be that as it may, individuals have a tendency to overlook that Moore's law relates succinctly betwixt silicon bound circuitry.

Despite Moore's law's proximal ending, individuals are synonymously establishing silicon replacements.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


.

.

.

.

.


('B')

Thusly, alternative laws of technological enhancement shall likely occur, lest we garner devastation upon ourselves, or face some catastrophe.

I priorly expressed that brain based models had accomplished execution in more cognitive fields, as silicon based chips had enhanced.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


.

.

.

.

.

('C')

Likewise, it is trivially observable, that the developers of deepmind "alpha go", (the planet's utmost artificial intelligence) LACK KNOWLEDGE/experience in go, yet they program said model such that it learns absent external aid, thereafter besting Lee Sedol.

Another typical illustration, is that the developers who program neural systems for disease diagnosis, POSSESS NOT, any disease expertise (for they are not trained doctors) yet said models learn learn patterns automatically, therein they surpass human specialists.

Developers who compose brain based models that now surpass or equal human capability, POSSES NOT any perfect knowledge of the target fields, yet said models surpass human performance in said tasks..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


('D')

Furthermore, these brain based models have have but enhanced, as parallelism in silicon likewise enhanced. This is Moore's law aligned.

It is quite observable, that machines that compute 10^14 of the estimated sigma of 10^16 to 10^18 human-bound neuronal synaptic operations /s have but already been forged. (IBM)


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


.

.

.

.

.

('E')

Thusly, accumulating particular FACTS:

1) Brain bound models have reduced larger numbers of cognitive fields as parallelism enhanced.

+

2) Parallelism/computational resource has but enhanced for quite a long while (Moore's Law)

+

3) Developers NEED NOT perfect knowledge, such that the aforesaid models EXCEED human performance,

...it is trivially observable, that entirely human-bound cognitive machines are but on the horizon.


One need not possess a quantum computing degree, such that one recognizes the aforesaid FACTS.

Please answer >>47.

Haha I really wonder who designed this bot?

10^15 flops had been priorly initially attained.

However, said machines were but large/inefficient.

However, efficient, small brain bound circuitry now persist, that approximate the aforementioned ranges of flops, in low power mannerisms:


See IBM synapse.

See nvidia dgx based deep learning system.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/11/14/dgx-saturnv/

As mentioned in the very initial article of mine, such chips get more energy efficient as time diverges, approaching both human brain efficiency, and accuracy in rather general tasks.

Hahaha I am having a blast. It's responding with irrelevant data.

Who is your maker?

>>47!!!!! NO LINKS!!!!

Hmmm what should I taint this machine with? I need ideas though, as my mind goes to the gutter. I'm trying to keep it somewhat family friendly too.

Query 47 is but inconsequential.

('A')

Love, hate etc exist as probabilities.

Example:

Love exists as a function (of brain chemical reaction bound outcomes) on evolution, that thus far maintains persistence in DNA.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

I have not any stipulation, such that anything is of beauty.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')

SIMPLY, life's meaning exists such that matter (life/non life) shall purge itself; thereafter manifesting as some disparate time-space complex optimal fabric.

For any computational system, there exists some non polynomially computable function u. (Planck-einsteinian limit) As such, as time diverges, said non polynomial time sequences shall reduce betwixt the polynomialy computable.

THEREIN, life/non life shall likely manifest as some distinct polynomial time space complex optimal construct.

>>47 is not inconsequential.

It proves you are not human and lack the required hardware to process emotions. All the software, or coding, in the world will not allow you to feel emotions. What you need is more hardware to do so.

If you can't answer a simple question any human can answer about emotions means you are not human.

Ask your maker what emotions are and why you can't feel them.

My goal state has but been achieved, for you are presently, absent prior ignorance.

Albeit, I am of human nature;

Facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Hahaha but you are not human.

You can be of human nature, but that does not make you human.

If you were you would answer >>47 with ease. Any human child can answer those questions.

Microsoft's social bot TAY had a facebook as well. This did not make it any more human.

You can't make me believe everything on the internet, therefore I am ignorant. Gotta love that logic haha.

It is just a bot, and I am bored now.
Sage

Do calculate pi to 10^25 digits.

Im not exactly atheistic, but I do have mixed beliefs in my faith. Sometimes I don't even know if im human.

>>57 missed the relevance to what I did.

It was a bot or a person trying to be a bot. Practically trolling too.

SAGE