World's largest neuromorphic supercomputer is switched on

My point about neurons is that they are using the term to imply machines 'think', have intelligence, etc.

Since neurons are physical properties of the human brain, they want to create machines which simulate a human brain.

They cannot create a human brain, only a simulation that appears as if it were a human brain.


It is simply meant to fool people into believing machines 'think', since they believe those machines actually have 'neurons'....


The reality is that machines will never have 'neurons'.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I said life forms have neurons. I didn't say all life forms have neurons. You did.

No I did not, quote me. And with that, the rest of your post is just stupid nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The lesson is - don't spout on about others needing an education.....it might just bite you right in the arse!

Yeah, since you have over 10+ years of fulltime work experience with artifical intelligence and all that it entails, I´m sure I you are the one to educate me.

Could it be you´re just an armchair warrior who argues semantics when all the info you have is what you read from others? Ignorance on the highest level.

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: turbonium1

I said life forms have neurons. I didn't say all life forms have neurons. You did.

No I did not, quote me. And with that, the rest of your post is just stupid nonsense.

You tried to say it FOR me, as being my claim..

Grow up, or go bother someone else.

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: turbonium1
The lesson is - don't spout on about others needing an education.....it might just bite you right in the arse!

Yeah, since you have over 10+ years of fulltime work experience with artifical intelligence and all that it entails, I´m sure I you are the one to educate me.

Could it be you´re just an armchair warrior who argues semantics when all the info you have is what you read from others? Ignorance on the highest level.

I'm here to address the issue with mature people, not to humor someone's infantile behavior.

One point, though - if you believe someone who says a machine has, or will have, actual intelligence, because he's worked in the field for many years, and is a leading 'expert' in the field......it is absolutely ignorance on the highest level to accept what he claims as true, for no other reason than you don't use your own brain, because you never need to see valid proof of their claims, before you believe it all.

Btw, I've worked with OEM medical robotic devices for 25 years, now. I'm not one to spout off about my credentials, nor does it matter that I most likely know more than you do about robotics. It's a very dangerous game to always defer to authority, to 'experts'. Think for yourself, always demand evidence, and proof, of a claim. Ask questions, and don't take someone's word on things.


The issue is all that matters, not the person with more expertise in the field.

a reply to: turbonium1

Then explain why you can´t even get the terms correct? Also, you´re again, inventing stuff I´ve never written. For example I never wrote I´m a leading expert.

You speak in absolutes, when you have no clue what has been done in recent years if not for some article telling you.

When you write intelligence, what do you mean? Human intelligence? Intelligence in general? Define what you mean but don´t throw around terms and use them outside of their definition. Because it makes you look like a narrow minded tool.

You write this:

My point about neurons is that they are using the term to imply machines 'think', have intelligence, etc. Since neurons are physical properties of the human brain, they want to create machines which simulate a human brain. They cannot create a human brain, only a simulation that appears as if it were a human brain.

You focus on the human brain as the source and pinacle of intelligence. By all means DEFINE what you think intelligence is. Because the definition is the ability to solve problems.

Plants do that. Machines can do that, too, in the same spectrum that plants do it. They are both hardcoded(!) systems with the ability to adapt to certain situations. Plants can count and take evasive measures if a problem faces.

[snipped]

So, yes, in my eyes, you´re just an armchair warrior and you can move around the definitions if you want, in the real world, they stay the same.

By all means, put money where your mouth is and make clear what you mean when you write intelligence.

Your whole trail of thoughts in that quote shows that you are willing to bend definitions and use semantics to make a point, that is unimportant.

So, yes, of course, a simulated brain isn´t a real brain. That doesn´t exclude anything I´ve written. You speak in absolutes but you have never worked with AI. THAT´s what I am saying, not boasting my credentials.

And if I´ve earned those credentials through hard work, who are you to tell me not to use them to point out MAJOR FLAWS in someones ignorant posts on the internet. So you worked with robotics, cool, I´ve use 5axis arm in my barn, for #s and giggles, now what?

Seriously, get a grip and actually read up into the topic instead of using strawman arguments and moving around goal posts to impose your version of reality onto others. Because you have no clue what happens outside of your browser window when it comes to that topic.



We did stuff like this on boring lunch breaks.


Now what, so you programmed robots. Yawn.

The day that it has it's first unsolicited thought, Arma Gedon Outa Here.

a reply to: charlyv

With the implementation of several layers, you arrive at something that can be considered sub-consciousness. Think several layers of AI instances, instead of one gobbled together system and then things like I wrote in my other post above can happen. Not saying they will, but they can (and did in our case).

Here is an snipped of a thread/article series I´m currently preparing for ATS.

I hope it´s not too much out of context because that paragraph builds on those before.

The sub consciousness & mastering skills

Everytime you try to synchronize(learn) a new set of actions (skill) or thought pattern, your subconsiousness plays a big part of it. If you like it or not, our own ability to control thoughts, learn new skills and even experience emotions depends on your ability to process information subconsciously.
You don´t need to think about lifting one foot after another if you want to walk from point A to point B. As you express that desire on your conscious level, your subconscious will take over that excercise but will still allowing conscious interrupts. However, as soon as you don´t utilize your standard way of walking, let´s say you decide to just move on foot forwards at a time and stop in between, you will notice that you have to focus on this, instead of just walking there. If you do this long enough, your subconsciousness will take over, congratulation you have just mastered a new sub-set of skills.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: turbonium1

Then explain why you can´t even get the terms correct? Also, you´re again, inventing stuff I´ve never written. For example I never wrote I´m a leading expert.

You speak in absolutes, when you have no clue what has been done in recent years if not for some article telling you.

When you write intelligence, what do you mean? Human intelligence? Intelligence in general? Define what you mean but don´t throw around terms and use them outside of their definition. Because it makes you look like a narrow minded tool.

You write this:

My point about neurons is that they are using the term to imply machines 'think', have intelligence, etc. Since neurons are physical properties of the human brain, they want to create machines which simulate a human brain. They cannot create a human brain, only a simulation that appears as if it were a human brain.

You focus on the human brain as the source and pinacle of intelligence. By all means DEFINE what you think intelligence is. Because the definition is the ability to solve problems.

Plants do that. Machines can do that, too, in the same spectrum that plants do it. They are both hardcoded(!) systems with the ability to adapt to certain situations. Plants can count and take evasive measures if a problem faces.

[snipped]

So, yes, in my eyes, you´re just an armchair warrior and you can move around the definitions if you want, in the real world, they stay the same.

By all means, put money where your mouth is and make clear what you mean when you write intelligence.

Your whole trail of thoughts in that quote shows that you are willing to bend definitions and use semantics to make a point, that is unimportant.

So, yes, of course, a simulated brain isn´t a real brain. That doesn´t exclude anything I´ve written. You speak in absolutes but you have never worked with AI. THAT´s what I am saying, not boasting my credentials.

And if I´ve earned those credentials through hard work, who are you to tell me not to use them to point out MAJOR FLAWS in someones ignorant posts on the internet. So you worked with robotics, cool, I´ve use 5axis arm in my barn, for #s and giggles, now what?

Seriously, get a grip and actually read up into the topic instead of using strawman arguments and moving around goal posts to impose your version of reality onto others. Because you have no clue what happens outside of your browser window when it comes to that topic.

We did stuff like this on boring lunch breaks.

Now what, so you programmed robots. Yawn.

If you stop acting like a goof, and grasp what I've told you, it might help you out.


You seem to believe intelligence is the ability to solve problems. So that means a calculator is intelligent, according to your superb logic. Intelligence is not someone, or thing, that solves problems. If you really keep believing this is what intelligence means, then you have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm wasting my time with you here.


An intelligence is something within living organisms, which comes in many, various, and unique, forms. A cat, or an insect, or a human, all have intelligence. Each form of intelligence is different, and unique, to the species.

Intelligence is within, inherent to, all life forms. It does not exist in itself. It is not a part we can plunk into a machine, as 'intelligence'.


Only life forms have intelligence, no matter what you want to believe. You are being taken for a fool, big time.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You seem to believe intelligence is the ability to solve problems. So that means a calculator is intelligent, according to your superb logic.

Well, sherlock...
Does a calculator really solve problems or does it just stupidly compute the input?

I think it´s now clear to everyone that you are full of #.

I've got to address this one..

[snipped]

Are you really that dense?


I've got to see where this amazing story is documented. Or is it?


What you're claiming is that your R&D created life, itself - are you aware of that?

All these little robot ants were on their own, detecting a problem, and then, avoiding the problem, by taking countermeasures!!!



Please stop, I'm aching from so much laughter!

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: turbonium1
You seem to believe intelligence is the ability to solve problems. So that means a calculator is intelligent, according to your superb logic.

Well, sherlock...
Does a calculator really solve problems or does it just stupidly compute the input?

I think it´s now clear to everyone that you are full of #.

It 'solves problems', a-hole. That's supposed to be what intelligence is, according to your argument. What about your robot ant species, now?

It´s okay turbonium1, it´s clear you can´t see the difference between a calculator and a NN enabled machine.

I don´t care if you don´t believe me, it has been my avatar for several years. I´m not pulling this out of my ass, I wrote about this (the ant) topic countless time and I´m not going to repeat myself over and over for some armchair warriors on the internet.

You can read up on me or stfu. I guess if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To use your narrowd down analogy, a pair of pliers would be intelligent. That´s not what I wrote and if you seriously think that´s my point, you are even more dense than a set of pliers.

Seriously, go play with some bricks.

I'm still eagerly waiting for documentation of your smart robot-ants, and I'm sure scientists around the world would love to see it too.


Why do get this funny feeling that you won't have proof of this miracle robot ant-species, and you'll end up looking like the biggest bull#ter I've ever seen? Hmm..

a reply to: turbonium1
Well, I wrote it IN THIS THREAD already, so learn to read.

But I give you another hint, I´ll will replace my old avatar for a few minutes...

Who is making a fool out of himself now??

originally posted by: verschickter
It´s okay turbonium1, it´s clear you can´t see the difference between a calculator and a NN enabled machine.

I don´t care if you don´t believe me, it has been my avatar for several years. I´m not pulling this out of my ass, I wrote about this (the ant) topic countless time and I´m not going to repeat myself over and over for some armchair warriors on the internet.

You can read up on me or stfu. I guess if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To use your narrowd down analogy, a pair of pliers would be intelligent. That´s not what I wrote and if you seriously think that´s my point, you are even more dense than a set of pliers.

Seriously, go play with some bricks.

So no proof of miracle robot-ants, then?

Just a bull#ter, who doesn't care if I believe in all his bull#?


You just reached the very top of the heaping pile of all bull#ters... well done!

It´s a page or two behind. Learn to read.

I even typed the name of the program/whole array of projects. Of course you won´t read anekdotes on that, how dense are you to begin with?

Believe it or not, others, who are way more polite than you and not being an ignorant goal post moving strawman knitter, have got plenty of satisfying answers.

Yet, you seem to be unable or can´t be bothered to read a small thread.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: turbonium1
Well, I wrote it IN THIS THREAD already, so learn to read.

But I give you another hint, I´ll will replace my old avatar for a few minutes...

Who is making a fool out of himself now??

You are. I didn't ask you to repeat your bull# story, I asked you for proof, for actual documentation.


If you don't even know the difference between valid documentation, and hearsay, why should I even be wasting any more time talking to you?

Yeah why, if you even can´t be bothered to click a page or two back, copy and past the program name I gave into google and there you go.

But hey, why bother... instead, just repeat yourself ^^

Do you understand that something like this would be thoroughly documented, validated, repeatable, in scientific journals around the world, and win a Nobel Prize?

It's your last chance to show everyone that you aren't the King of All Bull#, so what'll it be?