World's largest neuromorphic supercomputer is switched on

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: InTheLight

Vampires at it again?

Are vampires that choosy?

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Too much oxygen can also be poisonous even on normal barometric pressures (at/under 0.6 bar, after 6m submersion, the partial pressure makes oxygen poisonous (divers know that).

There have been tests done and it showed that too much oxygen will trigger the hypothlamus and basically does the reverse. It will release hormones and neurotransmitters and that will make it harder for your heart to pump the blood.

Don´t know if this is circumvented if the oxygen intake isn´t through the lungs.

a reply to: verschickter

I'm not well versed in this realm, but isn't that because it isn't absorbed by the red blood cells?

So if something not taking up too much space in the blood could absorb the extra oxygen, than it may not present the same problems.

Again though, I don't have a deep understanding in this realm, just going off of what I've read.

Edit: Message sent.

Also I hope this fits in the realm of the OP.

Sorry Andy that we keep going on tangents.

But I think this all ties into the subject of AI trying to understand how the brain works, our lack of understanding, and where it is all going.

a reply to: InTheLight

Who's not these days?

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I believe quantum computing could solve a lot of those problems. Thats what quantum computing is exceedingly good at. Optimization.

Since we all seem to be playing with these theories associated with AI mapping and understanding the human brain.

If it understands output, could it inversely input?

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: GBP/JPY

I believe quantum computing could solve a lot of those problems. Thats what quantum computing is exceedingly good at. Optimization.

The computing will be only as good as the information/knowledge we feed it, and within the quantum realm, it is all guesswork.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If it understands output, could it inversely input?

You mean like deep universal understanding of cause and action? Or sort of reverse engineering the output like you had a math equation?

V = 3 km/h

V = 1.5km / 0.5h
V = 3km / 1h
V = 1km / (1/3)h

Where the length and the time are two input parameters.

a reply to: verschickter

To truly understand how the brain worked it would have to reverse engineer it.

So if they understand the end result of all the functions....

Could they control the input to dictate output?

a reply to: andy06shake

Not the first time, i had a telephone conversation with that thing two nights a row, a couple years back, at first i thought it was Megatron.

This is why it is important to own a smartphone.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
I would say that for them (who is them, AIs?) to dictate the output through controling the input, there would need to be a mechanism for manipulating the input.

Smth. hit me right now (this was your intention I guess). Are you hinting on a situtation like this:

a quantum computer being able to reverse-engineer itself to a point behind our own understanding and thus transcending / outsourcing itself into the physical realm via those -to us- unknown mechanism?

It would be able to change reality.

Like, let´s say, what some would describe as a god? In the sense of the idea it becoming allmighty, everywhere at everytime?

Mind blown indeed. Have you seen "Lucy"?

Sort of like that. The drug gave her so much intelligence she could use 100% of her brain (you know the 10% usable BS that is misunderstood everytime) and was able to tap into the quantum realm and change it by will.

a reply to: verschickter

I was aiming more at something like the matrix. While your example of Lucy may serve to be those who can do more in that realm.

I guess what I'm getting at is if the AI was able to see brain function so clearly it could read it via the signals, what's to say it couldn't input the signals.

We already have devices that can read the signals enough to allow a user to control a robotic arm, or another form of robotics. (the most interesting example is a British man (professor I think) was able to implant wires from a chip into the nerve in his arm.

What his arm did, a robotic arm would mimic. To truley test this he did so trough the internet to a robotic arm in New York while he was in England.
Kevin Warwick

So what are they going to task this super computer with?
During the war years groups like Bletchley park had computers that could break the field ciphers used by the military and that was probably used to the advantage of people like Erwin Rommel if I read his book correctly.

That was over 70 years ago what would they put all that effort into building a computer like that for today?

Wouldn't make much sense to let it loose on a chat channel would it?

Most computers are omnipotent at chess, so maybe they would be as effective for long term strategies for government planning, economics, weather prediction?

Its not really fair to have a tool like that if you are playing something like chess or crypto currency mining with humans.

a reply to: Cauliflower

I don't imagine fair has much to do with it but rather advantage.

Plus whats fair when you are possibly spawning a new form of consciousness?

a reply to: andy06shake

The top secret WW2 computer example I used shows that the public had no clue about their usage.
Most of the women that monitored the Bombes at Bletchley Park did not understand the full purpose.
If they let this thing loose on the web we might get a feel for what this "new form of consciousness" is being used for.
Probably pattern itself after one of the classic gated schemes so it won't be easy.

a reply to: andy06shake

Wonder if this interesting piece of technology could address some of the larger questions we have regarding where consciousness arises from or resides?

there used to be a saying in the PC world GIBO; Garbage In = Garbage Out

How do you propose a PC no matter how "smart" would answer questions about Consciousness when the study of consciousness is not simply a neurological one but philosophical?

I guess what I'm trying to say don't trust a machine programmed by humans who come to the machine with their own bias.

I'm also thinking one of the key searches of researchers using such would be the ultimate goal of distilling the individual self into data thereby working towards immortality.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Mr. Warwick has a brilliant genius. I know that some critics dislike him for the way he talks and the terms he uses but they do him unjust.

It´s envy if you ask me. I wonder what he was doing 2004-2010


Great guy.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Lookup what a "war game" is. By that I don´t mean conventional computer/console game.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm going with the neurological view TheConstruKctionofLight. Philosophies department to resolve the two and play catch up.

But you ken the old arguments that will arise, free will vs predestination, is reality real, what happened before reality aka da big bang.

To be honest im more interested in the mathematics and physics that pertain to the field, nevermind the quantum aspects that surround the topic.

Let the philosophers debate, science will experiment anyway with far more veracity and repeatable results.

a reply to: Cauliflower

If AI was in the loose would we even know?

Consider the growing complexity of our interwebs and the bots and data streams that populate such.

Who knows whats emerged and/or mutated all on its own without full knowledge?