(February 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm)oanghelidi Wrote:(February 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: After reading that article, I fail to see how you made a functioning artificial brain.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that the article has nothing to do with the theory that I just said.
(February 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm)oanghelidi Wrote:OH, I hate to disappoint....Quote:How did you make the leap from that to those idiocies that you wrote here?
Idiocies... Usually the religious people get upset... I highly doubt that you would understand the math...
(February 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm)oanghelidi Wrote:IF?!Quote:All that article says is that the artificial brain that IBM made (and didn't work) was completely wrong, based on wrong premisses and could never ever work.
That is correct. Most of the brain simulations fail because they do not capture the relevant information. Markram micro-cortical simulation, Modha-IBM simulation and countless others. But my point is that if you do implement the right theoretical models, consciousness is still missing.
And that is something that I can not get past.
IF?!
You just went from "I ran the world's largest brain simulation" to "if you do implement the right theoretical models".
Did I miss something here?
Or are you just talking non-sense? Thus making my qualification of your OP as "idiocy" somewhat better fitting than I originally thought!
