organic

Calm down, Marty. Since when has the CC section needed police for a serious discussion? Did ya wake up on the wrong side of the desk or something?


A huge factor in the difference between us and computers is our ability to think about something without desiring an answer. It's called contemplating. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What is? Questions like that have no definite answer, and a program with no conclusion is more commonly known as frozen. With humans, it's just another thought. I know I've been contemplating the meaning of existence for years now, and I'm not planning on finding an answer. that's not the reason I think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

Calm down, Marty. Since when has the CC section needed police for a serious discussion? Did ya wake up on the wrong side of the desk or something?....

---

Perhaps I'm being a curmudgeon but there are certain topics that get my goat and intelligent design is one of them, my God ;) the phrase is almost an oxymoron!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

A huge factor in the difference between us and computers is our ability to think about something without desiring an answer. It's called contemplating. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What is? Questions like that have no definite answer, and a program with no conclusion is more commonly known as frozen. With humans, it's just another thought. I know I've been contemplating the meaning of existence for years now, and I'm not planning on finding an answer. that's not the reason I think about it.

---

I would think contemplating about anything is desiring an answer...
You might not find it, but you wouldn't even think about something if you were not looking for an answer to something.

The meaning of life and why we are here certainly have answers, but the answers tend to be different based on the person who is asking them. The question of "what is?" is a little bit to vague for me to try to map to something.

However contemplating things over long periods of time as you mention draw similarities to computer programs as far as I am concerned. You say you don't plan on finding an answer, and that is not the reason you think about it. So what is the reason? Is it to expand your thinking capabilities? Is it because you just enjoy to think about those types of things? Whatever it may be, its more about the journey of comptemplation (aka the things you gain from your thinking about such things over that period of time, either until you stop thinking about it forever, or you die).

So apply that to a computer program. maybe this program is a mail server. It just sits there all day waiting for email to come in so it can have something to do and send emails in and out. Always listening, waiting to work. Where is the answer there? Does this program ever get to a point where it has sent enough emails that it is satisfied and can stop? (aka does it ever have an answer?) Or is it just going to contemplate if there is data coming into the port its monitoring until it stops thinking about it (computer is turned off), or it dies (hardware failure ;))

I have to agree with Martin on this....COMPLETELY!! I can't decide whether this is all pseudo-serious babbling, or if people really mean anything they are saying....or even if they understand any of what they are saying.

However, I will add this one point: A computer program that has a few simple conditionals, like people have discussed, has no real relationship to a mind. The two aren't even vaguely analogous concepts. The kind of program you would need to have to be able to make an analogy to the human brain, would be one that is highly complex, but not beyond our current capability. If...Then statements are not analogous to thought, they are analogous to individual neurons. To expect a few neurons to manifest all the features of a complete and functioning, human brain, is utter silliness. It's only when you get programs with multiple, interacting, feedback loops that you can approach the workings of a brain. At that level, you won't have the precision that people talk about. You will have mistakes, errors in judgement, etc.

If all you know are simple linear programs, don't go comparing that to a brain, that's nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

wasn't there lots of references regarding intelligent design and when where and why they are taught in educational establishments?

---

No, there weren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I have to agree with Martin on this....COMPLETELY!! I can't decide whether this is all pseudo-serious babbling, or if people really mean anything they are saying....or even if they understand any of what they are saying.

However, I will add this one point: A computer program that has a few simple conditionals, like people have discussed, has no real relationship to a mind. The two aren't even vaguely analogous concepts. The kind of program you would need to have to be able to make an analogy to the human brain, would be one that is highly complex, but not beyond our current capability. If...Then statements are not analogous to thought, they are analogous to individual neurons. To expect a few neurons to manifest all the features of a complete and functioning, human brain, is utter silliness. It's only when you get programs with multiple, interacting, feedback loops that you can approach the workings of a brain. At that level, you won't have the precision that people talk about. You will have mistakes, errors in judgement, etc.

If all you know are simple linear programs, don't go comparing that to a brain, that's nonsensical.

---

I'll slightly agree, and slightly disagree.

Comparing linear programs with the brain, of course that's silly. Then again, "learning c" might be someone who's only recently started programming and believes it to be a creation of divine inspiration. :afrog:

I was going to disagree about emulating human brain function with "with multiple, interacting, feedback loops" but then I realized that that was what I was going to say, so shuttup. :)

emulating the brain should be possible with a few lifetimes of hardcoding :D

no, but seriously,
the brain should (somehow) be logically explicable
shouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigB

no, but seriously,
the brain should (somehow) be logically explicable
shouldn't it?

---

That's a huge topic. Artificial intelligence has been our way of attempting to emulate a framework that is used by our brains. I think you should read up on it a little, you will like it.

There are also certain quantum factors involved in the cognitive process which is another topic in itself.

A crude analogy would be, if we can create a computer that emulated all the conditions of the universe at a given point in time, can we calculate the conditions of the universe at a future point? It gets difficult there, because the computer built to emulate this would need to take itself into account, which internally will have to take itself into account and would therefore be the size of the universe itself.

Yes, crude analogy, sue me, but my point is, it's not that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

There are also certain quantum factors involved in the cognitive process which is another topic in itself.

A crude analogy would be, if we can create a computer that emulated all the conditions of the universe at a given point in time, can we calculate the conditions of the universe at a future point? It gets difficult there, because the computer built to emulate this would need to take itself into account, which internally will have to take itself into account and would therefore be the size of the universe itself.

Yes, crude analogy, sue me, but my point is, it's not that simple.

---

well you skipped a few steps mendhak :), now you are really getting to the most crucial issues :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

well you skipped a few steps mendhak :), now you are really getting to the most crucial issues :thumb:

---

There's are crucial issues in this thread?

i would be interested in reading any good sources if you know of any mendhak?

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been programming for?

one week with c++, less actually :) I have been redefining medicine the rest of the time.

Then you haven't been doing it long enough to know the basic limitations of a computer.

The vast majority of programs are linear in nature. It may not seem like it, but the fact is there's only one tast running at a time. Given the speed of a computer, that task may take on the order of nanoseconds to complete, but it's only one task. When it's done, the program moves on to the next task.

The only real break from this is the idea of multi-threading. Complex programming, and only truly effective with a computer capable of hyperthreading. I believe multi-core processors can do it, but they have to be programmed to do it.

How many times a day do you do something that requires no conscious thought at all? We walk all over the place with no problems, usually not even thinking about it. It is purely instinct. Yet it takes complex calculations to make a robot move. It is constantly monitoring the position of everything to keep itself balanced. That is one task that a computer will ALWAYS process, simply because it lacks the ability for something to become instinctive. If you program a robot to learn, and check the processes it's running in twenty years, it'll still be computing the location of everything, and that in itself severely limits its ability to do anything else. The only way a robot will even approach instinct is with multiple processors, one dedicated to a particular task. That's probably the closest analogy i can come up with right now. The point remains, the subconscious is a powerful tool that a computer just doesn't have.

so are you saying that a computer can't multithread more efficiently than a hu man?

A computer in this day can barely multi-thread period. Humans do it without thinking about it.

i can do hundreds of simultaneous conscious tasks with a pc and there are many low level "subconscious" tasks occuring all the time, or have i missed something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

i would be interested in reading any good sources if you know of any mendhak?

---

Attachment 55848

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

i can do hundreds of simultaneous conscious tasks with a pc and there are many low level "subconscious" tasks occuring all the time, or have i missed something?

---

If you have one single-core CPU than your computer can only perform one single task at a time, be it addition or subtraction or memory management or some other mundane housekeeping duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

i can do hundreds of simultaneous conscious tasks with a pc and there are many low level "subconscious" tasks occuring all the time, or have i missed something?

---

that's because the computer preforms the tasks after each other.
but because of it's speed, you don't notice it.

that's the reason for the DoEvents function in programming.
DoEvents allows Windows to proceed with other functions to continue with your application afterwards.

penagate can a human consciously multithread?

women say they can... :p

Consciously, I'm not sure how far that would go. But that's not the issue. The point at hand is the subconscious, what we do without thinking about it.

lol :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

penagate can a human consciously multithread?

---

Depends how you define 'multithread' in the context of a human brain. You could argue that when you play the piano with both hands, that's multithreading; but you could also argue that playing the piano is a single operation.

that's single threading is it not the reading and processing of the music?

timeshifter, arguably its the conscious thought that is the most valuable, every other subconscious operation supports a single threaded conscious thought, well it seems to me to be that way?

The piano is easily the most extreme example from a musical viewpoint. The ability to see four or five notes at once on a sheet of paper, compute what each note is, apply any key changes that are needed, then proceed to play all the notes at the same time is either multi threading or EXTREMELY fast processing.

As I say, it depends how you define it.

penagate, would you have an upgrade for you to be able to do 100+ conscious operations sequentially yet simultaneously like a single chip computer can?

But a single chip single core CPU cannot do simultaneous operations.

Isn't this all a bit hypothetical?

imagine being able to play the piano, and write an operating system at the same time, switching between each task, never losing your place...

You can still count on hu mans to keep repeating the same debate over and over and over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grilkip

You can still count on hu mans to keep repeating the same debate over and over and over and over again.

---

isn't that always the case with unanswered questions though???

yes its hypothetical for hu mans anyway.

repeating it until...

There's another aspect that I randomly thought of talking with PG that hasn't shown up here yet... and it's the title of the thread itself.

The brain is organic. The ability to learn is quite literally the brain creating new pathways and dynamically changing the way it works. A computer's processor will always send information across the same pathways, regardless of the task involved. A computer cannot change itself physically to optimize for a specific purpose.

Further to timeshifter's point:

I think the gist of this thread is that you could argue forever.

How do you separate a brain from a computer? Well, for me, it's the ability to make decisions without using precoded logic; to alter our logic dynamically. For others, it might be emotions or the concept of a soul. In any case, you can counter this using the principle of intelligent design. Maybe we're just precoded to be able to alter our cognitive processes? However, logically, you then have to apply the same argument to the intelligent designer. If some omniscient being designed us, were they in turn designed by some superior being to be able to do so? You will end up arguing with yourself for eternity.

So, by my logic at least, it's not a valid debate.

course it can timeshifter you just need to write the code to reprogram itself based on a set of criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

i can do hundreds of simultaneous conscious tasks with a pc...

---

Examples please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinLiss

Examples please.

---

You don't really like this thread
do you? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Further to timeshifter's point:

How do you separate a brain from a computer? Well, for me, it's the ability to make decisions without using precoded logic; to alter our logic dynamically.

---

not exaclty sure what you mean by that comment? maybe an example would clarify?

Quote:

---

For others, it might be emotions or the concept of a soul.

---

did you want to extend the defintions at all and say why a computer couldn't have them?

Quote:

---

In any case, you can counter this using the principle of intelligent design. Maybe we're just precoded to be able to alter our cognitive processes?

---

that's easy for a computer to do too.

Quote:

---

However, logically, you then have to apply the same argument to the intelligent designer. If some omniscient being designed us, were they in turn designed by some superior being? You will end up arguing with yourself for eternity.

---

no no, you are just getting interesting on that point penagate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigB

You don't really like this thread
do you? :p

---

No and notice how my questions are never answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

course it can timeshifter you just need to write the code to reprogram itself based on a set of criteria.

---

I don't recall saying anything about reprogramming. What I stated was the physical nature. The brain literally changes itself physically when it learns something new. A CPU is a CPU, and it will never be anything different unless an external force changes it. The brain changes itself.

I think I need new drivers for my brain, have they released them yet??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

In any case, you can counter this using the principle of intelligent design. Maybe we're just precoded to be able to alter our cognitive processes?

---

that's easy for a computer to do too.

---

Not really. You could write a program that alters its decision making process. However, a computer and a program that runs on a computer are not the same thing. Computers as they are constructed today aren't capable of altering their decision making processes; that is a physical impossibility.

As for the other points which you dodged, I think I've explained myself enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinLiss

No and notice how my questions are never answered.

---

martin, did you want an answer, even manually you can make a pc do at least 5 tasks at the same time. then with a program you could shell lots of tasks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

I don't recall saying anything about reprogramming. What I stated was the physical nature. The brain literally changes itself physically when it learns something new. A CPU is a CPU, and it will never be anything different unless an external force changes it. The brain changes itself.

---

ok, is that an advantage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

I think I need new drivers for my brain, have they released them yet??

---

i want an upgrade too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

ok, is that an advantage?

---

It's how your brain learns a new task.. so yeah, I'd say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timeshifter

A CPU is a CPU, and it will never be anything different unless an external force changes it.

---

Wonder how the CPU feels about it :bigyello:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

martin, did you want an answer, even manually you can make a pc do at least 5 tasks at the same time. then with a program you could shell lots of tasks.

---

Well, seems like we're getting someplace since 5 is less than "hundreds". Please give me an example of 5 things you can do at the same time on a PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Not really. You could write a program that alters its decision making process. However, a computer and a program that runs on a computer are not the same thing. Computers as they are constructed today aren't capable of altering their decision making processes; that is a physical impossibility.

As for the other points which you dodged, I think I've explained myself enough.

---

ah ok, point taken, as in the computer being the hardware as distinct from the software. very wise distinction to make :thumb:

glad to have dodged, happy to answer them if you aren't satisfied with the answer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

martin, did you want an answer, even manually you can make a pc do at least 5 tasks at the same time. then with a program you could shell lots of tasks.

---

be careful; not exactly simultaneously
the cpu processes them after each other with the speed depending on your processor speed.
the only computers that can do 5 tasks simultaniously are the multi-core computers

Not unless you have 5 cores and control over which core does what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

Wonder how the CPU feels about it :bigyello:

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBigB

be careful; not exactly simultaneously
the cpu processes them after each other with the speed depending on your processor speed.
the only computers that can do 5 tasks simultaniously are the multi-core computers

---

how come the term CPU and PC are being exchanged quite often in this discussion???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinLiss

Well, seems like we're getting someplace since 5 is less than "hundreds". Please give me an example of 5 things you can do at the same time on a PC.

---

i can print a document, play a cd, run some audio engineering software, maybe a chat application and a software development application.

It's a common misconception. Many people think CPU is just a fancy way of saying PC... they don't know that the CPU is just one chip inside the PC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

i can print a document, play a cd, run some audio engineering software, maybe a chat application and a software development application.

---

OK, are you saying a PC can do things simultaneously, or a CPU? Because the former's true and the latter's not with the technical exception of multi-core CPUs. But the concept of threading only applies to CPUs.