Printable View
Well that gives no credit to the HD, mobo, ram, optical drives, PSU, etc...
a CPU by itself cant do anything but collect dust...
and even when its put into a box with all the other needed components, it still can't do more than run the BIOS until software is run against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
well it seems that most single cpus are defined by being able to perform a single operation at once, however, the software including the os enables multithreading, is that how it works?
i presume a multi core cpu would need an os capable of interfacing with a multithreaded application to allow true simultaneous operations at precisely the same moment in time.
Multithreading is not conceptually the same as simultaneous processing. On a single single-core CPU system, multithreading is simulated by the operating system, which switches execution control between different threads. Thread/process priority is effected by giving some threads more CPU cycles than others. It takes place so quickly that it can be perceived as simultaneous, but in fact is not.
On a multi single-core CPU system, the operating system does the same, but can allocate threads between the CPUs, so multiple operations can be executing at any given time.
Multi-core CPUs are not controlled by the operating system: their design duplicates certain oft-used parts of the CPU so that multiple (common) instructions can be fetched from the pipeline and simultaneously executed. This is dependent on out-of-order execution, which most modern processor architectures featured before the advent of multi-core CPUs.
So your last post is correct, but the previous ones implied otherwise.
Not simultaniously.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
BTW, not that Chit Chat threads need one, but what is the purpose of this thread?
To discuss.
To go round in circles.
To go round in circles.
This thread has more than outlived its purpose. :S
speaking of circles, how many sides does a circle have?
well the topic is are hu mans just organic computers or something more?Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
well what's the conclusion then?Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
to bring marty up to speed
so far with the current definitions we have
1. a computer can have emotions
2. a computer can have a soul
3. a computer can learn
4. a computer can consciously multithread even at a hardware level, in fact so far the modern boolean based cpu logic systems seems to be vastly superior to organic computers once multi core multi threading systems are included.
and mendhak jumped to near the end, but we'll leave it for now.
You have totally missed everything we've said. I'm not even going to try anymore.
which point did i miss timeshifter?
All of them.
We have repeatedly said that humans posess the capability to improve themselves without any external influence or reprogramming, where a computer cannot. Your points seem to defy that logic.
ok so i thought we discussed learning already,
you allow a software program to accept extra subroutine from another and when to run it, and it has learnt a new subroutine.
Damnit... the point is WITHOUT EXTERNAL INFLUENCE!!!!!!!
you mean self refine, i am sure i mentioned that too, just run a deductive logic application over itself evey night allowing it to change its own programming and point out conflicts that must be resolved at a later point in time.
Well, let me jump back in here with an example:
I am currently working on a project as a hobby. The project consists of a robot, which is a platform for a battery, a processor, a pair of motors, and a whole bunch of various types of sensors. The robot will respond to bluetooth commands to move the motors, and sample the sensors, as needed. The robot will also send sensor data back to the computer over bluetooth.
Computer 1 will interface with the robot, queue up requests for data reading from other systems, and send requests out to my LAN via UDP packets. On one of the other computers, there will be a module that will interpret some of the sensor data to figure out what objects the robot is seeing. On another system (perhaps Computer 1, as it is quite fundamental) there will be a module that will be attempting to keep track of where the robot is, and where it has come from. Naturally, the two modules will have to keep in touch, as where objects are is all dependent on where the robot is.
A third module, or computer, will be considering the objects, looking for gaps in the world map, and sending "desires" to fill in the gaps in the world map. Another module will have to monitor battery power, or time, and generate some form of "desire" to seek out the charger.
This means that there will also have to be a module that takes these desires, and decides on a course of action to take in response to them.
Lastly, there will be some form of module attempting to look for patterns in the wolrd map in an attempt to identify objects as categories, such as mobile, immobile, living, etc.
Obviously, this is a hobby that will occupy me for a long time, but that's the point.
Where is the analogy between this and the brain? There isn't one computer, or one program, but several modules, all working simultaneously. The lowest level will be taking in data from the sensors, and sending that data to other modules. Each level will manipulate that sensor data, and store it, or pass it on to higher levels. At some level, there will be a whole series of desires coming in, influencing the module that will ultimately tell the communications module to tell the robot to operate each motor for x amount of time at y speed.
Now, each of these modules will be linear, and running on a single CPU. Furthermore, unless I buy a new dual core (the best I have right now is a Pentium D), each of these modules will be sharing time with other modules on the same CPU.
Better yet, the nature of this design means that the robot will make mistakes. The series of desrires that go into deciding where to go, will almost certainly mean that some incorrect actions will be taken, even though all pieces work perfectly.
This is a minor simulation of a brain. If I had much more money, and there were much better sensors out there, this could keep being expanded till it approximated some animal. Right now, I am casting about for a better chasis, as I currently am using a tank tread vehicle, and every time I turn on carpet, it has a RUD event (Rapid Unexpected Disassembly). Tank treads grip carpet FAR too well.
Beautiful analogy. And tank treads are not something to be taken lightly... I know from personal experience...
isn't there only one key conceptual issue with organic computers and boolean logic computers and that seems to be multithreading.
organic computers and boolean logic computers can both multithread on a software level although i indicated that computers are more efficient at conscious multithreading and are therefore superior mental constructs.
is there any other mental/software processing issue that separates the two?
whether it can operate a robot body is a separate issue isn't it? with the relevant interfaces and routines any software program could learn how to operate the computer body.
hence the body is a vessel for the soul:D so a organic computer's soul can live on in a book, however, a digital logic computer's soul can live on forever.
and travel at the speed of light and hence time travel
and that brings me back to the light question marty
if a plane is travelling at the speed of light and you switch on a flashlight arguably it is travelling at twice the speed of light.
so how much energy to accelerate the light particle to the speed of light, then can it be boosted at some point as occurs in fibre optic cables?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
A light particle traveling at the speed of light, that's preposterous. :afrog:Quote:
so how much energy to accelerate the light particle to the speed of light, then can it be boosted at some point as occurs in fibre optic cables?
(Observe the sarcasm)
ok mendhak, why is the plane analogy wrong?
good info Mendhak
now from marty's reference:
light = particle with mass created by electrons getting excited lol and releasing excess energy as electromagnetic radiation. the speed of the light particle would seem to me to depend on:
the amount of energy it contains and the wavelength of the particle.
does light travel at one speed or depend on those factors?
and also effected by gravity
so
speed of electromagnetic radiation = f(energy), (gravity), (wavelength)
:)
so if you get a particle of electromagnetic radiation travelling at whatever speed and add more energy, why would it not travel any faster?
digital souls wouldn't need spaceships. :D
I'm going to upgrade my brain to Windows Vista :afrog:
LC, I hate to be this blunt, but you're a freaking idiot. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the topics you're presenting.
Light speed is a constant. Nothing will EVER travel faster than light, regardless of how fast the carrier is moving. And travelling the speed of light does not mean you travel through time at will, it means you travel through time at a considerably different pace. Time would almost stop for you at light speed. So you would spend a week on that spaceship, and come back to find everything has advanced 20 years. Great deal, but you clearly had no idea what that means. My advice, do some research before you come trying to sound professional. You're doing a lousy job.
And that was controlled language. I didn't want a whole bunch of stars to make me look bad. If this was any other forum, you would have just been severely cursed out.
Those are by far the most ridiculous conclusions I've ever seen. So ridiculous in fact I can't believe that you believe them so I conclude that you've been putting us all on. Congratulations, good job!Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Sorry, got to go now, I here the computer in the other room crying and I have to find out what is wrong.
Get ta steppin' kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Turing machines thus far.
Lets just pretend I've said something very profound and eloquent about Turing Machines and their analogues with the Human brain and assume that Mendhak was the only other person that understood it and then we can all just get on with our lives.
Thanks.
Wossy.
Please enlighten the forum members of precisely what a Turing machine is. I know I've heard it before, but it's been a while...
Unfortunately, that's all we ever CAN do:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Step away from the crack pipe dude! "modern boolean based cpu logic " What the hell is that supposed to mean? Now I really believe you spent your time "Redefining medicine" promise me you won't eat ganja brownies with a glass of Chocolate LSD milk anymore.