Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[lesliedellow]

Your so full of yourself you dont even know when you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_(electronics)

You are a prime example of unsatisfactory scientific explanations.

But you still run from what started this. ALL COMPUTERS RUN ON 2 BIT BINARY CODE.

Except that I am not wrong. A quick glance at the diagram of a full adder in that link soon reveals it to be two half adders strung together - just as I said. Unlike you I do actually know what I am talking about.

 

[lesliedellow]

as far as i know, it's irrelevant as to how these are implemented.
the question is "what is the difference between a half and full adder".
a half adder does not have a carry in, otherwise the 2 are identical.
adders are inherently parallel devices, not serial, both bytes are presented simultaneously.
the only possible exception to the operation is in regards to rotates, but since adders do not store results this doesn't apply to adders.
the results are ALWAYS stored in the accumulator or transferred to another register, and rotates are applied to these locations, not the adder.

See the reply I have just given Justatruthseeker.

 

[[serious]]

Since that is not an accurate description of what goes on inside a computer; not even if it has only one processor, and is running only one application, the question is irrelevant. From the CPU's point of view, almost everything except the CPU counts as a peripheral, and most of them can cause it to drop what it is currently doing, in order to attend to them. That is not to mention the conditions which can arise within the processor itself, causing it to leave off what it is doing in order to attend to something else.

I left that part alone, but since you picked it out, and it's an answerable question, I figured I'd address it. Any single operation in the brain is limited by the signal speed and latency of the neurons. An upward limit would be about 200hz based on the latency of the neurons firing.

 

[[serious]]

Which was exactly my point - the computer processes one thing at a time - while the human brain processes billions of things at one time. It need not put one data process on hold while it calculates part of another - put it on hold - process another - put it on hold - go back to the first and repeat. While you are adding two plus two your brain still processes all the external stimuli it receives. While I type this I still hear the TV in the background and can understand what is going on - even if I am not paying full attention to it. O need not stop typing or thinking about what I am typing to hear the TV and process that information. I need not put all other processes on hold while I process this.

As has been explained multiple times, computers can process multiple streams at a time. It's purely a matter of degree, just like the difference between gpus and cpus.

 

[whois]

See the reply I have just given Justatruthseeker.

the fact still remains that a half adder does not accept a carry, it only accepts the 2 bits to be added.

 

[whois]

As has been explained multiple times, computers can process multiple streams at a time. It's purely a matter of degree, just like the difference between gpus and cpus.

a single processor can only work on one program at a time.
its incredible speed allows it to suspend programs to give the appearance of working on multiple programs, but it only processes one program at a time.
multiple cores will allow multiple programs to run concurrently.

 

[[serious]]

a single processor can only work on one program at a time.
its incredible speed allows it to suspend programs to give the appearance of working on multiple programs, but it only processes one program at a time.
multiple cores will allow multiple programs to run concurrently.

Yes, as has been explained to him multiple times.

 

[lesliedellow]

the fact still remains that a half adder does not accept a carry, it only accepts the 2 bits to be added.

I don't remember saying otherwise.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

a single processor can only work on one program at a time.
its incredible speed allows it to suspend programs to give the appearance of working on multiple programs, but it only processes one program at a time.
multiple cores will allow multiple programs to run concurrently.

Now let's watch the double-talk begin whois. Notice he agrees that computers suspend programs to work on the next.

Yes, as has been explained to him multiple times.

Yet the only explanation they tried to give is that they work on multiple streams at the same time - contradicting thier own claims. LOL.

As has been explained multiple times, computers can process multiple streams at a time. It's purely a matter of degree, just like the difference between gpus and cpus.

I realize you all do not remember what you post from one to the next, but so far only whois and myself have remained consistent from one post to the next. Separate cpu's can work on more than one set of data at a time - but regardless if you have a billion cpu's - it is still limited because of bus widths. The human mind is not so constrained - but has billions of processors and billions of neural pathways. Each processor in the human brain has multiple data pathways - not limited data pathways shared by multiple processors.

But you are all still avoiding what began all of this. ALL COMPUTERS RUN ON 2 BIT BINARY CODE.

 

[whois]

I realize you all do not remember what you post from one to the next, but so far only whois and myself have remained consistent from one post to the next. Separate cpu's can work on more than one set of data at a time - but regardless if you have a billion cpu's - it is still limited because of bus widths.

well, it's kind of a trade off situation between speed and bus width.
it's better to make comparisons based on throughput.
also, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single processor cannot deal with more than one program.
for example:
for every key you press on your keyboard, the cpu suspends the program it is currently working on to process the input, after processing it returns to the program it is working on.
even 8 bit machines was adequate for this.
it's when you have a large number of programs running simultaneously is where you either need a faster CPU or a wider bus width.
the wider the bus, the more data you can transfer on a single cycle.

The human mind is not so constrained - but has billions of processors and billions of neural pathways. Each processor in the human brain has multiple data pathways - not limited data pathways shared by multiple processors.

But you are all still avoiding what began all of this. ALL COMPUTERS RUN ON 2 BIT BINARY CODE.

i'm not really sure if the brain is strictly digital or analog in nature, probably a combination of the 2.

 

[lesliedellow]

But you are all still avoiding what began all of this. ALL COMPUTERS RUN ON 2 BIT BINARY CODE.

I think what he means is that one bit can assume two values. Naturally a byte can assume 256 values, and a word 65536 values.

 

[joshua 1 9]

e=MC^2 is the biggest hoax. Einstein is just a actor they put on a pedestal so the public masses can worship. Just like stephen hawking, another actor.

Only Einstein did a better job of convincing people that he knew what he was talking about. Hawkings is not convincing at all, esp they way he loses bets and has to admit he was wrong. I would put him in the league with Planet Pluto deniers Well meaning people trying to sell their latest book, that just can not seem to get it right.

http://news.discovery.com/space/his...-hawking-bet-higgs-boson-discovery-120704.htm

 

[joshua 1 9]

don't make the mistake of thinking that a single processor cannot deal with more than one program.

I thought that was why they had quad processors. If you can not multitask then what is the use?

 

[lesliedellow]

I thought that was why they had quad processors. If you can not multitask then what is the use?

When processor speeds reached 4GHz they discovered that they couldn't make them go any faster without them frying themselves. So instead they put multiple cores on a single chip. If there was a choice, a single core going at 16GHz would probably be preferable, because it would simplify the design of both the hardware and the operating system.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

well, it's kind of a trade off situation between speed and bus width.
it's better to make comparisons based on throughput.
also, don't make the mistake of thinking that a single processor cannot deal with more than one program.
for example:
for every key you press on your keyboard, the cpu suspends the program it is currently working on to process the input, after processing it returns to the program it is working on.
even 8 bit machines was adequate for this.
it's when you have a large number of programs running simultaneously is where you either need a faster CPU or a wider bus width.
the wider the bus, the more data you can transfer on a single cycle.

i'm not really sure if the brain is strictly digital or analog in nature, probably a combination of the 2.

I am not claiming a single cpu can not process more than one program - just that it can not do so simultaneously. It must suspend each one in tandem and switch between them.

We do not yet know if neurons do this or not. So have no way to compare. Sight is sent to one region, sound to another. We can deduce that each input is processed by multiple processors in that region, but since we can almost instantly process all that data at once, I seriously doubt if anything is even momentarily suspended.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are various hypotheses about how the first simple organic replicators (proto-life) emerged from inanimate organic molecules (abiogenesis), and some of these do involve gradual changes to those molecules, so they could indeed be called evolution in the general sense.

The only acceptable hypotheses is when God said let there be life and there was life. The only question has to do with time. If life instantly appeared of if live "evolved" over a period of time. Some refer to this as punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism or catastrophism and uniformitarianism. So you end up with three isms and one ium.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only acceptable hypotheses is when God said let there be life and there was life. The only question has to do with time. If life instantly appeared of if live "evolved" over a period of time. Some refer to this as punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism or catastrophism and uniformitarianism. So you end up with three isms and one ium.

But what is "time"?

If rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration (experimentally proven), then would using time as we measure it today to calculate into the past give us the correct answer in a universe they claim is increasing in acceleration???? Would not clocks have then ticked faster in the past when acceleration was slower since they slow as acceleration increases?????

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am not claiming a single cpu can not process more than one program - just that it can not do so simultaneously. It must suspend each one in tandem and switch between them.

We do not yet know if neurons do this or not. So have no way to compare. Sight is sent to one region, sound to another. We can deduce that each input is processed by multiple processors in that region, but since we can almost instantly process all that data at once, I seriously doubt if anything is even momentarily suspended.

Something to take into consideration is the little girl that they removed half of her brain. Yet there is a lot less disfunction then what you would think.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Something to take into consideration is the little girl that they removed half of her brain. Yet there is a lot less disfunction then what you would think.

Because other parts of the brain took over those functions. It's called redundancy - just as we build redundancy into our machines.

 

[whois]

I am not claiming a single cpu can not process more than one program - just that it can not do so simultaneously. It must suspend each one in tandem and switch between them.

okay, i just wanted to make sure you "got it".
also remember we are talking about outrageous speeds here, on the order of nanoseconds.
that's a billion times a second.

We do not yet know if neurons do this or not. So have no way to compare. Sight is sent to one region, sound to another. We can deduce that each input is processed by multiple processors in that region, but since we can almost instantly process all that data at once, I seriously doubt if anything is even momentarily suspended.

i don't think we can do a 1 to 1 comparison of the brain to todays technology.