Luminal

I have two questions that have been on the back of my mind for a while (I'm still using a single core computer... I'm a little behind the times):

1) When computer vendors (such as BestBuy, Gateway) use the term "Quad Core [model number], 2.40 GHz" does this imply that all four cores are 2.40 GHz or collectively? Such as: http://www.gateway.com/systems/series/529598059.php

2) When I program software, what do I need to do (if anything) to get my program to take advantage of multiple processors? If you're wondering, I use C++ in .NET (I also use other SDKs if that would be of any help).

Will modern apes evovle into Humans? If evolution is true then at some point this should happen.

Of course, because we all know evolution can only occur in a single direction. It's not as if modern apes are well suited for survival in their particular habitat and humans for theirs or anything silly like that.

It is a fortunate fact indeed that all Europeans eventually emigrated to the Americas, or it might make your entire presupposition seem absurd.

Yet what does it even mean? Memory through polychronization? I'm not following how polychronization could be used as memory storage in the first place, regardless of how much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network#Spiking_neural_networks

Spiking neural networks with axonal conduction delays exhibit polychronization, and hence could have a potentially unlimited memory capacity.

I've attempted to understand how polychronization via delays in the axons would allow for "potentially unlimited memory capacity" but I'm coming up with nothing here.

Well, I've been programming in OOP (C++) for about 6 months, yet this problem has never come up, and I have no idea how to begin dealing with it.

I'm attempting to write a program that can take information from a website, in this case a stock site, and input that data into my program. I need it to constantly update (request new information from the site).

Is there a normal method/procedure for doing this? A link or tutorial would be fine, as well (I could not find what I was specifically looking for).

I've reached an impasse the last week with this, and help of any kind would be limitlessly appreciated.

The biggest reason why we don't use analog computers is the immense challenges of both designing and programming an analog computer. Analog computers operate on continuous data streams, which is more like a river of information, whereas digital computers operate on discrete data streams, which are more like cars driving on a road. It's much easier for us to reason about the behavior of cars: we can break down the problem and examine each car individually to determine its behavior. In an analog system, we can only examine how the data evolves. Unlike cars, you can't examine a "piece" of a river and see how it behaves independently of the rest of the system.

 

Far and away, humans reason about programming in an imperative manner, which relies on pushing discrete chunks of data around. Functional languages are much better suited for operating on analog data streams, but then there's the problem of actually executing the program. How do you compile a context-free program to run on an analog computer?

 

A compromise between analog and digital has perhaps been struck with SIMD units. These exist in many forms, such as SSE on Intel/AMD chips, AltiVec on PowerPC, and many types of DSPs, including the "SPEs" on the PlayStation 3's Cell processor. These units are primarily designed to work on continuous data sets which have been sampled into discrete chunks, applying particular transforms in parallel. This gets you many of the supposed theoretical benefits of analog computers while still retaining a discrete, digital control structure.

Well, I do not know enough to comment about the design of processing units. Hard memory storage is a simpler topic to tackle, though.

In my proposition, analog components would function using discrete units, as digital components currently do. Each fraction of current (or what have you) would correspond to a discrete unit.

The primary benefit of such a design would be far, far more potential discrete states given the same amount of components. Yet as others have mentioned, data corruption could be a problem.

The problem with analog is that it is inaccurate -- was that a 1.5 or a 1.5001? Each time you touch your data it gets a little corrupted. Whereas with digital, any small corruption gets eliminated each time the data gets copied. The data would have to switch between a zero and a one before there would be any corruption, and there are error correction protections that can usually detect when that happens.

 

Basically, digital is far more error resistant than analog, for only a little less data density (occasionally more than one bit is stored in any particular measurement).

I see. That would be a major problem for normal data storage.

However, there would be a number of computational situations where accuracy would be less desired than sheer memory capacity, especially pattern recognition, fuzzy logic, neural nets, and other machine learning or probabilistic situations that arise. I would be interested to see a computer with both a digital hard drive and an analog hard drive working in conjunction.

Is that not essentially what the human brain is: a hybrid analog-digital computer (thresholds being the digital part, everything else being analog)?

How much error would there be in the translation? That's always the question in DAC scenarios, if I'm not mistaken.

Well, before I asked this question, I suspected that might have something to do with it.

And how would you store these analogue signals?

The fraction of current allowed to pass through the circuit would be the information.

As a generalized exaple, if 0% of the current was allowed to pass through, that would correspond to the first state, 0. If 0.1% was allowed to pass through, that would correspond to the next state, 1; 0.2% equal to 2; and so on. Depending on the level of accuracy engineers could achieve, it could be broken down indefinently, so that 0.0001% would be the next state after zero, up to the millionth state at 100%.

This has befuddled me for a while. Isn't analog by it's very nature capabable of storing vastly more information than binary digits? Why is analog considered a "thing of the past"?

Consider, rather than a bit with two states, a tiny analog device (approximately the same size as a bit in a normal PC) to control the flow of electricty through a circuit. Let's say that each degree rotated represented a different state, the amount of current allowed to pass through. Thus, 360 degrees would represent 360 numbers. Or, you could use half-degrees, and have 720 numbers represented, or quarter-degrees, with 1440 numbers, etc. You get the idea...

Of course, you would have to translate this back into 0's and 1's for the CPU to process the information (unless the CPU was analog too, similar to certain aspects of neurons).

Would this not vastly increase potential information storage?

Through genetic engineering, molecular computing, quantum computing, and a host of other technologies humans have not even conceived of yet, intelligence and computation will approach the maximum in a contained amount of matter (such as this planet or solar system). That maximum is far beyond the intelligence or computation of a human brain or modern supercomputer.

That, of course, will rapidly lead to the production of all technological capabilities in a finite amount of time, probably within 1,000 years.

If there is any way possible to stretch, shrink, or generally manipulate space, time, or physical constants, then intelligent life would rapidly discover the means to do so.

That leads me to the opinion that there is a high probability that intelligent life is exceedingly rare. And if it does exist, it intentionally is masking the signs of its civilization from developing intelligent life.

I strongly suggest lucid dreaming.

If you continually try to remember dreams and set alarms to go off an hour early, you will acclimate yourself to being aware during the dream.

Eventually, you will be fully conscious in a number of your dreams on random nights. However, it can be a bit difficult to prevent yourself from waking up and the dream ending during these experiences. A few years back I trained myself to do this, and had about a dozen lucid dreams.

The experience is unlike anything else, and far more potent than drugs. In addition, you control the content of the 'hallucination' to a degree. Most importantly, it is obviously safe.

Here's my only insight, as primitive as it may be:

If x = 1, the result is 1 = 2.

If x > 1, the result is infinity = 2.

The answer would have to lie between x = 1 and x > 1. That is impossible, and thus there is no answer.

I believe anything past basic arithmetic skills should not be mandated in public schools. As an elective, why not?

To the vast majority of professions, anything on the level of pre-algebra or beyond does absolutely nothing to further their careers or increase their understanding of the world in which they live; and it does plenty to damage their grades and potential. Both my parents are teachers, and I've heard numerous stories of children not being able to graduate due to failing their math courses.

Science, on the other hand, is vitally essential. It provides the fundamental skills to interacting with and thinking about the world in which we live. It provides the problem-solving abilities to deal with such theories as creationism and other pseudoscience that is only too easy to believe in without question. And of course, in such a technologically dominated age, science is that much more important to the average individual.

Math should be mandated for degrees in which is it required to function, such as engineers, statisticians, architects, and so forth. Math is a tool for symbolizing and abstracting scientific concepts into something humans can work with, and nothing more. Is it useful for the average person in which taxes will be the complicated application they'll ever need? Not exactly.

Anyway, this determines if I get an A or B in Calculus II.

I claimed f(x) = 1/((ln(3^x))^2) would always remain larger (or alternatively, the bottom smaller) than f(x) = 1/(x(lnx)^2) after 5 (arbitary finite number) to prove a Series converged, by Direct Comparison of course. Long story short, he said I was wrong and I do not know if he came about accurately at his conclusion.

Oh, and I only have a day or so remaining to correct him before my grade is final. Expedience would be greatly valued.

Which of these two tend toward zero slower? In other words, which one will eventually remain larger than the other for all x greater than an arbitrary finite number?

f(x) = 1/(x(lnx)^2)

f(x) = 1/((ln(3^x))^2)

Sorry for the prolific use of parentheses; I wanted to make the functions very clear.

you don't get atoms just on the verge of decaying or not. they are either not decayed, in the process of decaying(a very short time nearly impossible to measure) or decayed.

 

there is no middle ground with these states. like all of QM there are a finite number of states with nothing in between.

 

if you had 100 atoms of a radioactive substance, say Iodine-131, you will not be able to predict which will decay first though you can estimate quite readily that after 8 days only 50 or so will be left. this is called the halflife. it is the only way to put any sort of prediction on radioactive decay. though, it is entirely possible that all 100 would still be there or that they all decayed in the first millisecond, it is just extremely unlikely for that to happen.

Well, it has not been proven that there aren't underlying mechanics that make QM deterministic. And that is the answer that Occam's razor would lend to rather than having one set of reality deterministic (macroscopic) and another set (quantum) nondeterministic, existing in parallel.

But I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, so I'll mosey on out.

Well, time to put it back on track then.

 

I propose that humans will evolve more within the next 200 years than they have for the past 2,000,000 years due to genetic engineering.

Technological singularity, I beckon to your sweet embrace!

Indeed, when humans start tampering with the very stuff that generates high-order intelligence, exponential results are not to be unexpected.

My 2c worth would be that Luminal appears to be saying that developed countries have gene pools that tend to phenotypes that aren't as well adapted to survival (because there's a McDonalds up the road, or a supermarket next to it).

 

In less-developed or 'poor' countries, its harder to survive, and people (phenotypes) tend to come up against more 'natural' selective pressures.

 

Also there's the issue that yourdad mentions about how genotypes that are 'inferior' or have genetic 'flaws' survive (and how this doesn't quite gel with how evolution "really" works, as we understand it -it's the accumulation of genetic changes, or drift in the gene pool), and how none of us would have much chance of surviving in the wild, as our predecessors did. These days special training and conditioning is needed to have 'survival skills', and face the 'wild' with nothing but your bare hands, or just a pocket knife, so to speak.

Precisely.

Uhhmm... How exactly does this comment apply to the concept of evolution by natural selection? Precisely where was this term used in general parlance prior to it being used in biology?

JaKiri had moved on to the general use of words in science, so I responded in general terms as well.

As for the word "evolve" itself, there is this:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea.

Thus, even Darwin agreed that there is better terminology. I personally prefer "Descent with modification" as well when you are only referring to change rather than change leading to progress.

Hmm, I wonder if an apology is forthcoming from JaKiri.

This is horrific. Science uses a word which is misunderstood or misused by the popular consciousness and so science should change its definition? Should science not use the words "force", "speed", "light", or any of the other words which have strict scientific definitions but vague popular ones?

 

It's a matter of politeness to come into an argument on a science forum having at least attempted to investigate the evidence and thought on what you are trying to discuss. I admit this is not always possible on every topic, but given that information on evolution is so widespread and given the fact that you defended your ignorance in a rather bonkers way makes you a bit of a jackass.

If a word already exists and is well-defined in non-scientific fields before science uses it, then science has the obligation to generate intuitive terminology, not for the rest of society to change its definition of a word to fit science.

This is all part of the greater problem with many of those involved in science. Terminology and semantics is propped up as more important than understanding.

I doubt a single person who read my original post thought I was referring to evolution as anything other than beneficial change. Yet we had to go through multiple pages of arguments about one word that, as humans with an intuitive comprehension of language, everyone was already fully aware of what is was in reference to.

A) I'm not thinking of them as a species, and I was aware of what I said when I said it. Sometimes speaking in extremely precise terminology wears on the brain when speaking informally on an internet site. If I was writing a paper, I might use my terms more strictly.

B) Suggestions need not be testable... because they are suggestions. If someone reads my supervolcano suggestion, thinks on it a bit, and realizes a way to test it, wonderful. If not, no loss.

I think you encapsulated what irritates me about many scientifically-inclined individuals: an over-emphasis on terminology and semantics instead of ideas. Overall, I think this may harm science because it shifts focus to precision in communication rather than understanding in communication.

You see, humans have this amazing ability to convey meaning perfectly without fully spelling out every word in exact detail. If I said "cars" when referring to vehicles in general, you would understand. If I use "species" when referring to genera, you understand as well.

I don't think any supervolcano wiped them out, but it is possible that it reduced them to such a level at a particularly bad time that homo established firm dominance or even finished off their cousin species. I'm not going to get more specific than that, because I do not know.

I cannot answer which specific supervolcano was involved if any. The exact date for the extinction of australopithecines is in a fairly large time frame; supervolcanoes occur multiple times every 100,000 years; the circumstances of the extinction of the australopithecines could have been triggered by a supervolcano but the species itself struggled on for many years after before succumbing; scientists certainly do not know every supervolcanic eruption throughout history, especially when you start getting past 1 MYA.

The point... it was only a suggestion, and the possibilities are too varied to state any certainty.

I don't doubt the existence of supervolcanoes. I don't doubt their commonality in the existence of this planet, nor their effect on the life the planet supported during their eruption.

 

I do doubt the use of this idea as an explanation for the reasons australopithecines went extinct... especially since you cannot even describe a single event that occurred at the right time and the right place... also, the lack of other plant/animal deaths during the same time... also, the fact that homo survived.

 

Also, maybe it was aliens that did it.

 

Come on. If you're going to speculate, at least root it in something valid. Just because you saw a special on discovery channel last week doesn't mean that the topic of said special is the answer to each question you encounter.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for my tone... Long day. Lots of pissed off executives who have been drilling me for real explanations and not fluffy speculations without support. Mea culpa.

...

You are equating large volcanic eruptions with aliens, as a factor in evolution, to make my suggestion sound absurd. And stating that I'm getting my information from the Discovery Channel.

Can you back those claims up? One would do well to avoid including exaggerated or created statements in other areas than just science.

All I was suggesting was that supervolcanoes exacerbated existing selection pressures, and that there is a possibility that these eruptions in conjunction with other advantages homo had, was a factor in the extinction of said species.

The reason this possibility came to mind was that the Lake Toba eruption reduced the human population by 60%. If something happened once, if could have happened before. I don't know why people get so cranky over a simple suggestion.

LOL... has anyone yet given any support that a supervolcano even occurred during the epoch involved?

I know Wikipedia is not an infallible source, but it lists many known supervolcano eruptions in the last 2 million years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano#Known_eruptions

Going back much further becomes difficult because eruptions occured on top of the same calderas multiple times.

If the Loba Toba eruption 75,000 years ago wiped out 60% of the human population, why is it inconceivable such an event has occurred more than once, possibly affecting evolution.

Again, I'm not claiming this as a fact, just throwing out into the conversation as a possibility. I am not quite sure why people are so critical of it, especially knowing how common and how large these eruptions can be.

The answer for the australopithecines to "where were they" was "all over Africa." A super-volcano that big would leave a faunal impact, which you don't see.

 

The extinction of the australopithecines wasn't a sudden event like a super-volcano anyway. I think we can move past that notion.

I think the effects of a supervolcano would very subtle in the geological record. For example, if a supervolcano dropped the average global temperature by 10C for 15 years, it would be very difficult if not impossible to spot. But that would be enough to cause the population of hominids in Africa to plummet to dangerously low levels.

And I don't think the existence of supervolcanoes are in questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Garita_Caldera

This eruption ejected 5,000 cubic kilometers of debris. In comparison, the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa ejected 25 cubic kilometers. Krakatoa reduced global temperatures by 1.2 Celsius for a year.

Why would it be hard to imagine that an eruption 200 times larger reduced the temperature by over 10 Celsius?

That's just an example of one supervolcano. We do not know for certain if eruptions during the existence of hominids were larger or smaller.

Either way, I don't think you can "move past that notion" as if it were infeasible. I would consider it infeasible that supervolcanoes didn't have a major effect on the evolution of most species throughout earth's history.