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).

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 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.

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.

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)?

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

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.

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.

Precisely.

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 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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.