y many decades ago. A gifted guessor could beat odds by billions to one. Fo r more recent statistical work, look at Dean Radin's books. The SRI remote viewing another, Puthoff and Targ in IEEE fournal, Nature.
ase
fects
ed
See RL
We
t does
be
the
e
em of
Oh, and I should mention, for those un-used to Darwinian theory, the bigges t "No-No" is something called "teleology," the idea that there is a purpose t o evolution. All evolution is opportunistic, in Darwinian theory.
However, it has long been obvious to me that that there are inherent struct ural forms that evolution takes advantage of. (anthropomorphizing it for a mome nt.) Out eyes must evolve lenses according to optics, because that's the univers al way to do it. Is it the best? Probably the easiest and fittest.
Incidentally Darwin hated the phrase "survival of the fittest." To him, "fi t" meant "to fit into," as to adapt. Not to be just strong.
This lack of teleology (higher purpose) is what the dispute between Christi ans and evolutionists is ultimately about, aside from the fundamentalist Biblic al stuff.
You can reconcile the two, but not if you are a Biblical literalist. In my opinion, a good way to read the Bible is as an allegory, not as a lit eral recipe. For example, we have Jesus' notion of "being born again." But in th e book of John, Jesus is at pains to say that things should not be taken literally:
Nicodemus: "Rabbi, what is this "born again" nonsense? How could I climb ba ck into my mother's womb and re-do being born?"
Jesus: "Don't you know anything? To realize his destiny, man must be born a gain by cleansing his impurities and realizing his true spirit."
Well, we are *evolved* for pattern recognition, emulation of others mental states (empathy), planning, dexterity, language and so forth. Not arithmetic! That is why our arithmetic is so pathetic compared to the simplest CPU, and yet we can outclass the fastest computer in the other areas.
We have not evolved specifically to be good at electronic design, but it seems that the general intelligence required for these other areas works for this too. I don't know how JL does it, but when I look at a circuit I am imagining things like water flowing through pipes (wires), when it goes through an inductor it has an "inertia" or mass&speed, into a capacitor it is like a water tank with a "head" (voltage) and so on. In other words I am making analogies with the more tangible physical world.
There is Moravecs classic essay from 1998, would like to see an update of that.
These paranormal studies all have the same characteristic. The more they are controlled for cheating or cues from the experimenter, the more they are repeated... the more the "results" disappear totally into the noise.
A repeatable, verifiable "paranormal" effect is Nobel prize stuff, it would be the most important scientific event of the last century.
He though the same, a lot earlier - "On Growth and Form" was written in 1915 and published in 1917. I was given a copy, but couldn't take it seriously enough to read it.
Ask the insects. They like compound eyes.
Sure. Herbert Spencer invented the phrase, and the "social Darwinists" were as unsavoury a bunch of right-wing nitwits as you could find under any rock.
An even better way is to look at it is as compendium of stuff written about very different societies by people who didn't know much, when much of what they though they knew was plain wrong. The Old Testament defines pi as equal to three ...
It's got a lot in common with the US constitution.
ere have been many psychic events experimentally proved, so getting just on e is a done deal.
been experimentally proven.
ical and quantum effects co-exist, according to Darwinian opportunism.
y many decades ago. A gifted guessor could beat odds by billions to one. Fo r more recent statistical work, look at Dean Radin's books. The SRI remote viewing another, Puthoff and Targ in IEEE fournal, Nature.
It looks more like "cold fusion" than a "done deal". Something happened, bu t probably not what the investigators deluded themselves into imagining was happening.
ase it's reproductive fitness. (eg number of offspring produced according to reproduction.) In the present context, it refers to (possible) quantum e ffects being used by low light algae to survive in a niche. In other words, if classical physics works best for an organism, it will use that. If QM is needed, it may use that.
ed into" certain approaches by their genetic context developed in the past . See RL Fisher, British evolutionary geneticist. So, if an organism has e volved a system which uses classical physics, it may not be able to switch to QM. We think of QM as a "higher" form of Physics because it explains more, but it does not run the world.
be that there is a more efficient form of photosynthesis, for instance,
There is
formatting link
It's not always more efficient, and only a few plants use it.
rocess (ie evolution of structure), so photosynthesis "locked into" the cu rrent system of thylakoids, chlorophyll, etc. Evolution cannot easily "bac k up." This is because a disruptive system would have to re-do too much to displace the current niche occupiers.
The wikipedia article claims that C4 photosynthesis has evolved independent ly on forty different occasions (that we know about - presumably there are at least few more lines where it evolved but died out).
there have been many psychic events experimentally proved, so getting just one is a done deal.
as been experimentally proven.
ssical and quantum effects co-exist, according to Darwinian opportunism.
ity many decades ago. A gifted guessor could beat odds by billions to one. For more recent statistical work, look at Dean Radin's books. The SRI remot e viewing another, Puthoff and Targ in IEEE fournal, Nature.
but probably not what the investigators deluded themselves into imagining w as happening.
rease it's reproductive fitness. (eg number of offspring produced accordin g to reproduction.) In the present context, it refers to (possible) quantum effects being used by low light algae to survive in a niche. In other word s, if classical physics works best for an organism, it will use that. If Q M is needed, it may use that.
cked into" certain approaches by their genetic context developed in the pa st. See RL Fisher, British evolutionary geneticist. So, if an organism has evolved a
We
t does
d be that there is a more efficient form of photosynthesis, for instance,
process (ie evolution of structure), so photosynthesis "locked into" the current system of thylakoids, chlorophyll, etc. Evolution cannot easily "b ack up." This is because a disruptive system would have to re-do too much to displace the current niche occupiers.
ntly on forty different occasions (that we know about - presumably there ar e at least few more lines where it evolved but died out).
Yes, nearly anything specific you can ay about evolution can be shown to h ave an exception. There are general principles, the circular logic of Darwinian theory is the main. It just states the Malthusian idea of populations expan ding and competing to fit a niche. The "apes to humans" part comes from Darwin's "Descent of Species" books - I don't know what his rationale was for the improvement of man over ape, if not in morals at least in cognition. :)
have an exception. There are general principles, the circular logic of Dar winian theory is the main. It just states the Malthusian idea of population s expanding and competing to fit a niche. The "apes to humans" part comes f rom Darwin's "Descent of Species" books - I don't know what his rationale w as for the improvement of man over ape, if not in morals at least in cognit ion. :)
And nearly everything you say about evolution is superficial to the point o f being misleading.
There's nothing circular about Darwinian evolution - the combination of des cent with variation and competition within environmental niches provides an elegant and tolerably comprehensive explanation of how we've got the diver sity of organisms around that we see. It took us a while to work out where the variation was coming from and how it worked - Darwin didn't live long e nough to learn about genes.
From a Darwinian point of view, humans are a particulary successful sort of ape. There are a lot more of us than there are of any other kind of ape, a nd we exploit a much wider variety of environments. This isn't usually put down to cognition, as such, but rather our technique of learning and copyin g new behaviours from one another, which allows us to adapt to new environm ents a lot faster than animals who have to generate new behaviours by genet ic mutation, and can only select the most effective behaviours by dying off if they've inherited something that doesn't work too well.
Language is a tool we've developed to let us tell one another about new beh aviours relatively quickly, rather than on relying on the rather slower pro cess of sitting and watching what other people do.
With language you do have the problem that people tell other people stuff w hich isn't always true or useful - what people do is a better guide than wh at people say - so we have had to evolve ways of picking up on whether peop le are lying, stupid, or self-deceiving. This forum gives plenty of opportu nity to practice these skills ...
There has been work done on the minimal amount of energy theoretically required for a digital computer to solve a problem. It would be interesting to see if an organic nervous system can do better. Single- or few-cell organisms, without distinct nervous systems, would be especially interesting.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
These are no more "proved" than the horse that picked winners.
I would agree - given sufficient time - organisms will test the entirety of combinatorial space. It's pure speculation whether there's been enough time for organisms to explore QM methods with respect to neural function, particularly given the huge amount of noise in every step, and the vastness of that space.
to have an exception. There are general principles, the circular logic of D arwinian theory is the main. It just states the Malthusian idea of populati ons expanding and competing to fit a niche. The "apes to humans" part comes from Darwin's "Descent of Species" books - I don't know what his rationale was for the improvement of man over ape, if not in morals at least in cogn ition. :)
of being misleading. @@@ Actually, I studied extensively with the world's best evolutionary biol ogists. I doubt you even know enough about the field to know who they are. You are a typical example of a bloviating guy with more ego than actual intelligenc e.
escent with variation and competition within environmental niches provides an elegant and tolerably comprehensive explanation of how we've got the div ersity of organisms around that we see. @@@ Many eminent ev biologists have made that remark. "Why does an animal f ill a niche? Because he is better. Why is he better? Because he fills the n iche."
It took us a while to work out where the variation was coming from and how it worked - Darwin didn't live long enough to learn about genes. @@@ So where do you think variation comes from?
of ape. There are a lot more of us than there are of any other kind of ape, and we exploit a much wider variety of environments. This isn't usually pu t down to cognition, as such, but rather our technique of learning and copy ing new behaviours from one another, which allows us to adapt to new enviro nments a lot faster than animals who have to generate new behaviours by gen etic mutation, and can only select the most effective behaviours by dying o ff if they've inherited something that doesn't work too well. @@@ You should write an article for Readers Digest - The Alzheimers edition .
ehaviours relatively quickly, rather than on relying on the rather slower p rocess of sitting and watching what other people do. @@@ Like the wonders of socialism.
which isn't always true or useful - what people do is a better guide than what people say - so we have had to evolve ways of picking up on whether pe ople are lying, stupid, or self-deceiving. This forum gives plenty of oppor tunity to practice these skills ...
n to have an exception. There are general principles, the circular logic of Darwinian theory is the main. It just states the Malthusian idea of popula tions expanding and competing to fit a niche. The "apes to humans" part com es from Darwin's "Descent of Species" books - I don't know what his rationa le was for the improvement of man over ape, if not in morals at least in co gnition. :)
nt of being misleading.
ologists.
Then it would have been a pity that you didn't learn anything, not that I b elieve for a minute that you did anything of the sort.
e a typical example of a bloviating guy with more ego than actual intellige nce.
When I was younger, I read pretty much everything that Stephen Jay Gould ev er published. I don't think that he'd qualify as one of the world's best ev olutionary biologists - land snails are a rather narrow specialty - but he could write and he knew what he was talking about most of the time, and did n't go too far wrong when he did slip. The proposition that I might know wh o might be a member of the rather broad class of "best evolutionary biologi sts" is absurd - specify a particular branch of evolutionary biology and I could probably come up with some names, like those of the people doing the Neanderthal and Denisovian genome work at the Max Planck Institute for Evol utionary Anthropology in Leipzig in Germany - and it reflects the fact that it's you who is the "bloviating guy" who exhibits no evidence of actual kn owledge, and precious little of any intelligence.
descent with variation and competition within environmental niches provide s an elegant and tolerably comprehensive explanation of how we've got the d iversity of organisms around that we see.
ll a niche? Because he is better. Why is he better? Because he fills the ni che."
The niche doesn't exist until there's an animal that can fill it - so the c ircularity is all in the definition of the niche. As I'd gone on to point o ut, human success has depended on finding, exploiting and filling a lot of new niches. Until you can make kayaks, the seal hunting niche doesn't exist for most apes.
w it worked - Darwin didn't live long enough to learn about genes.
Human evolution - and primate evolution in general - seems to be dominated by "jumping genes" - transposable elements.
formatting link
formatting link
rt of ape. There are a lot more of us than there are of any other kind of a pe, and we exploit a much wider variety of environments. This isn't usually put down to cognition, as such, but rather our technique of learning and c opying new behaviours from one another, which allows us to adapt to new env ironments a lot faster than animals who have to generate new behaviours by genetic mutation, and can only select the most effective behaviours by dyin g off if they've inherited something that doesn't work too well.
on.
I stopped reading Reader's Digest at secondary school, but I do recall that they normally publish shorten versions - digests - of articles written for other publications. When I was reading it the original content -about 25%
- was mostly anti-Communist propaganda contributed by the CIA, of notably l ower quality.
behaviours relatively quickly, rather than on relying on the rather slower process of sitting and watching what other people do.
You haven't got a clue about what socialism is - as you make obvious here f rom time to time.
ff which isn't always true or useful - what people do is a better guide tha n what people say - so we have had to evolve ways of picking up on whether people are lying, stupid, or self-deceiving. This forum gives plenty of opp ortunity to practice these skills ...
Sadly, it's you who is the ass. What's comical is the way you advertise you r stupidity - "Actually, I studied extensively with the world's best evolut ionary biologists" - is not something that anybody would write if they had studied with any kind of competent evolutionary biologist, because anybody who had done that would know enough to specify a particular branch of biolo gy.
You aren't just a transparent bullshit artist, but a transparently stupid b ullshit artist.
uff which isn't always true or useful - what people do is a better guide th an what people say - so we have had to evolve ways of picking up on whether people are lying, stupid, or self-deceiving. This forum gives plenty of op portunity to practice these skills ...
John Larkin makes enough money out of the electronics he sells that he can console himself with the idea that he's a useful ass.
Of course, the very existence of his firm, and the loyalty of his unfortuna tely under-demanding customers is probably discouraging somebody who could do a better job from entering that market, so "useful" has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The desperate vanity that obliges him to think that his electronics is "ins anely good" probably helped him when he was getting the business going - se lf-confidence is attractive, even when it isn't all that soundly based.
Don't dismiss it out of hand. Under sufficiently hard environmental constraints the same solution for arid conditions evolved separately in genetically unrelated species with appearences so close that they were named as "look like" other plant.
The New World South American plant Gymnocalycium capillaense and the Old World African succulent plant Euphorbia Gymnocalyciodes for example:
formatting link
vs
formatting link
Very different genetically but the same empirical solution to the same environmental constraints of strong sun and very intermittent rain.
Another is Euphorbia and Astrophytum Asterias see:
formatting link
Or a few precursors with basically pits with sensors at the bottom. The eye as a solution has evolved independently more than once.
Quick intro - this thread originated about the human mind and computer simulations of it in s.e.d and how machine computational power is fast approaching the point where desktop PCs rival human brain power.
Inspired by Moravecs 1998 essay I benchmarked my latest copy of Fritz14 on an i7-3770K ~$300 ~100k MIPS to add a new real point to the graphs. That is about 330k MIPS/$1k or a bit less if it is whole system cost.
I have previously pointed out somewhat controversially in s.e.d that more cores does not often translate to better performance on real computing problems but in the case of 4 real cores with Intel hyperthreading even I was surprised by the very pedestrian "improvements" for chess as the extra cores were enabled.
CPU i7-3770K (stock speed 3.5GHz, 8GB ram, Win7 x64)
Fritz14 (x64) claimed ELO 3150 benchmarked
Cores Nodes/s
1 2.9M
2 5.6M
3 7.6M
4 9.6M
5 11.0M
6 12.0M
7 12.4M
8 11.1M (best out of three)
Cores 5-8 are hyperthreaded and this has never been good for chess.
Basically at around 6 cores active the external memory bus has saturated and 8 cores is actually a worse performance than 7!
I didn't believe this 8 core result at first and so repeated it three times giving results that ranged from 10.9M to the 11.1M shown.
The default settings are to use four cores and it is obvious why.
5 cores active is the best performance to power used tradeoff.
The results based on a 2012 launch and these benchmarks are that CPU development is close to the most optimistic trend line on his graph.
I suspect but have not instrumented it that performance is hampered by the local move generation causing writeback delays into main memory. It might be helpful if some cache lines could be marked private for the duration as internal working local memory for the cores.
I think the numbers for an i5-3570 would be broadly similar upto 4 cores and the CPU price is considerably less. Guessing 500k MIPS/$1k Anyone care to post actual tests?
I would be interested to see how a CPU design with 6 physical cores like AMD's Thuban or the rare i7-980X (aka i9) performs on the same Fritz14 benchmark to determine how much of the problem is down to memory bandwidth and how much to hyperthreading.
I'd also like to see how the new nominally 25% faster i7-4770 and the eye wateringly expensive i7-3960X EE do on the Fritz14 benchmark as a function of number of cores enabled.
Note for s.e.d now cross posted into rec.chess.computer
I am well aware that hyperthreading is inferior and not the same as a physical core which is why I would like to see the figures for the handful of hex physical core devices on the same benchmark.
The other slightly curious thing is that adding cores 3 and 4 contribute the same performance increase to within measurement error.
However, it seems likely that forcing maximum logical CPUs to be 1 or 2 more than the physical core count still has some benefit for chess.
The same might also be true in SQL server clusters. Mickeysoft are rather coy about the right setting for MAXDOP in their documents.
Hyperthreading is a marketing man's dream for specsmanship. It is a shame that cache invalidation often wipes out the performance gain.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.