🚀 go-pugleaf

You are misunderstanding the potential of the human brain, and the
co-processor.

Firstly, the co-processor does not need to run at the same bus speed as
the brain. It simply needs parameters to be set, an execution to be
actibated, and the result ourld be returned in another register. It is
not necessary for the co-procesor to run at the same speed as the brain.

Further, you underestimate the power of multi-threaded / multi-processor
systems. Remeber, the human brain is potentially the most complex, yet
effective multiprocessor.

As an example, it is a fact that you blink about 16 times a minute. Each
blink is approximately 0.25 of a second. This gives a total of 4 seconds
a minute where your eyes are closed, and thus the optic nerve is unused.
If this bandwidth could be harnessed, and the optical processing unit of
the brain then there would be more than enough available bandwith,
storage, and processing power to cope with the co-processor.

Think of the military abilities it would give to a soldier. An internal
HUD, strategic planning, manipulation, and controlling of weapons.
Identification of "friendlies". Perhaps even enhanced visualisation of
enemies, or thermal imaging, perhaps even x-ray vision. All through the
use of a coupled co-processor.

What about linguists. Learning made easy! Think your mother tongue,
speak a foreign tongue ... ;-)

The possibilities are endless.

Never mind the potential of having a PII embedded in your brain when on
a trip to the arctic ... when it gets cold, simply imagine erotic
images, the co-processor will go into overdrive, and the heat generated
will warm you ... ;-)

gus

P.S. it surprises me that this thread is suddenly rejuvenated.


Patrick Jelinck wrote:
> 
> these math coprocessors will never work...
> because the human cpu and the ram can not be overclocked, not even at
> 100mhz
> 
> silicium based fpu's are inaccurate for low speed bio-cpu's
> 
> and an fpu bus buffer would not have the necessary capacity ( ~ 1 GB )
> 
>  9 Oct 1998 23:04:58 GMT, mawarkus@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus)
> wrote:
> 
> >William Justice Black schrieb:
> >>
> >> gus <gus_goose@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> : Larry Smithmier wrote:
> >> : > Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> >> : > > Frampton Steve R wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> : Firstly, the concept:
> >> : "Bio-interactive computational entity for additional analytical
> >> : abilities for humans" In laymans terms, a device inserted in to a human
> >> : which will allow previously impossible calculations to be performed
> >> : "internally". The concept specifies that this bio-compatible computer
> >> : will provide an additional support role for for the computational and
> >> : analytical processes of the human brain. It will not supercede the brain
> >> : as a processing unit. The brain will still be most important, otherwise
> >> : we have an andriod, not a human.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Honestly, I'd be happy if I just had a decent mathco ;-)
> >
> >There's an SF book where humans have got mathematical coprocessors
> >implanted in their brain (as well as pagers etc.).
> >IIRC, it's _A_New_Proteus_, I don't recall the author.
> >
> >mawa