What is important in understanding the processes involved is not the media in which the information is stored but the ability to make a comparison in that media. Difference # 2: The brain uses content-addressable memory The whole basis of my proposals were based on content addressable memory a because that is how people think and what they can understand. In fact one of difficulties of my approach was that if you had a task which was best analysed mathematically in terms of a regular grid, such as a chess board, it was at a disadvantage compared with a payday loans in DE stored program computer a which after all was designed to handle mathematically regular problems.
It is continually re-using itself. This is an economic way of building the processor if you are working in electronics (or at least the electronics of the 1970’s, which was the time the first commercial hardware might have been built if it had got that far. If you had millions of identical processors it could just as easily work by passing subsidiary tasks onto other identical processors to work in parallel. While I never looked at the problem of parallel working seriously my approach should be equally valid with either serial or parallel processing. Imunity) are parallel a but they are not inherently user-friendly a as my approach tried to be.
Long term memory) with the currently activated Facts (the short term memory) and as a result the Facts might be changed or become part of the knowledge base
However I feel that is really saying no more than that a circuit board and a brain used different mechanisms to order to do what they do. With parallel processing you can have many multiple processes going on simultaneously and it doesn’t matter is they are not perfectly synchronised as long as there is some mechanism to bring the combine results together. Difference # 5 – Short-term memory is not like RAM An important feature of my system was aA A aworking areaa which I called aThe Factsa and which I considered to be equivalent to human short term memory. While there were some practical implementation features the difference between the Facts and any other information in the knowledge base was that the Facts were the active focus of attention.
My system does not distinguish between program and date a it simply stores information which can be used in subtly different ways
The Facts were, of course, context addressed. It seemed important that, to be understandable, the number of Fasts items should match the number of items in a human short term memory if the human was doing the same tack in their head. This id due to the difference between the linear addressing of the stored program computer and an associative system. In an associative system the same things are given the same name where-ever they occur so that the processor can see they are the same. In a conventional programming language the addressing needs to be able to distinguish between related entities by giving each occurence a different name because they are held at different addresses. On one hand you have a cell with information stored within.
On the other hand you have a processor with two different kinds of information a program and data a stored in the memory. The real difference is that the brain does not distinguish between program and data while the stored program computer does. What I called the aDecision Making Unita simply compared items from the knowledge base (i. That was all the processor could do if you excluded (1) new information was added to the Facts from the aoutside worlda or (2) some combinations of Facts triggered an action in the aoutside worlda.