Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,13:45)|
|Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale?|
And on the memory line, that is also best shown 0 to total memories that can be stored in RAM. As long as it is not perfectly flat-lined (not going up a single pixel and screen says 0 or stays 1 total memories) it's doing OK there. Where it is only going up a few pixels it likely needs optimization, such as instead of using all bits of a sensor in addressing sum it down to two bits of state changes with comparator for signal increase or decrease. It then requires less memory array space to store sense of signal rise or fall. Line chart would show better optimization by being more than a few pixels over the same amount of time. But that did not change how intelligent it is. It still senses signal rise and fall through a comparator, instead of whether sensor went from 51-52 or 52-51 which takes more bits to do the same. It's normal to not need anywhere near as much RAM as the program has to dimension to account for all unique addressing instances, so you don't want to see it quickly rising since in a model like this that indicates a serious programming bug. It's just as well to simply draw the memory line line this, or get the exact number from off the screen after so many cycles of running time, then repeat to find whether memory usage improved a small amount or not. Where optimization did not at all change its intelligence circuit/structure it lives the exact same lifetime all over again, making it easy to know nothing at all changed from it.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.