Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
>
> [Do] not snort too much at what is merely a single fleeting point
> in a sequence of architectures. Yes, FPGAs are stupid...
I'm not **that** much of a snorter, or I wouldn't be here ;->
I'm still a secret believer in the Generalized Moore's Law.
> FPGAs don't compare favourably to brain's fanout and connectivity
> factors (nanofilaments packed in 3d are hard to be beat to implement
> a high-connectivity infrastructure) nor in total number of active units...
Yes, yes, bring on the 3D packing, the fanouts, the connectivity, the
sheer number of active units. The smell from the oven is starting to make
me salivate.
> [E]ven current FPGAs need not remain static. That they... typically [do]...
> is a more or less deliberate decision on the [part] of the implementer.
> She doesn't understand circuits which flip through configurations
> [in the millisecond] range, especially if the circuits themselves decide
> on which next configuration to choose...
Yes. Yes. Yes!
> And, of course in computronium the signal-ducting nanofilaments
> (encoded as special cell states) will also be packed in 3d, and
> a bit denser than in the real thing...
Call my lawyer. Call my stockbroker. It's time to upload ;-> .
Life is a:
> ...prespecified problem [that] itself is shifting, and if you're embedded
into such a matrix the things are not nearly as deterministic...
said the actress to the bishop.
> I think you don't realize what we've got here already even with these
> stupid FPGAs. The brain has several levels of dynamics: the signalling,
> which occurs on the (sub-)ms time scale, adaptation, which takes
> seconds, or longer, and the hardware reconfiguration, which takes minutes,
> hours, or days.
> In FPGAs already you have two layers: the state which defines the hardware
> connectivity with the state that hardware has at time t.
Could you elaborate on that last sentence a bit? I can't quite make
out what you're saying here.
> In flexibility, that framework is comparable to biology. What limits it
> is the braindead architecture of current FPGAs, the limited integration density,
> the whole thing being fixed into flatland, and -- most importantly -- the
> limitations within designer's heads.
>
> None of them are likely to remain a constant on the scale of two-three decades.
> Even people do adapt and learn -- occasionally.
I'm very much looking forward to it (as are we all)!
Jim F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT