From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:00:45 MDT." <14ec7b180807300700j58f73002g7afa2dba3da0fc49@mail.gmail.com> From: Bakul Shah Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:53:29 -0700 Message-Id: <20080730165330.1A31D5B78@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming Topicbox-Message-UUID: f68a3aea-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > Is the human thought process parallel? For _my capacities_, I have the > > impression that I'm more multitask than parallel. And context switch is > > expensive because there is not only explicit data, but also implicit and > > I'm not able, if I'm really doing something involved, to restore the > > previous state without much ado. > > I, for one, think that this analogy is incorrect. It is your > perception of what the brain is doing (higher order functions) that > appears to be sequential, however, underneath it all, the brain is > being highly parallel at doing all the functions that keep us alive: > basic motor functions such as breathing, eyesight (which in itself is > a highly parallel endeavour), hunger, circadian rhythms if you will. > Even the neocortex is parallel: you can easily talk while, say, > navigating the corridors of a building. Besides, parallel programming is not about modelling human brain or thought processes (though you can use it for that). The other point to make is that *reasoning* about parallel programming need not to be parallel and one should be able to do that even with a "sequential" brain! > Something like being able to SMS at 40 words per minute > while headbanging at a concert :) I never thought of ADHD as parallel programming! > So, in essence, I think the brain may be exactly what Dijkstra had in > mind in the earlier quote: its workings are so implicitly parallel > that the word 'parallel' carries no meaning when describing it. His papers like "A new elephant built from mosquitoes humming in harmony" etc. make me think perhaps he was talking about a new way of looking at parallel programming and not at how our brains work as such. May be CSP is it but I don't really know.