Spirou003 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:20 pm[... H]owever I don't totally agree when you say human can't be multi-task. It depends on what kind of tasks are involved: for example I can play some kind of games (not all) while watching television and sometimes by speaking with people (but it depends on what kind of conversation).
Hilariously, we're looking at something where the organic evolved world mimics the highly-engineered world of computer-science. Humans and computers, it turns out, do precisely the same things when switching tasks -- and the term "task switching" is what appears in the medical and psychological literature.
Any time a computer needs to switch tasks, usually based on a clock interrupt, it must safely stash away
all of the information in use for the "interrupted task" before starting in on the "new task". These breaks are known as "context-switches" and in computing terms are fantastically expensive; the same thing needs to happen when a human changes tasks in mid-stream -- and, unlike computers, we're more likely to forget something important in the process and when we try to return to it are likely to miss more. The end result can be a disaster if anything important is happening at the moment (e.g. when driving an automobile). Do one thing at a time and do it well. If it needs to be put down to pursue something else, find a good place to make that happen; don't try cutting the original off hard unless there is a catastrophic emergency that needs immediate attention.
This idea goes back hundreds of years -- long before there were technological parallels, and there's at least one parable that speaks to the notion of, "The man who tries to catch two rabbits catches neither."
