Chip with simple program for Toy

[The Phantom]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:33:00 GMT, larry <larry@thishere.com> wrote:

Hi all,
I'm a beginner in electronics and would appreciate a little help.
The problem I'm having is that all the books for beginners that I've read. Tend to go from
resistors, capacitors, diodes and coils in series and parellel networks.
To imaginary transistor circuits with no definition of how these effect each other and how
the values of resistors and capacitors where arrived at.
Non of the books I've read so far, are any help in this aspect of circuit analysis. I tried to
work it out from first principles. I keep finding that my calculations don't agree with
the circuit designers numbers.

Take the low voltage preamp (attached) for EG.
You can see all of it at www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Audio/lvpreamp.htm.

On this page, just before the image labeled "Harmonic Distortion", the
author says, "With C3 the gain of T2 is now R4 in paralell with the input
impedance of T1 / the small signal emitter resistance of T2."

He *should* say "With C3 the gain of T2 is now R1 in parallel with the
input impedance of T1 / the small signal emitter resistance of T2."

It doesn't matter how I calculate the resistors. I can't get the 1.5v at the base of T2,
or anything close to 1.5v.

I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.
Any help or www. address with transistor circuit analysis (for ideots)
would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:20:05 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:07:38 +0000, feebo Gave us:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:17 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Shows what happens when she doesn't get the hysterectomy soon
enough...

shame your mother didn't


Your shithead mother should be a jailed felon, fucktard. For the
crime of not flushing your shithead ass, the moment she shat you out
of her retarded ass, you TPOS!

heh - I was thinking of incinerating your mother, for inflicting your
sory ass upon the world, but someone beat me to it...

care to RV me for that? Laughing at you!!!

you are an intellectual midget, as you have stumbled thru life I can
just imagine all the people you have impressed - FOR ALL THE WRONG
FUCKING REASONS

PS you wanker

 

[Robin Faichney]

On 22 Mar 2007 22:59:11 -0700, "RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness
is indeed a part of physics in the sense that, whatever it
is, it is strictly the result of the physical structure in
the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from
known laws of physics.

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness. Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

This should make you happy:
http://www.quantumenigma.com/
--
<http://www.robinfaichney.org/>

 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:30:06 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:14:21 +0000, feebo Gave us:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:36:00 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

I do. It was the same silver powder used for photography. Very
fast burn, very bright flash. The fireworks folks still use it in
almost everything. It is called flash powder.



he he... "Flash powder" lol!


That's what it is called, you fucking retard!

yep - something like sodium hyflashpowder - there are dozens of "flash
powders" twat ... still laughing at you that you think you could pop
into the chemist "I'll have a pound of flash powder please" LOL!

 

[Bob Myers]

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174625502.907604.237760@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Exactly my point. We cant define consciousness in an absolute way.

A mental state which includes self-awareness.
(mental states = brain states, I believe we concur)

Can you cleanly distinguish "consciousness" from "self-
awareness," though? If not, then the definition would collapse
down to "Consciousness is a mental state which includes
consciousness," and that surely isn't very helpful. What do
we mean by "consciousness" if not "self-awareness"?

My argument shows that it is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to consciousness in the definition. Its
inherently a circular process.

False. Refer to neural activity - which is what
thinking/feeling/memory IS.

Yes, but the term "consciousness" seems to me to point to
the experiential aspect of that neural activity; I know that
I, myself, are conscious solely because I experience that state
in myself. And clearly not all neural activity equates to
consciousness - within my brain and nervous system, neural
activity continues even when I am clearly NOT conscious -
so there is a distinction there which simply referring to
"neural activity" (at least without being forced to drag in
circular sorts of definitions that equate to "the sort of
neural activity seen when consciousness is present") does
not capture.

We can
measure electrical signals of the brain and corralate them with actions
etc.

Right.
So what's the problem?

Can we correlate any such measurements with "consciousness"?
Getting back to an earlier question - if there's no problem here,
then what you're saying is that we have (through these measurements)
an objective test for consciousness in other entities. Is this in fact
your claim?

As you said yourself, consciousness seems to
arise from a sufficiently complex neural network.
But there are degrees... a snail has a neural net,
with brain activity, should we call it conscious?
That doesn't appear too useful. Yet we agree
mammals seem to have it... I don't see the problem
as circularity, but rather you need some well-defined
threshold of complexity, which is in principle feasible.

I think part of the problem is that the threshold may not
be all that well-defined, any more than we find clear and
well-defined thresholds or definitions for "personhood"
or even for "living."

But we can empirically test for self-awareness
(which we might define as 'soul'). We know that chimps
are self-aware.

More precisely, we know that chimps behave in a
manner which appears consistent with our own experiences
of self-awareness, and on this we base an assumption that
they are, in fact, self-aware. However, since self-awareness
it itself a personal experience, we cannot directly observe it
or sense it for ourselves re the chimp (or any other entity) in
question. This gets us back to the "zombie" issue that Kevin
and I were discussing earler (and which has certainly been
gone over time and time again by philosophers, for years!) -
can you distinguish between an entity which perfectly
simulates the OUTWARD behavior of a conscious entity
and yet is not truly conscious (it does not have the necessary
experience within itself), and one who IS truly conscious?
We may choose to believe that such "zombie" entities are
not possible, but I for one don't see a particularly strong reason
to believe this. I simply cannot know with any degree of
certainty whether or not any other entity is conscious.
Obviously, I choose to behave in the vast majority of cases
as if others are conscious, but I do acknowledge that this is
simply an assumption on my part.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174629551.916455.159330@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness.

Why presumably? A wave function collapses when
a measurement is made, and this can certainly be
done through equipment which is clearly non-conscious.
Obviously at some point a conscious observer will
gather the data from that equipment, but unless we
are willing to assert that the record of that data is itself
in an indeterminate state prior to the observation (in
which case we have uncertainty operating at a very
gross mechnical scale!), this would argue that
consciousness not only interacts with nature, but that
it can do so by reaching into the past. I think there
may be some serious problems with that, to say the
least.

Bob M.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Mar 22, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like,
explain means to give an understanding..like, you know...when you
are aware of something that clicks in your brain..well, what do
you mean by "aware"...etc. Its all circular. Turtules all the way
down...

No.

Yes.

Formulate a Turing machine which models the data,
a la Kolmogorov complexity. This consitutes 'explanation'.
I believe this is, in fact, what the brain does (the details are
a bit mysterious).

Oh dear.

And exactly what has this got to do with qualia. That is experiance,
feelings etc?

Difficult, but no logic or semantic problems involving self-reference.

Agreed, again IF this all must ultimately refer back to this
notion of "consciousness" which we have yet to define.

Exactly my point. We cant define consciousness in an absolute way.

A mental state which includes self-awareness.
(mental states = brain states, I believe we concur)

Nope. You miss the whole argument.

Now try and define "aware" independently of consciousness.

Have you actually read my paper?

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

MY point was that it is "consciousness" itself which we have
yet to adequately define or describe such that we can truly
speak of it in any meaningful manner. In any and all cases I've
been able to think of, at least, "consciousness" winds up
equating to "that which *I* experience in myself."

My argument shows that it is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to consciousness in the definition.
Its inherently a circular process.

False. Refer to neural activity - which is what
thinking/feeling/memory IS.

Oh...now explain how that physical measurement of electrical signals
transpires to us as qualia? That is in something we *experience*.

Explain the word *experience" "perceive" etc. All aspects of being aware and
conscious. It is indeed turtles all the way down. None of these words can be
defined without referring to consciousness as they are all properties that
only a consciousness provides.

We can
measure electrical signals of the brain and corralate them with
actions etc.

Right.
So what's the problem?

Whats the problem you say. Oh dear...

err.. like is an electron aware of its own existence? You comment here tells
me you haven read pretty much anything on the problem of "conscious
experience"

Try googling "consciousness qualia"

My argument is that it is not derivable because all "understandings"
of consciousness must, inherently resolve back to what consciousness
is in the first place. That is, a circular argument...

We inherently cannot define what
consciousness is, except by using words like "aware" "know" etc,
which all require and refer back to consciousness itself. Since we
can not define what consciousness is in principle, it clearly can
not be explained. One must have a definition of something in order
to explain it. Otherwise, what is it that we are talking about? This
is really so trivial, by my book, its unreal.

nah

Ho humm...

Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SIzMh.23662$Lz4.17113@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
Miss my point again How do you actually *perceive* an
"explanation".

Not really missing your point - I am just wondering if it
is, per se, NECESSARY for an "explanation" to be perceived
in the sense that this word relates to consciousness. We can
imagine, for instance, a mechanism which is most definitely
non-conscious, and yet "understands" an explanation or model
of something sufficiently well so as to achieve practical, useful
results. But we're definitely at the point of splitting hairs when
we get that there.

Sort of.

If I read you correctly. You are saying that you believe Zombies are
possible.

Not quite; I am saying that I don't at this point believe I have
a clear and valid set of reasons that renders them impossible.
If that equates to "believing them possible" (no matter how
unlikely), then I suppose I would plead guilty.

I don't. I am as convinced as I can be that behaviour as a human
requires consciousness. Our explanation for what "understanding"
means resolve to consciousness, therefore understanding is not
possible without consciousness. So, a Zombie could never understand.

To be sure - but then, that argument does not mean that
"zombies" could not exist. We have agreed, I think, that a good
working definition of "zombie" is a non-conscious entity which
SIMULATES the behavior of a conscious entity sufficiently well so as
to be indistinguishable, by any objective external obsever, from an
other entity that we are assuming is "conscious." There's nothing
in that definition that requires said zombie to actually understand
anything, though - just that they give the proper responses to
whatever stimuli we might offer.

Only in principle, due to lack of disproof, I agree, but in reality, I just
can't buy into zombies.

Ah, I see; but then, while I agree with the "no magic" axoim, I am
not sure that you have truly proven that consciousness could not
be derived from physical laws. IF consciousness has purely physical
origins - and I think we are in agreement that it does - then it
should be derivable.

Not at all. As I noted, Kurt Godels proof of Undecidability trounces
that notion. e.g
http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html.

All Godel says, though, is that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness
may not be derivable - he does not say that it MUST be.

Yes. This is well understood. The fundamental point here is that Godel tells
us that just because we cant find a derivation (an explanation) it doesn't
mean that something *must* be missing. This is the god of the gaps issue.
Because there is no proof of consciousness from inanimate matter, many hold
that that fact alone is enough to postulate a soul. Sure, one could exist in
principle, but there is no logical reason for that notion as a requirement.


Its a bit like "whats the point of life?" Answer, err why should there be a
point to life, like who says so?

I should
modify my statement slightly, though, and say that consciousness MAY
still be derivable from existing physics, not that it "should" be.

Thats my point.

In

short,
we've not yet really shown it either way.

On the contrary, I have. I have shown that there are strictly an infinity of
possible derivations of consciousness from inanimate mater. To wit,
consciousness, must refer to itself in its explanation, therefore it falls
into the circular argument trap of *all* explanations being "proved true"
within the loop. Therefore there is no way to prove which explanation is the
right one. Its that simple.

I'm not even sure that consciousness, at our present level of
understanding, could be called a "new law of physics" - if it is,
then exactly what IS that law?

The law that consciousness exists.

But that's not really a "law" - it is simply a statement of personal
experience.

As are all physical laws.

Again, each of us "knows" that we are conscious because
we directly experience the state that this word identifies, in
ourselves. We have no way of proving or demonstrating its existence
anywhere else, although again it IS certainly the best way to bet.

Well, as I said, it's been fun - but we really ARE going over some
pretty fine points now, and I doubt there's much more to be
said.

Agreed. No need to reply to this one.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Bob Myers]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:HiVMh.24380$Lz4.22540@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

RichD wrote:
On Mar 22, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like,
explain means to give an understanding..like, you know...when you
are aware of something that clicks in your brain..well, what do
you mean by "aware"...etc. Its all circular. Turtules all the way
down...

No.

Yes.

Maybe. There, I believe we've successfully covered all the
options now. I feel so much better...

And exactly what has this got to do with qualia. That is experiance,
feelings etc?

Not a thing, of course, which was part of a good deal of
my comments on the same point - but just so we're not in
total agreement here (no fun in that), I would again point out
that we have no way of directly demonstrating "experience"
or "feelings" in ANYONE but ourselves - therefore, I am not
certain that they exist in anyone else. The rest of you may be
all zombies for all I know (which would raise troubling questions
about where you all came from, and why I'M here, but at
least it IS a possibility!).

Now try and define "aware" independently of consciousness.

This made me curious as to just what Webster had to say
on the question; since he's dead, I reached for my trusty
American Heritage dictionary (your mileage, in the UK,
may vary, of course), where I read: "Aware: Having knowledge
or cognizance." I suppose "cognizance" does pretty much
require consciousness, although we would have to be
rather strict in the definition of "knowledge" such that IT
would. (E.g., I could say that a mechanical sensor, for
instance, "has knowledge of" a passing object; it's a bit
of sloppy usage, but then usage of this sort happens all the
time.) Of course, a dictionary is hardly a philosophy text,
and should not be used as one, but I think it can safely be
used as a guide to what might spring into the average person's
thoughts when encountering a given word.

Still fun stuff - I guess we ARE finding little patches of new
ground, here and there, to cover....

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vjVMh.24381$Lz4.23639@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Only in principle, due to lack of disproof, I agree, but in reality, I
just can't buy into zombies.

In all honesty, my "gut" doesn't want to buy into them
either. On the other hand, asking WHY we can't buy into
that notion is a worthwhile exercise.

I think that exercise also has a practical side as well, which
will come into play sooner than some may think. I see no reason
to think that, relatively soon (certainly within the next 100 years,
and quite possibly MUCH sooner), we will create artificial
intelligences which do just what we're talking about here - at
least give all outward appearances of being conscious beings.
That will raise some very serious questions, and some people
will no doubt claim that such entities ARE in fact, "zombies"
- simulations of consciousness, but nothing more. But we will
at that point be faced with the question of whether or not such
beings are deserving of "personhood" in both the legal and
moral-consideration senses. We will have to somehow show
that they are NOT zombies in order to grant them "person"
status, or else admit that such things as zombies are in fact
possible - and then how will we show that the next person you
meet on the street isn't, after all, one of them?

Yes. This is well understood. The fundamental point here is that Godel
tells us that just because we cant find a derivation (an explanation) it
doesn't mean that something *must* be missing. This is the god of the gaps
issue. Because there is no proof of consciousness from inanimate matter,
many hold that that fact alone is enough to postulate a soul. Sure, one
could exist in principle, but there is no logical reason for that notion
as a requirement.


Its a bit like "whats the point of life?" Answer, err why should there be
a point to life, like who says so?

This is a bit of a shift in the conversation, but it's also an interesting
one.
I would submit that we ALL "say so" - as evidenced each and every
moment by our ongoing decision to continue living. There must be SOME
"point," some reason that life is preferable to the alternative, or we would
have nothing stopping us from ending it.

Where I *think* you and I actually are in agreement, and where we
(and others like us) do differ with (what appears to be, at least) the
majority viewpoint, is that while life certainly has a point, there is
absolutely no reason to think that this requires that there be a "soul,"
and "afterlife," or any of the rest of the supposedly-supernatural
claptrap that accompanies such notions. In short, we find a purpose
in our lives that does not require that anything exist outside this
natural, physical universe. Agreed?

But that's not really a "law" - it is simply a statement of personal
experience.

As are all physical laws.

Ummm...yes, I think I see what you mean by that, but
where I am drawing the distinction here is that those things
we call "physical laws" are full-blown models of the behavior
of some aspect of the physical universe, with well-established
predictive value. I don't see anything similar with respect
to "consciousness."


Bob M.

 

[ehsjr]

larry wrote:

Hi all,
I'm a beginner in electronics and would appreciate a little help.
The problem I'm having is that all the books for beginners that I've read. Tend to go from
resistors, capacitors, diodes and coils in series and parellel networks.
To imaginary transistor circuits with no definition of how these effect each other and how
the values of resistors and capacitors where arrived at.
Non of the books I've read so far, are any help in this aspect of circuit analysis. I tried to
work it out from first principles. I keep finding that my calculations don't agree with
the circuit designers numbers.

Take the low voltage preamp (attached) for EG.
You can see all of it at www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Audio/lvpreamp.htm.
It doesn't matter how I calculate the resistors.
I can't get the 1.5v at the base of T2,
or anything close to 1.5v.

Maybe the error is simple: You said T2 above, but the
url says 1.5 volts at the *emitter* of *T1* If you've been
solving for the base of T2 looking for 1.5 volts, you'll
be dissapointed. There's a couple of quick solutions,
and also longer solutions - I've tried to show both
quick and long methods below.

Finding the voltage at the base of T1:
The base of T1 = 3V minus the voltage drop across R1. We need
to know the current through R1. We already know 70 uA IC for
T2, so at least .84 volts is dropped in R1. One quick way to
the answer is to stop right there and subtract that drop from
3 volts to get 2.16, ignoring the additional drop that Ibe in
T1 will cause. I'll do an estimate of that additional drop anyway.

The V across the R2 R3 divider is ~ 1.5 volts, so the
I through it is 1.5/2000 or .0015 A. Using a guess beta
of 200, that means Ibe for Q1 = .0015/200 or .00000375 A.
That means a drop in R1 (due to that current) of another
..045 volts (12000*.00000375). So the total drop in R1, using
an estimated beta of 200 for T1, would be .84 + .045 or
..885 volts. That means the base of T1 would be 3 - .885 or
~2.115. That's just .045 volts different than the quick way,
which gave 2.16 volts.

Finding the voltage at the base of T2:
The quick way to arrive at the T2 base voltage is to
take 1/2 the voltage at the T1 emitter, due to the
R2/R3 voltage divider. That's .75 volts. The longer
way: the current path for Ibe in T2 is .75 volts through
100k,1K,be, and 1.5K to ground. Ignoring be resistance,
I = .75/102500 = ~.00000731. The voltage is the drop
across 101000, or ~.73831 - very close to the .75 quick
way answer.

There is another quick way when you know the transistor
is conducting Ice: the Vbe is always ~ .6 volts.
If you know the emitter voltage, just add .6 to get you in
the ballpark. For T1, we were given the emitter V = ~1.5,
so the base V would be about 1.5 + .6 or 2.1. For
T2, you know the Ic which is very close to Ie, so
Ve = Ic * Re . In this case, it is .00007 * 1500 or
~.105 volts. To get the base v ballpark, add .6 and get
..705. Note that you must be careful with this way.
It does not mean that the base is definitely at that
voltage. If the circuit isn't working where the transistor
is conducting Ice, it does not apply.

Ed

I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.
Any help or www. address with transistor circuit analysis (for ideots)
would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Myers wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vjVMh.24381$Lz4.23639@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Only in principle, due to lack of disproof, I agree, but in reality,
I just can't buy into zombies.


In all honesty, my "gut" doesn't want to buy into them
either. On the other hand, asking WHY we can't buy into
that notion is a worthwhile exercise.

Part of my reasoning is noting that consciousness just seems to arise when
the systems get so interactive and complex enough. Like seeing a brain scan
as someone wakes up. Activity across the all the brain increases. There is
no centre for consciousness, its an emergent property.

I think that exercise also has a practical side as well, which
will come into play sooner than some may think. I see no reason
to think that, relatively soon (certainly within the next 100 years,
and quite possibly MUCH sooner), we will create artificial
intelligences which do just what we're talking about here - at
least give all outward appearances of being conscious beings.
That will raise some very serious questions, and some people
will no doubt claim that such entities ARE in fact, "zombies"
- simulations of consciousness, but nothing more. But we will
at that point be faced with the question of whether or not such
beings are deserving of "personhood" in both the legal and
moral-consideration senses. We will have to somehow show
that they are NOT zombies in order to grant them "person"
status, or else admit that such things as zombies are in fact
possible - and then how will we show that the next person you
meet on the street isn't, after all, one of them?

Yes.

Yes. This is well understood. The fundamental point here is that
Godel tells us that just because we cant find a derivation (an
explanation) it doesn't mean that something *must* be missing. This
is the god of the gaps issue. Because there is no proof of
consciousness from inanimate matter, many hold that that fact alone
is enough to postulate a soul. Sure, one could exist in principle,
but there is no logical reason for that notion as a requirement.


Its a bit like "whats the point of life?" Answer, err why should
there be a point to life, like who says so?

This is a bit of a shift in the conversation, but it's also an
interesting one.

I was really only addressing the point that questions might be reversed
phrased to bring out a point more cleary.

For example, there is mass hysteria to me on "global warming". Its all about
"why is the temperature rising". Is it CO2, sun activity, Bush's rhetoric?

The question to me should be "why is the earths temperature so amazingly
constant?"

In the range of Universe temperatures, a 40 deg range is tiny.

I would submit that we ALL "say so" - as evidenced each and every
moment by our ongoing decision to continue living. There must be SOME
"point," some reason that life is preferable to the alternative, or
we would have nothing stopping us from ending it.

I agree that the probably of a belief in a point in life is at least a
slight increases the likelihood of staying alive and having more offspring
to carry on that same belief, so under the Darwinian Algorithm, that belief
should dominate, despite it incorrectness..

Where I *think* you and I actually are in agreement, and where we
(and others like us) do differ with (what appears to be, at least) the
majority viewpoint, is that while life certainly has a point, there is
absolutely no reason to think that this requires that there be a
"soul," and "afterlife," or any of the rest of the
supposedly-supernatural claptrap that accompanies such notions.

Points in life are relative. We make our own, but they have no absolute
meaning.

short, we find a purpose in our lives that does not require that
anything exist outside this natural, physical universe. Agreed?

Yes.

But that's not really a "law" - it is simply a statement of personal
experience.

As are all physical laws.

Ummm...yes, I think I see what you mean by that, but
where I am drawing the distinction here is that those things
we call "physical laws" are full-blown models of the behavior
of some aspect of the physical universe, with well-established
predictive value. I don't see anything similar with respect
to "consciousness."

Actually, "physical laws" are the basic, axioms e.g. speed of light,
conservation of momentum, conservation of energy etc. The theories that
result from these axioms can be very complex and detailed. e.g.
"Thermodynamics" is not a physical law. Increases in entropy over time is.

I agree we don't have much numerical predictive power over consciousness.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:HiVMh.24380$Lz4.22540@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
RichD wrote:
On Mar 22, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like,
explain means to give an understanding..like, you know...when you
are aware of something that clicks in your brain..well, what do
you mean by "aware"...etc. Its all circular. Turtules all the way
down...

No.

Yes.

Maybe. There, I believe we've successfully covered all the
options now. I feel so much better...


And exactly what has this got to do with qualia. That is experiance,
feelings etc?

Not a thing, of course, which was part of a good deal of
my comments on the same point - but just so we're not in
total agreement here (no fun in that), I would again point out
that we have no way of directly demonstrating "experience"
or "feelings" in ANYONE but ourselves - therefore,

Yes, I agree with this.

I am not
certain that they exist in anyone else.

Nevertheless I am absolutely certain that they exist in others. You see,
although I don't believe in belief without evidence, i.e. faith, but I do
hold beliefs as true so long as the evidence is convincing enough.

There are agruments that hold that we dont need to belive anything but still
function correctly.

The rest of you may be
all zombies for all I know (which would raise troubling questions
about where you all came from, and why I'M here, but at
least it IS a possibility!).

A bit more subtle here on possibility, or probability. We could have a lack
of knowledge on what is actually possible. That is, the knowledge might say
something, in principle, is impossible, but because we simple don't have
that knowledge, we claim it is possible erroneously.

For example, before squaring the circle was proven impossible, one could
sort of argue that it might be "possible" to square the circle. The fact
that one didn't know that squaring the circle was impossible prior to
knowing the proof, did not make the probability of such squaring non zero.

So, fo me, I take the view that there is zero probability of Zombies,
despite my lack of proof. I could be wrong, but what the hell.

Now try and define "aware" independently of consciousness.


This made me curious as to just what Webster had to say
on the question; since he's dead, I reached for my trusty
American Heritage dictionary (your mileage, in the UK,
may vary, of course), where I read: "Aware: Having knowledge
or cognizance." I suppose "cognizance" does pretty much
require consciousness, although we would have to be
rather strict in the definition of "knowledge" such that IT
would. (E.g., I could say that a mechanical sensor, for
instance, "has knowledge of" a passing object; it's a bit
of sloppy usage, but then usage of this sort happens all the
time.)

Of course we can define words differently, but then this new definition is
clearly not what is meant when we are using that same word with reference to
consciousness.

I still find it amazing this definition problem of all words associated with
consciousness seems to have been missed. When we "explain" a physical
theory, we don't have an issue because we just accept what the meaning of
the words used as a given. This fails in "explanations" of consciousness.
Meanings of words are only perceived in consciousness, so we are right up
the creek. We can not even define the words, so explanations of
consciousness must be circular.yeah flogging a dead horse...but sometimes
one has to go on a bit to make it sink in....

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Curt Welch]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Now try and define "aware" independently of consciousness.

Have you actually read my paper?

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

I've not. But I pulled up the page and looked at the title. That's all
the more nonsense I could stomach.

The only thing about consciousness which is undefined is the word itself.
Words are nothing more than words. You have to appreciate that learning
words alone doesn't tell you shit about the universe. If you choose for
yourself to pick a definition for some silly word which is circular, then
of course, your argument is valid. Consciousness is circular and can't be
defined - because you choose to define it that way.

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular - including humans
and their brain activity.

All this nonsense of consciousness comes from man's lack of understanding
of the brain. The brains of past humans knew they existed but couldn't
grasp what type of "thing" they were - they created a special type activity
without motion, without noise, without vibrations. The brain, when it was
running, didn't seem to be moving at all - it didn't seem to have any
physical attributes - as such, men didn't even know what or where all this
brain activity was coming from. It was deep magic juju. So they made up
names for this magic like soul and later consciousness. They couldn't
define what it was, yet they knew it existed because each of them could
sense when their brain was running and say to others, "yeah my brain is
working". Of course, they didn't actually say that because they didn't
know it was their brain their were sensing so they made up words to talk
about the activity of their brain and said things like, "I'm having
feelings, and memories, and thoughts".

But that was 500 years ago. We know a bit more now. Unfortunately, like
many other things such as these pesky religious beliefs, most common men
seem unable to see the obvious truth in it all - mostly because they don't
try to see the truth. They just accept what other people tell them and get
on with their lives (we all do this).

Our language is full of lies about what is happening in our brain simply
because the people that created the language over the past thousands of
years had no clue about what all this brain activity was. It didn't seem
to be physical to them because they couldn't sense the activity of neurons
with their eyes and ears and nose and fingers. They had no way to relate
brain activity, to the physical world. Not seeing the connection, forced
them to invent a language which had no connections to describe this stuff
which wasn't physical. As such, we have a language built on a foundation
that thought and everything connected with it being non-physical.

We say that feelings aren't physical. Memories aren't physical. Ideas
aren't physical. Qualia aren't physical. Tangible objects are physical,
intangible objects are not physical. But that's all pure bull shit created
by people that didn't even know we had a physical brain. Thought, and
feelings, are nothing more than the physical data processing activities of
a brain - which itself is nothing more than an adaptive learning controller
for our arms and legs.

So the question becomes, if you want to use this silly word "consciousness"
and have endless silly debates about stupid words, then what in fact are
you talking about when you use the word? You must be talking about
physical brain activity because there is nothing else here to talk about.
We know that for a fact now. 500 years ago no one had the data they needed
to know that. But we have more than enough data to know it to be true now.
Yet, some huge percentage of the population are still blind to this truth.

The prime reason people are blind, is because they allow themselves to
become word-centric thinkers. They believe they can master an understand
of a word like "consciousness" simply by studying words.

It's not the words that need to be studied. It's the brain. Studying
words is a waste of time unless your goal is to be a linguist or language
specialist or a philosopher. But when philosophers come into my camp and
make stupid arguments about "consciousness can't be defined" because they
have gotten themselves all twisted up in their stupid words and forgot to
actually study the universe instead of just studying words, it just drives
me insane.

If the point of your paper is to shed insight on how poorly brain
activity is currently defined with our words, then you are making a valid
point. But if you are trying to prove that there is some magic juju that
exists which we label with the word consciousness which is impossible to
define, you have simply failed to see the truth hidden by this twisted mess
of bad words. You have failed to separate the thing labeled, from the word
which we use to label it. And in that failure, you have tied the label,
back to itself, and created a circular definition that is meaningless.

The reason consciousness isn't meaningless, or circular, is because it
is making reference to brain activity - to brain behavior. And brains are
physical and real things which we can talk about without using words like
"feelings".

Many people today still believe that consciousness is something other than
just brain activity - or that it's something very unique and special so it
can't exist in anything else. But there's NO evidence to suggest this.
It's just an urban legend passed down from generation to generation. It's
believed by so many because it's believed by so many people. It's just
herd mentality. They believe it because they were told it was true and
everyone else they know believes it to be the truth so they go along with
the herd instead of looking at the evidence and forming their own opinion.

Consciousness can be defined in a non-circular way. It's brain activity.
If you choose to reject that definition, then you are the one that are
choosing to believe it can't be defined simply because you choose to reject
the only definition that fits the facts. You can't prove you are right, by
defining yourself to be right as an axiom of your beliefs. But that's
exactly what you have done. In which case, your paper says nothing more
than, I'm right because I say I'm right. And that level of stupidity is
why I couldn't bring myself to read past the title.

Brain activity is not something that can be studied and understood by
philosophers who choose to ignore everything physical as if it wasn't
important.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Curt Welch wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Now try and define "aware" independently of consciousness.

Have you actually read my paper?

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

I've not. But I pulled up the page and looked at the title. That's
all the more nonsense I could stomach.

Oh...

The only thing about consciousness which is undefined is the word
itself. Words are nothing more than words. You have to appreciate
that learning words alone doesn't tell you shit about the universe.
If you choose for yourself to pick a definition for some silly word
which is circular, then of course, your argument is valid.
Consciousness is circular and can't be defined - because you choose
to define it that way.

Oh dear..

If you have a definition that that isn't self-referral, that actually,
works, please present it to us.

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -

It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.

For eaxmple:

F = d(mv)/dt, or F=ma, if one isnt up the math

How do we define mass and force independently of each other? Good luck mate
in your effort.

If you actually knew anything about physics you would understand this point.

Another one, yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not? Look mate thess issues
are pretty fundamental and unresolved.

including
humans and their brain activity.

All this nonsense of consciousness comes from man's lack of
understanding of the brain.

Simply clueless.

The brains of past humans knew they

{snip meanderings}

Our language is full of lies about what is happening in our brain
simply because the people that created the language over the past
thousands of years had no clue about what all this brain activity
was. It didn't seem to be physical to them because they couldn't
sense the activity of neurons with their eyes and ears and nose and
fingers. They had no way to relate brain activity, to the physical
world. Not seeing the connection, forced them to invent a language
which had no connections to describe this stuff which wasn't
physical. As such, we have a language built on a foundation that
thought and everything connected with it being non-physical.

We say that feelings aren't physical. Memories aren't physical.
Ideas aren't physical. Qualia aren't physical. Tangible objects are
physical, intangible objects are not physical. But that's all pure
bull shit created by people that didn't even know we had a physical
brain.

Oh dear. Its clear that you just haven't thought this thing through at all.
A machine doesn't have "experience".

I have already stated that the embodiment of us is physical, however, the
fact that our emotions are a strict result of physics, does not explain what
experience is.

Thought, and feelings, are nothing more than the physical
data processing activities of a brain - which itself is nothing more
than an adaptive learning controller for our arms and legs.

Your compleastly missing the point. As I have alrady explained, yes, what we
are is an electro-chemical machine, now..

Look, mate, suppose I kick you in the balls. Now explain to me how inanimate
electrons and protons give you that experience that you attribute as pain.
What is experience. The electrical impulses co-incident with that kick in
the balls simply does not explain the fact that you don't like it. That it
*hurts*.

So the question becomes, if you want to use this silly word
"consciousness" and have endless silly debates about stupid words,
then what in fact are you talking about when you use the word? You
must be talking about physical brain activity because there is
nothing else here to talk about. We know that for a fact now. 500
years ago no one had the data they needed to know that. But we have
more than enough data to know it to be true now. Yet, some huge
percentage of the population are still blind to this truth.

You are simple repeating what I have already stated in these posts, but
showing no understanding of what is missing from this account.

The prime reason people are blind, is because they allow themselves to
become word-centric thinkers. They believe they can master an
understand of a word like "consciousness" simply by studying words.

It's not the words that need to be studied. It's the brain. Studying
words is a waste of time unless your goal is to be a linguist or
language specialist or a philosopher. But when philosophers come
into my camp and make stupid arguments about "consciousness can't be
defined" because they have gotten themselves all twisted up in their
stupid words and forgot to actually study the universe instead of
just studying words, it just drives me insane.

If the point of your paper is to shed insight on how poorly brain
activity is currently defined with our words, then you are making a
valid point. But if you are trying to prove that there is some magic
juju that exists which we label with the word consciousness which is
impossible to define, you have simply failed to see the truth hidden
by this twisted mess of bad words.

Nope. I have shown that any attempt to try an explain what it is that is the
actual "feeling" that you get with a kick in the balls, is outwith the
physics loop. Physics need a new axiom. Atoms dont feel pain. You do.

You have failed to separate the
thing labeled, from the word which we use to label it. And in that
failure, you have tied the label, back to itself, and created a
circular definition that is meaningless.

The reason consciousness isn't meaningless, or circular, is because it
is making reference to brain activity - to brain behavior.

Oh dear.. you simply haven't understood anything. No one is claiming that
consciousness is meaningless.

And
brains are physical and real things

Yes.

which we can talk about without
using words like "feelings".

Sure, we can discuss various things a bout the brain without mentioning
experience, but that that doesn't mention experience, which indeed exists,
and doesn't exist in electrons, that which our brains are constructed from.

Many people today still believe that consciousness is something other
than just brain activity - or that it's something very unique and
special so it can't exist in anything else. But there's NO evidence
to suggest this.

Look, this is getting rather tiresome, why don't you go back and read what
has already been said in the posts. By repeating ideas as your own, that
have already been addressed in these posts, says much about your
credibility,

To wit, your above comment is was adrresed here

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html

It's just an urban legend passed down from

{snip more preaching to the converted}

looking at the evidence and forming their own opinion.

Consciousness can be defined in a non-circular way. It's brain
activity.

Nonsense. We can have brain activity without consciousness. Please provide
the detailed electrical activity that distinguishes a conscious response
from an autonomous response. Then provide proof that those details are the
correct one. We wouldn't want to kill the wrong thing now would we.

If you choose to reject that definition, then you are the
one that are choosing to believe it can't be defined simply because
you choose to reject the only definition that fits the facts.

See above, you are so way of base its unreal.

You
can't prove you are right, by defining yourself to be right as an
axiom of your beliefs.

{snip more evidence that poster hasn't understood any of the prior posts}
--

Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

Have you actually read my paper?

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

Well, I have a reaction to your paper. Your main point seems to be
that mental concepts such as "consciousness", "understanding", "emotion",
"awareness", "perception", etc. have self-referential definitions.
Therefore, you cannot ever give a purely physical definition of
any of them.

I actually don't consider that such a terrible situation to be
in. We can just go ahead and define all these mental terms
self-referentially. These self-referential definitions then
are not *actually* definitions, but are *axioms* constraining
possible interpretations of mental terms. If the axioms don't
uniquely pin down what the mental terms mean, then that means
that there are possible *nonstandard* interpretations of those
terms. In a similar way, the first-order axioms of Peano arithmetic
don't uniquely pin down the natural numbers---there are nonstandard
interpretations of those axioms.

In the absence of any non-circular reason for preferring one
model of mentality over another, we can instead study "models
of consciousness" (plural).

I know that doesn't get you towards what some philosophers
think of as a desirable goal, to characterize the one and
only true theory of the mind. For some people, there is one
*true* consciousness, and anything else is pseudo-consciousness.
But I think that attitude is wrong-headed. If there are
non-circular reasons for saying that our consciousness is *real*
and the other kinds of consciousness are not, then we can include
that reasons in our axioms of consciousness. If there are no
non-circular reasons for distinguishing "real" consciousness
from "pseudo" consciousness, then don't distinguish them. Treat
them both as equally good notions of "consciousness".

In the same way that Turing machines, recursive functions, lambda
calculus, etc. are all equally good models of computation, there
could be multiple, equally good ways to implement consciousness.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

We say that feelings aren't physical. Memories aren't physical.
Ideas aren't physical. Qualia aren't physical. Tangible objects are
physical, intangible objects are not physical. But that's all pure
bull shit created by people that didn't even know we had a physical
brain.

Oh dear. Its clear that you just haven't thought this thing through at all.
A machine doesn't have "experience".

On what basis do you say that? I can understand how one could use
introspection as evidence that he has experience, what counts as
evidence that something *doesn't* have experience?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Curt Welch]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Curt Welch wrote:

Look, mate, suppose I kick you in the balls. Now explain to me how
inanimate electrons and protons give you that experience that you
attribute as pain. What is experience. The electrical impulses
co-incident with that kick in the balls simply does not explain the fact
that you don't like it. That it *hurts*.

Unfortunetaly for you, you can't present any evidence to support this
belief of yours.

I don't have to prove anything because it is you who is suggesting that
pain is not explained by the electrical impulses. I say it is. Prove me
wrong.

Show me the scientific experiment to prove what you suggest. If you can't
show it to me, then there is no evidence to support your belief. It is,
just a belief.

The argument you are making is the same as the God argument. You say it's
true (God exists) and since there is no evidence to disprove this
assumption, people believe it to be true simply because it seems like a
good thing to believe.

You believe my experience of pain isn't explained by the electrical
impulses but I don't. I also don't believe in God.

Nope. I have shown that any attempt to try an explain what it is that is
the actual "feeling" that you get with a kick in the balls, is outwith
the physics loop. Physics need a new axiom. Atoms dont feel pain. You do.

Again, this is something, like a God, that you have simply chosen to
believe in. I don't. I believe physics explains everything we need to
know about what pain is.

But, I don't have to prove this. I don't have to be right, for you to be
wrong. What's wrong, is that you are trying to argue the truth of a belief
which has no supporting evidence. It just happens to be something you have
been trained to believe to be a truth. There is no axiom, and there is no
evidence, to support this idea which you want to argue is a truth. It just
something you have latched on to.

Sure, we can discuss various things a bout the brain without mentioning
experience, but that that doesn't mention experience, which indeed
exists, and doesn't exist in electrons, that which our brains are
constructed from.

It does exist in the behavior of electrons. You simply choose to believe
it doesn't even though there is no evidence to support this belief.

I've argued these points for years so don't tell me I've not thought about
them. You can find over a 1000 messages posted by me on these subjects in
cap.

Many people today still believe that consciousness is something other
than just brain activity - or that it's something very unique and
special so it can't exist in anything else. But there's NO evidence
to suggest this.

Look, this is getting rather tiresome, why don't you go back and read
what has already been said in the posts. By repeating ideas as your own,
that have already been addressed in these posts, says much about your
credibility,

Because I haven't got the time today to deal with you. These posts are all
I have time for.

I've not read your posts. I've not read this thread. I read one post, and
I responded it. This post is the second post I've read and probably the
last of yours.

Read the 1000 posts I've already written on this subject in c.a.p. before
you accuse me of not reading posts.

To wit, your above comment is was adrresed here

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html

It's just an urban legend passed down from

{snip more preaching to the converted}

looking at the evidence and forming their own opinion.

Consciousness can be defined in a non-circular way. It's brain
activity.

Nonsense. We can have brain activity without consciousness. Please
provide the detailed electrical activity that distinguishes a conscious
response from an autonomous response. Then provide proof that those
details are the correct one. We wouldn't want to kill the wrong thing now
would we.

You first. Prove to me that the things you suggest are true. You started
this, not me.

You say we can have brain activity without consciousness. How can you
prove that? It's totally fucking impossible.

There are drugs that make our memory stop working. They prevent us from
remembering what happened to us or what type of conscious experience we
were having 10 minutes in the past. Where they consciousness at that time?
If they can't remember it does that means they weren't conscious? I think
most people would argue that they were conscious but that they simply
couldn't remember it.

So how can you judge if brain activity in a person is conscious brain
activity or not? If they "wake up" later, and you ask them if they have a
memory of what was happening and they say they have no memory, were they
conscious? There's no way to tell.

The type of stuff you are calling "consciousness" can't be measured
externally because you haven't defined what consciousness is to a point of

If you choose to reject that definition, then you are the
one that are choosing to believe it can't be defined simply because
you choose to reject the only definition that fits the facts.

See above, you are so way of base its unreal.

No, I'm just way off from the way you what to think about these things.
What you don't grasp, is that you have no foundation to stand on to justify
your position. It's just what you happen to want to believe.

I don't mind when people realize that they have no leg to stand on in these
arguments and simply concludes with, "well, this is what I want to believe
and I'm sticking to it". But when someone tries to argue the are right
based on facts, when there are no facts to argue from, I get irritated.

You are very irritating. And in turn, I'm trying to be as irritating to
you as you are to me.

Most religious people are smart enough to know their believes aren't facts,
but simply faith. You don't seem to understand that yet. Your arguments
here are all faith based.

I happen to know my beliefs about this are also faith based. Not faith in
a god, but faith in physics. We don't have the proof yet to show who is
right. I just have faith that I'm right. Other people have faith that
their ideas about consciousness are right.

But what I know for a fact is true, is that you don't have any proof to
back up you belief that electrons don't experience pain because you have no
way to define what pain is. I do. Read my 1000 posts in c.a.p. if you
want the answer.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[RichD]

On Mar 23, <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:

... in quantum mechanics, the observer occupies a
special place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event) without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness.

Why presumably? A wave function collapses when
a measurement is made, and this can certainly be
done through equipment which is clearly non-conscious.

"certainly"? hmmmm.....

Obviously at some point a conscious observer will
gather the data from that equipment, but unless we
are willing to assert that the record of that data is itself
in an indeterminate state prior to the observation

That is the convenional view, in QM.
Schrodinger's cat...

It is also the problem Von Neuman grappled with:
where does the wave function collapse occur?
Suppose we monitor electron scattering - does
the 'observation' occur at the sensor, tape, or
human brain? It's indeterminable; thus
metaphysics, not physics...

this would argue that consciousness not only
interacts with nature, but that
it can do so by reaching into the past.

You're behind the curve, Bob.

According to QM, cause/effect are not temporally
related. This has been verified, in the lab.
I refer you to the 'delayed choice' experiments,
where effect precedes cause!

It is even possible, in theory, to claim that we
created the Big Bang, by observing it, 15 billion
years later...

I think there may be some serious problems with
that, to say the least.

I think you need to do some research
into the metaphysics of QM... mind bending,
to say the last. John Gribbin's books are good.

Common sense fails utterly in that domain...

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum
mechanics does not understand it." -- Niels Bohr

--
Rich

 

[Gordon]

On 22 Mar 2007 22:59:11 -0700, "RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness
is indeed a part of physics in the sense that, whatever it
is, it is strictly the result of the physical structure in
the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from
known laws of physics.

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness. Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

I entertain the idea that our consciousness may be related to

some means for communicating with the attributes of the other
dimensions of String Theory. If those other dimensions are right
here in our midst, and are somehow linked to the three dimensions
of space and one of time that we perceive, it may be that we
communicate "over the line" so to speak. Gordon