Chip with simple program for Toy

[Publius]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in news:89ed31b5-4cf0-49cc-
806e-dc4d6d752c84@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all
evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent
on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or
observation.

"Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both
the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working
hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this
sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived
from our experiences or observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.

2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.

3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.

4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.

5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.

6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.

7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.

This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:

If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:

(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs

(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)

(3) circle back upon itself in some way.

The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I believe
the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion derived from
any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical beliefs are self-
justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving something red in the shape
of an apple. I may well have doubts about what causes that percept, but I
cannot doubt that I have it. What may be causing it is another question.

 

[Publius]

Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in
news:elcra45fl8fgifln6ttur68csbjcf0aib9@4ax.com:

The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I
believe the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion
derived from any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical
beliefs are self- justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving
something red in the shape of an apple. I may well have doubts about
what causes that percept, but I cannot doubt that I have it. What may
be causing it is another question.

What if you know you have a brain tumor that is causing you to
perceive things as red, though you "believe" them to be green?

I still cannot doubt that I am perceiving a red apple. Believing I am now
perceiving red, and also that what I now I perceive as red might appear as
green in other circumstances, are two different beliefs.

Both are empirical beliefs, however --- the second resting on my memory of
previous percepts.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

DB wrote
RLDeboni wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.

Actually, combined cycle natural gas plants are approaching 60% now.

But natural gas supplies are declining where I live

Your problem.

(plus would YOU rely on Russia for YOUR natutal gas ?)

That aint the only place that comes from.

and the price is going through the roof.

Nope.

Yes, it makes no sense to be wasting natural gas on generating
electricity when its much better used in gasoline engines.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

RLDeboni wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.
If the power station is small and in the same block with all the
users, you don't need a transformer. And if the cables are sized
correctly, the are virtually no losses. I would say that I get that
efficiency up to the user doorstep.

The point about generation close to point of use is highly relevant.

Nope, because its not practical for most electricity generation.

It also helps use the waste heat effectively.

Pity about the fact that its wasting what should be used cars etc.

and thats the only thing that matters with a POWER STATION. There are
other ways to do a POWER STATION running on LNG that do a lot better.

Combined cycle ?
But you can do it with a diesel motor. The Wartsila does it.

For small plants like 5-10 MW, in the world they still build a Power Station starting with e diesel engine.

Makes sense.

Makes no sense compared with nukes on the grid.

Lots of places could use them.

Could but shouldnt.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Makes no sense compared with nukes on the grid.

I hope you've got PLENTY of uranium or thorium up your sleeve.

Got plenty of both thanks.

 

[stan]

Publius wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in news:89ed31b5-4cf0-49cc-
806e-dc4d6d752c84@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.

This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:

If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:

(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs

(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)

(3) circle back upon itself in some way.

Why do you think beliefs move? A quick look at the news would seem to
indicate that many or even most people are completely impervious to
thought and that would surely limit this movement significantly. If
there were any doubt about the inability of thought to travel I would
think even a few minutes with usenet would surely remove all doubt.

The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I believe
the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion derived from
any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical beliefs are self-
justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving something red in the shape
of an apple. I may well have doubts about what causes that percept, but I
cannot doubt that I have it. What may be causing it is another question.

Cogito ergo sum? Or for those of you who didn't ride a chariot to
school; I think therefore I am? Isn't it surprising how hard it is to
come up with a truly original idea or question?

 

[Publius]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:214sa4h2t11ubunosj3t7g24ujo3f7g6i1@4ax.com:

The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I
believe the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion
derived from any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical
beliefs are self- justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving
something red in the shape of an apple. I may well have doubts about
what causes that percept, but I cannot doubt that I have it. What may
be causing it is another question.

What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that
bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's
any doubt.

There's nothing subjective about "red."

What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
perceiving light of that wavelength.

You'll never get anything done if you keep getting tangled up in
fuzziness.

You also won't get much done if you blindly adopt gratuitous assumptions.

 

[Publius]

John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:2LCdncPkf4WMiDPVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com:

There's nothing subjective about "red."
(snip)

The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
especially in those who experience synesthesia.

Quite correct, although we really have no basis for an assumption that
others' experience of red is anything like ours. It is an assumption of
convenience only, and harmless for the most part.

There is even some empirical evidence that different persons experience red
differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried on the X
chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due two variants of
that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different wavelengths. Men
have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene or the other (and
presumably perceive the same frequency differenly). Women, however, have
two X's, and so may possess both versions of the red pigment, making them
quadchromats. Their color perception may be quite different from us
"normal" trichromats.

Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that
pigment.

 

[Curt Welch]

"Mr. INTJ" <mr.intj@gmail.com> wrote:

I like to get some opinions from people on sorting their various parts
and hardware. I have very limited space for my home workshop...:

http://www.minsmithphoto.com/mrintj/workbench.jpg

Hum, bolt cutters. A tool I still have never owned. There always seems to
be another tool I feel like I must own even though I've never had a use for
them!

I guess you don't open your garage door very often since you seem to have
taken to using it for your hangers!

I don't like peg-boards anymore. I gave up on them long ago. It sure is
nice to see all your tools on the board but before too long, you have too
many tools and not enough space on the peg board. In addition, most the
peg board hooks don't stay in well, they tend to fall out when you try to
take tools off the peg board. I use tool chests with slide out drawers and
shelves for all my tools now. It works much better, but the tool chests
can be expensive and take up a lot of room.

But that's not what you were asking....

As I've built up an inventory of components and hardware, rummaging
through random junk boxes looking for a specific part quickly became
the most time-consuming part of any project. I mounted some small
parts cabinets to my pegboard, and for some parts, like resistors &
capacitors, it was obvious how to divide them up according to value.

Back 30 years ago when I was last actually building electronic stuff, I did
the same thing you did - use those chests of plastic parts drawers to sort
out the standard parts like resistors and capacitors. They work ok, but
they are kinda tough to dig through. Pulling out each little drawer is
kinda slow and awkward and they tend to sick a lot (or get stuck when all
the leads from the 100 caps you put in the drawer start sticking out the
wrong way)..

Not so obvious are things like screws, nuts and bolts, and other small
hardware. There seem to be an almost inifinite variety of sizes,
materials, thread types, wood screws, sheet metal screws, etc. Of
course, if I only have a handful, then it's not an issue (I'm not
_that_ anal retentive), but I have several pounds of screws, etc. in
all varieties - it takes way too long to find a certain screw (or even
worse, a matching set of two or more).

Do you folks sort your hardware into bags/drawers/etc, and if so, what
criteria do you use?

I use clear plastic parts bins which I store in multiple drawers of a large
tool chest (the standard mechanics sort of thing when wheels and many
shallow drawers). I can open one drawer, and see all the screews, bolts
parts, etc laid out in the draw and fairly quickly spot what I need.
Instead of trying to pull out and look at 20 of those tiny plastic draws in
the parts chest like you have, I can pull out one big drawer, and see all
the screws and small parts in about 4 parts bins. Or when I buy screws by
the box, I can put the boxes in the drawers as well. This makes the
searching for the right part go much faster. I roughly sort the parts by
drawer with machine screws in one drawer, wood and metal screws in another,
etc. But other than the rough major sorting like that, it's mostly just
random in the drawer. Because you see everything in the drawer quickly,
it's not really so important for there to be any order to it.

Another trick I have used for the larger boxes of nails and screws which
tend to get piled on shelves is to use a hot glue gun and glue one of the
nails to the outside of the box so I can quickly see what type of nail or
screw is in the box without opening it. That also makes searching for the
right sized fastener go quicker if you have accumulated many boxes of nails
and fasteners like I have.

If you can't justify the cost or space for a good mechanics tool chest with
lots of big drawers, you might look into options of just adding (or
building) some large flat pull-out drawers to your current
shelves/workbench and then using those for all those little parts.

Thanks in advance.

Any other space-saving advice on workshop / workbench optimization is
greatly appreciated.

Mr. INTJ
San Diego

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

 

[stan]

John Popelish wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that
bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's
any doubt.

There's nothing subjective about "red."
(snip)

The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
especially in those who experience synesthesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

We can be very certain that the same parts of the eye responds the same
way to the same wavelength in different people. The tangible parts of
the eye aren't totally unkown. The workings and chemical reactions in
the rods and cones is reasonably well understood. The failings in the
rods and cones that lead to at least some color blindness has been
observed and even induced but so far there is no sucessful intervention.
We can know that the signals sent to the brain are the same but we can't
know what happens exactly after the brain receives the signals but there
is promosing research that sends signals directly to the brain and
bypasses the optic nerves and stimulates the visual processing area of
the brain.

I'm a little surprised that some still consider that we may be just
brains in vats. Between Neo and Descartes I thought the matter was well
settled.

Is our knowledge incomplete? Absolutely and in that sense does it need
further justification and refinement? Of course. Are we limited to
things that come through our senses to stimulate our brains? Not really.
There once was a guy who tried really hard to understand the world
through subjective thoughts alone. One of those fellows was Aristotle
and his incorrect conclusions were used for a very long time. Some
lingered for nearly a thousand years. We've tried using human intellect
alone and it didn't work real well. We've had better luck with a pure
empirical system.

Let me say this about the human experience with the idea that empirical
experience might not be all that. We've tried the alternative or

Been there,
Done that,
got the t-shirt.

 

[stan]

Publius wrote:

John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:2LCdncPkf4WMiDPVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com:

There's nothing subjective about "red."
(snip)

The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
especially in those who experience synesthesia.

Quite correct, although we really have no basis for an assumption that
others' experience of red is anything like ours. It is an assumption of
convenience only, and harmless for the most part.

There is even some empirical evidence that different persons experience red
differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried on the X
chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due two variants of
that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different wavelengths. Men
have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene or the other (and
presumably perceive the same frequency differenly). Women, however, have
two X's, and so may possess both versions of the red pigment, making them
quadchromats. Their color perception may be quite different from us
"normal" trichromats.

Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that
pigment.

You may want to brush up on the available research. Due to the
increasing desire to advance bioengineering there are an increasing
number of papers available and digestable by someone without an MD.
Sight is a very hot research area for boiengineering and much is being
revealed every day. There are no difinitive answers yet but the
opto-electro-chemical events involved with processing light in the eye
are much, much more well know now than even 4 years ago.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mr. INTJ"

I like to get some opinions from people on sorting their various parts
and hardware. I have very limited space for my home workshop...:

http://www.minsmithphoto.com/mrintj/workbench.jpg

** You left handed ?

Your test gear is on the opposite side to what I find natural.

Plus I have to have a lot more space for the item I am working on that you
have there - think Marshall tube amp head or a 16ch mixing console.

However, my soldering iron station is on the left - meaning I have to swap
hands when removing or replacing the iron.



..... Phil

 

[stan]

Publius wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:214sa4h2t11ubunosj3t7g24ujo3f7g6i1@4ax.com:

The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I
believe the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion
derived from any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical
beliefs are self- justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving
something red in the shape of an apple. I may well have doubts about
what causes that percept, but I cannot doubt that I have it. What may
be causing it is another question.

What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that
bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's
any doubt.

There's nothing subjective about "red."

What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
perceiving light of that wavelength.

You'll never get anything done if you keep getting tangled up in
fuzziness.

You also won't get much done if you blindly adopt gratuitous assumptions.

In what way is empirical dependence known to be limiting? More to the
point, how do you know it is limiting? How can you or anyone know that
the current assumptions are "gratuitous"? The human mind can produce the
thought that empirical evidence and the conclusions are incorrect but
how do we know the human mind isn't incorrect? Because the human mind
can't be proven correct it's not possible to use a human mind to
reason that empirical evidence is wrong and the human mind is correct.
Without some way to know that the human mind is incabable of creating
incorrect ideas, you can't use human ideas to prove anything about the
human mind. You can speculate that the reasoning seems valid so it's
probably correct but that's like reasoning that a bullfrog probably
would't bump his but if he had wings.

I choose to accept that reality exists and that our senses are mostly
valid ways to experience reality. I choose to accept that our
experiences are somewhat limited and incomplete in a sense and that we
have much more to experience and discover. I accept that our experiences
may even be so limited that like the blind men experiencing an elephant
our perceptions and beliefs may be very misleading and in the general
case even wrong. I accept that the human mind is fallable. Now if I
understand you correctly, my gratuitous assumptions are wrong. Are you
saying that I should shed all these assumptions and that if one day I
have a particularly vivid thought that gravitational forces will no
longer hold me on this planet? Or that maybe I could fetch a cold beer
without getting up. I've actually tried that one many times with
absolutely no success. Can you teach me master?

By the way, some really really smart people had this discussion a very
long time ago. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to go find out
how it went. Sorry, I won't give the answer away. I had to endure
philosophy as a way to broaden my experiences they told me. I won't deny
anyone else that the experience of a philosphy class. I can very
honestly say that when the professor came in wearing a pair of pants
that were very bright neon yellow and introduced himself as having a PhD
in philosophy from Harvard I never wanted to bolt from a class so bad in
my entire life. I stayed but I had a very real empirical anxiety
experience. Talking to other students and looking around the room I can
say with high confidence that all of us had very nearly the same
subjective reaction.

 

[Rod Speed]

zinnic <zeenric2@gate.net> wrote:

On Aug 21, 9:31 pm, Publius <m.publ...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote
innews:2LCdncPkf4WMiDPVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com:

There's nothing subjective about "red."
(snip)

The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
especially in those who experience synesthesia.

Quite correct, although we really have no basis for an assumption
that
others' experience of red is anything like ours. It is an assumption
of
convenience only, and harmless for the most part.

There is even some empirical evidence that different persons
experience red
differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried on the X
chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due two variants
of
that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different
wavelengths. Men
have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene or the other
(and
presumably perceive the same frequency differenly). Women, however,
have
two X's, and so may possess both versions of the red pigment, making
them
quadchromats. Their color perception may be quite different from us
"normal" trichromats.

Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that pigment.

I do not believe that there are genes for colors.

You're wrong. Color blindness is indeed genetic.

There are multiple genes that control electrochemical neuronal patterns
responding to an eye cell's reaction to impingement of light frequencies. There
is no reason for different brains to respond identically to signals from eye cells.

Have fun explaining genetic color blindness.

That billions of neurons make identical connections in
every brain is IMO impossible. A specific stimulation induces a
neurochemical pattern that is unique to that stimulation and to the
connective pattern of a specific brain. Repetition of the same
stimulus and its corresponding neuronal pattern, cements the two into
recognition.
That cemented neuronal pattern of one brain function is not
necessarily identical to the cemented neuronal pattern of a different
brain.
Thus one brain may recognise red with a neurological pattern that
difffers from that recognised as red by a second brain. The ony
requirement is that each brain remains consistent in the recognition
of its neuronal pattern code. No is no in English, Nien is nein in
German.. The Morse and Semaphor codes are totally different
patterns, yet they can signify the same.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mr. INTJ"
"Phil Allison"

"Mr. INTJ"

I like to get some opinions from people on sorting their various parts
and hardware. I have very limited space for my home workshop...:

http://www.minsmithphoto.com/mrintj/workbench.jpg

** You left handed ?

Your test gear is on the opposite side to what I find natural.

Plus I have to have a lot more space for the item I am working on that you
have there - think Marshall tube amp head or a 16ch mixing console.

However, my soldering iron station is on the left - meaning I have to swap
hands when removing or replacing the iron.

Nope, I'm non-sinister. I bolted that vise in years ago - I'm probably
going to move it since it seems to divide my workspace neatly in half.
It was awkward to put the scope and power supply on the other side of
the vise, and I think I was trying to push it back a little onto the
adjoining shelf.

....but you're absolutely right - the work area that I have is just too
small - I end up doing things in my lap sometimes.


** Something I find very good is to glue a layer of cheap carpet all over
the work area, it prevents scratching customer's valuable items - plus
stops small bits, electron tubes, microphones and fasteners rolling about or
dropping onto the floor and going missing.

Makes the work area far more comfortable for YOU in cool and hot weather
too.

Just make sure to always return the iron to its stand though .....


...... Phil

 

[Publius]

zinnic <zeenric2@gate.net> wrote in
news:2ecce165-5bbe-45d5-bd1f-16b3fbced0fb@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

There is even some empirical evidence that different persons
experience red differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried
on the X chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due to two
variants of that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different
wavelengths. Men have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene
or the other (and presumably perceive the same frequency differenly).
Women, however, have two X's, and so may possess both versions of the
red pigment, making them quadchromats. Their color perception may be
quite different from us "normal" trichromats.

Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that
pigment.

I do not believe that there are genes for colors.

Correct. There are genes for the 3 chomoreceptor pigments, however, which
respond to different portions of the bandwidth.

There are multiple
genes that control electrochemical neuronal patterns responding to
an eye cell's reaction to impingement of light frequencies. There is
no reason for different brains to respond identically to signals from
eye cells.

Correct.

That billions of neurons make identical connections in
every brain is IMO impossible. A specific stimulation induces a
neurochemical pattern that is unique to that stimulation and to the
connective pattern of a specific brain. Repetition of the same
stimulus and its corresponding neuronal pattern, cements the two into
recognition.

Yep.

That cemented neuronal pattern of one brain function is not
necessarily identical to the cemented neuronal pattern of a different
brain.

Yep.

Thus one brain may recognise red with a neurological pattern that
difffers from that recognised as red by a second brain. The ony
requirement is that each brain remains consistent in the recognition
of its neuronal pattern code. No is no in English, Nien is nein in
German.. The Morse and Semaphor codes are totally different
patterns, yet they can signify the same.

Right on.

 

[jjs]

(attributes lost, sorry)

There are multiple genes that control electrochemical neuronal patterns
responding to an eye cell's reaction to impingement of light frequencies.
There
is no reason for different brains to respond identically to signals from
eye cells.

One cannot simply declare that because there's a whole lot of neurons
involved in a complex pattern that two individuals' brains systems must be
exactly alike in order to perceive the same thing. It suffices that they are
alike enough. Concerns regarding the emotional reaction to a color (red) are
of a different issue in a different system. Unless you are color blind, you
see the same red I do.

 

[Publius]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:66ota49ka1sndmcpi6pca3k3i7obmb0jd8@4ax.com:

What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
perceiving light of that wavelength.

You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it?

We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained
why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because
those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in
behavior.

 

[Rod Speed]

zinnic <zeenric2@gate.net> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote
Publius <m.publ...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote
innews:2LCdncPkf4WMiDPVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com

There's nothing subjective about "red."

The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
especially in those who experience synesthesia.

Quite correct, although we really have no basis for an assumption that
others' experience of red is anything like ours. It is an assumption
of convenience only, and harmless for the most part.

There is even some empirical evidence that different persons experience
red differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried on the X
chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due two variants
of that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different wavelengths.
Men have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene or the
other (and presumably perceive the same frequency differenly).
Women, however, have two X's, and so may possess both versions
of the red pigment, making them quadchromats. Their color perception
may be quite different from us "normal" trichromats.

Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that pigment.

I do not believe that there are genes for colors.

You're wrong. Color blindness is indeed genetic.

There are multiple genes that control electrochemical neuronal patterns
responding to an eye cell's reaction to impingement of light frequencies.
There is no reason for different brains to respond identically to signals
from eye cells.

Have fun explaining genetic color blindness.

You totally miss my point!

Nope, you missed mine!!!

Color blindness usually has to do with the inheritance of a gene that produces
an abnormality in the photoreceptor pigments in the cone cells of the eye.

Irrelevant to your stupid claim that has blown up in your face and covered you with black stuff, again.

Read my post again

It wasnt even worth reading the first time, its just mindless silly stuff.

and you will see that I discuss responses of brain cells to whatever signals
are carried from the eye by the optic nerve (axons of ganglion cells)!

Like hell you did in that first steaming turd of yours I commented on.

That billions of neurons make identical connections in
every brain is IMO impossible. A specific stimulation induces a
neurochemical pattern that is unique to that stimulation and to the
connective pattern of a specific brain. Repetition of the same
stimulus and its corresponding neuronal pattern, cements the two
into recognition.

That cemented neuronal pattern of one brain function is not necessarily
identical to the cemented neuronal pattern of a different brain.

Thus one brain may recognise red with a neurological pattern that
difffers from that recognised as red by a second brain. The ony
requirement is that each brain remains consistent in the recognition
of its neuronal pattern code. No is no in English, Nien is nein in
German.. The Morse and Semaphor codes are totally different
patterns, yet they can signify the same.

 

[Rod Speed]

tg <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Aug 19, 3:10 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
z wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Daniel T." wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Sure, but where does the electricity come from?

Power plants that run at much higher efficiency

Not that great actually.

(and much cleaner per kilowatt of energy produced) than any
automobile engine

How do you reckon they're cleaner ?

could ever hope to do.

Overall thermal efficiency from typical power plant to power
socket is in the 30-40% region.

A very large marine diesel can and does EXCEED 50% thermal
efficiency. Only now are combined cycle gas turbine generators
coming on line that can beat that but you still have transmission
losses.

Graham

Little known fact; efficiency of electrical generation is currently
half of what it was in Edison's day. Well, it's a trick question,
though; Edison was businessman enough to sell off the heat as a
byproduct (isn't that what they call cogeneration?) but today
utilities, as monopolies, are too lazy too chase that
efficiency/cash. too bad for all of us.

Good point.

Certain Scandinavian countries in particular make use of this 'waste
heat' for district heating.

I can see a potential move to local district co-gen (as opposed to
GW central plants) being very attractive.

Graham

There's always a tendency to think about heating and forget about
cooling. The US population has shifted towards the South, and there is
that pesky warming trend we hear about...

The point is, without AC it would be difficult to live in lots of
places, so waste heat would have to be converted to cooling to get the
same effect. Can be done, but requires big changes. For places like
Texas, solar panels that generate the most when the sun is beating
down on your roof seem like a better bet---plus they would shade the
roof.

Pity about the cost of enough panels to run the AC.