One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design

Activ8 · Jul 17, 2004

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:23:21 -0700, Julie wrote:

Activ8 wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:06:01 -0700, Julie wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

Nice.

Just out of curiosity (I'm not after $$ figures), but how is a chip project
like that handled?

Did you design that chip specifically for SC Johnson, under contract?

On what are your payments based? Was it a fixed-amount one-time payment,
per-piece license fee? Who owns the rights to the design?

Finally, who handles your licensing/contract agreements?

Thanks for any info --

That's basically what I'd ask, but if you recall, Jim kill filed
you. Maybe you've been pardoned by now.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Right -- I forgot. One of my raining on the OT parades.

Oh well.

Just in case Jim doesn't elaborate, IIRC the website is chipcenter,
which has a number of forums, one of which discusses consulting, so
you might poke around there.

You can find other sites, but of course they're not all related to
electronics. I even found a bunch of consulting articles from some
gal who IIRC went into management consulting. First time I ever
visited a site devoed to women, not that that's relevant.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Tim Shoppa · Jul 17, 2004

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fg1s3bl90grbf@corp.supernews.com>...

I suppose this is going to be even more volume than those cheezy $5.00
calculators

At Target last week, 8-digit-LCD-4-bangers were selling for $0.49. They'd
been reduced from $0.99.

Tim.

Joerg · Jul 17, 2004

Hi John,

Ah, Yesss... the unmistakable odor of molten polysilicon charring, in
the long term, cubic yards of epoxy B...

No, I started "consuming" them around the time when I read about a

Brazilian who had successfully eaten more than half of his VW Beetle...

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Tim Wescott · Jul 17, 2004

Tim Shoppa wrote:

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fg1s3bl90grbf@corp.supernews.com>...

I suppose this is going to be even more volume than those cheezy $5.00
calculators

At Target last week, 8-digit-LCD-4-bangers were selling for $0.49. They'd
been reduced from $0.99.

Tim.

I wish I could figure out a way to put a PIC or an AVR into one of those
and make a real calculator out of it -- the keyboard's all there as long
as you remember that '=' means 'enter'.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Andrew VK3BFA · Jul 18, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard! The big question - how can the rest of us hack it into
something useful that wasnt remotely envisioned(SP) in the design
brief and subsequent product?
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

Tim Wescott · Jul 18, 2004

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard! The big question - how can the rest of us hack it into
something useful that wasnt remotely envisioned(SP) in the design
brief and subsequent product?
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

For that matter, how long before they come back to you for an
internet-enabled air freshener with it's own web page, broadcasting the
state of the scent reservoir over 802.11 (for $0.10 a pop, of course).

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Shoppa · Jul 18, 2004

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fj5c4beum23e6@corp.supernews.com>...

Tim Shoppa wrote:

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fg1s3bl90grbf@corp.supernews.com>...

I suppose this is going to be even more volume than those cheezy $5.00
calculators

At Target last week, 8-digit-LCD-4-bangers were selling for $0.49. They'd
been reduced from $0.99.

Tim.

I wish I could figure out a way to put a PIC or an AVR into one of those
and make a real calculator out of it -- the keyboard's all there as long
as you remember that '=' means 'enter'.

The hardest part is probably the LCD driver. The $0.49 calculator I
mentioned has about 40 wires running to the LCD which I figure means
that it's half-multiplexed (4 digits at a time). A PIC16C923 could probably
be made to fit, although it'd be tight. You'd need more than a single
1.5V cell to run it, I'm pretty sure.

Tim.

Spehro Pefhany · Jul 18, 2004

On 18 Jul 2004 03:21:18 -0700, the renowned shoppa@trailing-edge.com
(Tim Shoppa) wrote:

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fj5c4beum23e6@corp.supernews.com>...
Tim Shoppa wrote:

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10fg1s3bl90grbf@corp.supernews.com>...

I suppose this is going to be even more volume than those cheezy $5.00
calculators

At Target last week, 8-digit-LCD-4-bangers were selling for $0.49. They'd
been reduced from $0.99.

Tim.

I wish I could figure out a way to put a PIC or an AVR into one of those
and make a real calculator out of it -- the keyboard's all there as long
as you remember that '=' means 'enter'.

The hardest part is probably the LCD driver. The $0.49 calculator I
mentioned has about 40 wires running to the LCD which I figure means
that it's half-multiplexed (4 digits at a time). A PIC16C923 could probably
be made to fit, although it'd be tight. You'd need more than a single
1.5V cell to run it, I'm pretty sure.

Tim.

I'd use a MSP430 flash micro with LCD controller and boost the single
cell to 3V with an external converter or use two cells. Battery life
probably won't be as good, even so.

eg. http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/msp430f436.pdf

Only $9.40 each in stock at Digikey in 100 LQFP. ;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Jim Thompson · Jul 18, 2004

On 17 Jul 2004 23:07:10 -0700, ablight@alphalink.com.au (Andrew
VK3BFA) wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...
One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard!

Actually that device is one of my most trivial designs.

What is unusual is that a design of mine got publicity in such a way
that I can even acknowledge I did it.

Most of my work is quite more complex, yet immersed in things I can
say nothing about.

The big question - how can the rest of us hack it into
something useful that wasnt remotely envisioned(SP) in the design
brief and subsequent product?
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

I didn't do the board design so I have no idea of how it ended up
being laid out. A friend of mine at Fitch sent me the URL or I
wouldn't even yet be aware that the product had been released.

(Consumer products of this sort are usually released to just a single
test market until they are sure that the product will sell in large
quantities.)

Buy lots of them ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

legg · Jul 18, 2004

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:28:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

It doesn't matter how high tech it is, if the chimpanzee you give it
to only uses it to make noises by banging it against rocks or the bars
to it's cage.

RL

The big money has always been in consumer products.

Electronics is, admittedly, a rather round-about way of doing anything
of signifigance.

I keep forgeting

RL

John Larkin · Jul 18, 2004

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:00:56 GMT, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

Electronics is, admittedly, a rather round-about way of doing anything
of signifigance.

But there's hardly anything of significance these days that doesn't
involve electronics. You can hardly imagine a scientific experiment
any more that doesn't use electronics and computers to manage the
experiment and gather the data.

John

legg · Jul 18, 2004

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:28:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:00:56 GMT, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

Electronics is, admittedly, a rather round-about way of doing anything
of signifigance.

But there's hardly anything of significance these days that doesn't
involve electronics. You can hardly imagine a scientific experiment
any more that doesn't use electronics and computers to manage the
experiment and gather the data.

Yeah, and electronic design is only a skill set - a tool. Without some
other kind of qualifications, you're not likely to end up being the
boffin determining how it's to be used.

At least I didn't wake up this morning with the urge to preach
hell-fire, damnation and paranoia. Tomorrow, who knows. There, but for
news2020, go us all.

RL

Andrew VK3BFA · Jul 19, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<cg8lf018lc1qonenodkj3l4mdvahbp2nqm@4ax.com>...

On 17 Jul 2004 23:07:10 -0700, ablight@alphalink.com.au (Andrew
VK3BFA) wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...
One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard!

Actually that device is one of my most trivial designs.

What is unusual is that a design of mine got publicity in such a way
that I can even acknowledge I did it.

Most of my work is quite more complex, yet immersed in things I can
say nothing about.

Thats the fascinating part - to be able to think laterally enough to

do something like this, and come up with a design cheap enough to mass
produce for the domestic consumer market. The weird thing is, you will
probably be remembered for this consumer toy rather than the more
interesting and useful esoteric stuff - BTW, had no idea you designed
the 1488/1489 - thank you for a useful chipset.
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

Activ8 · Jul 19, 2004

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:21:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On 17 Jul 2004 23:07:10 -0700, ablight@alphalink.com.au (Andrew
VK3BFA) wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...
One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard!

Actually that device is one of my most trivial designs.

What is unusual is that a design of mine got publicity in such a way
that I can even acknowledge I did it.

Most of my work is quite more complex, yet immersed in things I can
say nothing about.

The big question - how can the rest of us hack it into
something useful that wasnt remotely envisioned(SP) in the design
brief and subsequent product?
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

I didn't do the board design so I have no idea of how it ended up
being laid out. A friend of mine at Fitch sent me the URL or I
wouldn't even yet be aware that the product had been released.

(Consumer products of this sort are usually released to just a single
test market until they are sure that the product will sell in large
quantities.)

Buy lots of them ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I suspect that the little gadget will sell. I know vendors at the
state fair that rake in big bucks on total crap merchandise. Anyone
that uses those plug-ins might upgrade. I'm assuming the timed
release of the scent as opposed to constant exposure to heat and air
would be economic. 6 mo service life and only one cell, you said?
That's good IMO. See? Even I could sell those things and that's only
2 selling points

I know people that will buy damned near any gadget they see.

Don't take me to a tool store, electronic store, etc. I'm like a kid
in a candy store.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

fogh · Jul 19, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

fogh wrote:

legg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:04:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

Doesn't it bug you, the avenues open to making a living these days?

When you think of all the things that really need doing; and then
even serious work gets diverted. For example ...

A biomedical laser (portable in-office cataract surgery) ends up
being used as a high tech paint-ball on a tank.

A blood analyser ends up being used mainly for sports drugs or other
'personnel' employee security clearance work.

It doesn't matter how high tech it is, if the chimpanzee you give it
to only uses it to make noises by banging it against rocks or the
bars to it's cage.

RL

The most typical example that heard of, around 10 years ago. Sorry
but I have no references :
A brilliant research study that could result in reliable tools to
measure pain of premature babies or autists was made.

Yeah, sure....

Cum Laude, et
coetera. The only problem is that no research lab, great hospital,

Not surprising. Such a claim is completely vacuous.

or pharmaceutical company hired that researcher.
The only employer
that he/she found was a food-industrial, who got the technique
applied to the slaughtering of cows:

Who just want to appease the antivivisectionists, sure we can tell when
the cow doesn't feel pain. Like, shit they can.

using the pain indicators it was
possible to strip and streamline the slaughter procedure until the
point where pain was detected.

Cold comfort indeed for the cows. No chance in hell that this system
does as claimed.
Since there is no definition of consciousness, nor anyway to determine
if something has consciousness, it is simply impossible to construct a
"pain detector". There simply is no way of numerically knowing when a
foetus has enough neurons to constitute a feeling of pain within the
current understanding of the brain. One can only "reasonable" say that,
say prior to 3 months from conception, there are essentially no relevant
neural connections, so no pain. However, where a "reasonable" line may
be drawn after his point, is completely arbitrary guesswork.

Related stuff at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin,

you are biased and you currently assume (i.e. you are biased by an currently source) that this research had stg to do with electronics or systems. This was a Phd study for the title of doctor in medicine.
I used the word "detector" loosely. I was talking about a clinical procedure to look for non-obvious and non-expressed signs of pain, rather than actual sensor equipment (as in thermocouple, Hall probe ...).
When you know a way to look for a set metabolic manifestations that have been empirically related to pain, you can do that with conventional equipment and you do not need to undertand how the brain or neural nets function.
It would be rather annoying if a physician refused to serve your prescription of penicillin under the pretext that he doesn t understand fully an down to molecular/quantum level the interactions between host and germs.

If you (please) restrict the discussion to those premature foetuses that are 7 month and older. Do you or don t you find that this research had better been used to rationalise the prescription of pain drugs in hospitals rather than efficiency of slaughterhouses ?

Jim Thompson · Jul 19, 2004

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:21:44 GMT, Activ8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:21:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On 17 Jul 2004 23:07:10 -0700, ablight@alphalink.com.au (Andrew
VK3BFA) wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<qfrff09ri4ooh4q1j6iq90sudjuo4llsil@4ax.com>...
One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

http://www.glade.com/wisp.asp

...Jim Thompson

Wow, what a lovely piece of engineering - always suspected you were a
smart bastard!

Actually that device is one of my most trivial designs.

What is unusual is that a design of mine got publicity in such a way
that I can even acknowledge I did it.

Most of my work is quite more complex, yet immersed in things I can
say nothing about.

The big question - how can the rest of us hack it into
something useful that wasnt remotely envisioned(SP) in the design
brief and subsequent product?
73 de VK3BFA Andrew

I didn't do the board design so I have no idea of how it ended up
being laid out. A friend of mine at Fitch sent me the URL or I
wouldn't even yet be aware that the product had been released.

(Consumer products of this sort are usually released to just a single
test market until they are sure that the product will sell in large
quantities.)

Buy lots of them ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I suspect that the little gadget will sell. I know vendors at the
state fair that rake in big bucks on total crap merchandise. Anyone
that uses those plug-ins might upgrade. I'm assuming the timed
release of the scent as opposed to constant exposure to heat and air
would be economic. 6 mo service life and only one cell, you said?
That's good IMO. See? Even I could sell those things and that's only
2 selling points

I know people that will buy damned near any gadget they see.

Don't take me to a tool store, electronic store, etc. I'm like a kid
in a candy store.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Kevin Aylward · Jul 19, 2004

fogh wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
fogh wrote:

legg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:04:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

Doesn't it bug you, the avenues open to making a living these
days?
When you think of all the things that really need doing; and then
even serious work gets diverted. For example ...

A biomedical laser (portable in-office cataract surgery) ends up
being used as a high tech paint-ball on a tank.

A blood analyser ends up being used mainly for sports drugs or
other >>>'personnel' employee security clearance work.

It doesn't matter how high tech it is, if the chimpanzee you give
it >>>to only uses it to make noises by banging it against rocks or
the >>>bars to it's cage.

RL

The most typical example that heard of, around 10 years ago. Sorry
but I have no references :
A brilliant research study that could result in reliable tools to
measure pain of premature babies or autists was made.

Yeah, sure....

Cum Laude, et
coetera. The only problem is that no research lab, great
hospital,

Not surprising. Such a claim is completely vacuous.

or pharmaceutical company hired that researcher.
The only employer
that he/she found was a food-industrial, who got the technique
applied to the slaughtering of cows:

Who just want to appease the antivivisectionists, sure we can tell
when > the cow doesn't feel pain. Like, shit they can.

using the pain indicators it was
possible to strip and streamline the slaughter procedure until the
point where pain was detected.

Cold comfort indeed for the cows. No chance in hell that this
system > does as claimed.
Since there is no definition of consciousness, nor anyway to
determine > if something has consciousness, it is simply impossible
to construct a > "pain detector". There simply is no way of
numerically knowing when a > foetus has enough neurons to constitute
a feeling of pain within the > current understanding of the brain.
One can only "reasonable" say that, > say prior to 3 months from
conception, there are essentially no relevant > neural connections,
so no pain. However, where a "reasonable" line may > be drawn after
his point, is completely arbitrary guesswork.
Related stuff at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin,

you are biased and you currently assume (i.e. you are biased by an
currently source) that this research had stg to do with electronics
or systems.

We are all biased in general, but as far as scientific based, not a
chance. My opinions are based on simple and verifiable axioms.

This was a Phd study for the title of doctor in

medicine. I used the word "detector" loosely. I was talking about a
clinical procedure to look for non-obvious and non-expressed signs of
pain,

Oh...

rather than actual sensor equipment (as in thermocouple, Hall
probe ...). When you know a way to look for a set metabolic
manifestations that have been empirically related to pain,

This is not possible in principle. Tell me how a cat tells us that it is
feeling pain.

you can do
that with conventional equipment and you do not need to undertand how
the brain or neural nets function.

How the neural nets function is completely irrelevant. What maters is
*proving* that certain signals are directly related to a conscious
emotion.

It would be rather annoying if a
physician refused to serve your prescription of penicillin under the
pretext that he doesn t understand fully an down to molecular/quantum
level the interactions between host and germs.

You simply don't understand the issues involved. As I explained, it is
impossible to form a definition of pain, irrespective of what may or may
not physically causes it. There us no way to distinguish a well
programmed non conscious computer from a conscious individual. That is,
a machine can be made that to all intents and purposes duplicates the
output from a conscious individual, e.g. one feeling pain. Since this
duplicate machine can say, "I feel pain", there is no way of knowing if
in fact it does. Therefore the whole concept of a pain detector is
completely bogus. It is not possible, in principle. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

If you (please) restrict the discussion to those premature foetuses
that are 7 month and older. Do you or don t you find that this
research had better been used to rationalise the prescription of pain
drugs in hospitals rather than efficiency of slaughterhouses ?

Irrelevant as there is no way to prove that such a machine can in
reality detect the pain of foetuses. What to you propose the featus do,
"oh, I say, that hurts". Get real dude.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

fogh · Jul 20, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

fogh wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
fogh wrote:

legg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:04:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

Doesn't it bug you, the avenues open to making a living these
days?
When you think of all the things that really need doing; and then
even serious work gets diverted. For example ...

A biomedical laser (portable in-office cataract surgery) ends up
being used as a high tech paint-ball on a tank.

A blood analyser ends up being used mainly for sports drugs or
other >>>'personnel' employee security clearance work.

It doesn't matter how high tech it is, if the chimpanzee you give
it >>>to only uses it to make noises by banging it against rocks or
the >>>bars to it's cage.

RL

The most typical example that heard of, around 10 years ago. Sorry
but I have no references :
A brilliant research study that could result in reliable tools to
measure pain of premature babies or autists was made.

Yeah, sure....

Cum Laude, et
coetera. The only problem is that no research lab, great
hospital,

Not surprising. Such a claim is completely vacuous.

or pharmaceutical company hired that researcher.
The only employer
that he/she found was a food-industrial, who got the technique
applied to the slaughtering of cows:

Who just want to appease the antivivisectionists, sure we can tell
when > the cow doesn't feel pain. Like, shit they can.

using the pain indicators it was
possible to strip and streamline the slaughter procedure until the
point where pain was detected.

Cold comfort indeed for the cows. No chance in hell that this
system > does as claimed.
Since there is no definition of consciousness, nor anyway to
determine > if something has consciousness, it is simply impossible
to construct a > "pain detector". There simply is no way of
numerically knowing when a > foetus has enough neurons to constitute
a feeling of pain within the > current understanding of the brain.
One can only "reasonable" say that, > say prior to 3 months from
conception, there are essentially no relevant > neural connections,
so no pain. However, where a "reasonable" line may > be drawn after
his point, is completely arbitrary guesswork.
Related stuff at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin,

you are biased and you currently assume (i.e. you are biased by an
currently source) that this research had stg to do with electronics
or systems.

We are all biased in general, but as far as scientific based, not a
chance. My opinions are based on simple and verifiable axioms.

This was a Phd study for the title of doctor in

medicine. I used the word "detector" loosely. I was talking about a
clinical procedure to look for non-obvious and non-expressed signs of
pain,

Oh...

rather than actual sensor equipment (as in thermocouple, Hall
probe ...). When you know a way to look for a set metabolic
manifestations that have been empirically related to pain,

This is not possible in principle. Tell me how a cat tells us that it is
feeling pain.

you can do
that with conventional equipment and you do not need to undertand how
the brain or neural nets function.

How the neural nets function is completely irrelevant. What maters is
*proving* that certain signals are directly related to a conscious
emotion.

It would be rather annoying if a
physician refused to serve your prescription of penicillin under the
pretext that he doesn t understand fully an down to molecular/quantum
level the interactions between host and germs.

You simply don't understand the issues involved. As I explained, it is
impossible to form a definition of pain, irrespective of what may or may
not physically causes it. There us no way to distinguish a well
programmed non conscious computer from a conscious individual. That is,
a machine can be made that to all intents and purposes duplicates the
output from a conscious individual, e.g. one feeling pain. Since this
duplicate machine can say, "I feel pain", there is no way of knowing if
in fact it does. Therefore the whole concept of a pain detector is
completely bogus. It is not possible, in principle. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

If you (please) restrict the discussion to those premature foetuses
that are 7 month and older. Do you or don t you find that this
research had better been used to rationalise the prescription of pain
drugs in hospitals rather than efficiency of slaughterhouses ?

Irrelevant as there is no way to prove that such a machine can in
reality detect the pain of foetuses. What to you propose the featus do,
"oh, I say, that hurts". Get real dude.

Medical practice, and scientific practice, are full of empirical procedures. I'm no epistemologist, but these are probably valid scientific methods. A scientific method should not require "understanding" (I would be even tempted to say that it rules it out), and a theory does not "explain" either.

Let me be more formal about what I guess was the method in this study (again: I only heard about it for a few minutes, and have no references.)
let there be
- a group A of people who you admit have the ability to suffer, and the ability to express that they suffer.
- a group B of people who you admit have the ability to suffer. ( I use the term "people" rather than "person". Put there "patients" or whatever groupname you like that can include preborn babies.)
- a the set P of physical manifestations that can be detected/measured by medical staff.

With statistical work on A, one can get correlations of P to pain. With clinical records, it is possible to verify that those correlations hold true for group B for every cause C (from "a set C of causes of pain" >

By applying that method, one can create a "pain detector" that is good enough for medical purpose.
It does not adress the problem of a definition of pain, it does not deal with the problem of wether a foetus has conscience. Pain is here empirically defined by the persons in group A. Wether the foetus has conscience or not, the medical tool is reliable as long as those foetuses have the same physiological reaction to pain as, say, 10 month old babies. For all you know, there may even be a well programmed computer that sneaked into group A and participated in the implicit definition of pain.
In the end you have a good-enough "detector", which I would be glad to see happen and be developped in clinical practice before all those steaks I ate give me cancer. Not to mention the radiation dosis I receive from my CRT while flaming on c.c.c !

John Woodgate · Jul 20, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that fogh <cad_support@skipthisandunder
scores.catena.nl> wrote (in <40fd47b6$0$88490$e4fe514c@dreader15.news.xs
4all.nl&gt

about 'still very much offtopic ! (Re: One of My High
Technology Contributions to Microchip Design)', on Tue, 20 Jul 2004:

Medical practice, and scientific practice, are full of empirical
procedures. I'm no epistemologist, but these are probably valid
scientific methods. A scientific method should not require
"understanding" (I would be even tempted to say that it rules it out),
and a theory does not "explain" either.

Let me be more formal about what I guess was the method in this study
(again: I only heard about it for a few minutes, and have no
references.)
let there be
- a group A of people who you admit have the ability to suffer, and the
ability to express that they suffer.
- a group B of people who you admit have the ability to suffer. ( I use
the term "people" rather than "person". Put there "patients" or whatever
groupname you like that can include preborn babies.)
- a the set P of physical manifestations that can be detected/measured
by medical staff.

Indeed. Elevated breathing rate (possibly indicative of non-specific
stress) and adrenalin/nor-epinephrine levels in blood, and the
appearance of heat-shock protein, I believe.

With statistical work on A, one can get correlations of P to pain. With
clinical records, it is possible to verify that those correlations hold
true for group B for every cause C (from "a set C of causes of pain"

Precisely.

By applying that method, one can create a "pain detector" that is good
enough for medical purpose.
It does not adress the problem of a definition of pain, it does not deal
with the problem of wether a foetus has conscience. Pain is here
empirically defined by the persons in group A. Wether the foetus has
conscience or not, the medical tool is reliable as long as those
foetuses have the same physiological reaction to pain as, say, 10 month
old babies. For all you know, there may even be a well programmed
computer that sneaked into group A and participated in the implicit
definition of pain.
In the end you have a good-enough "detector", which I would be glad to
see happen and be developped in clinical practice before all those
steaks I ate give me cancer. Not to mention the radiation dosis I
receive from my CRT while flaming on c.c.c !

The human perception of pain is quite complex. There is a serious brain
condition in which the patient is aware of a pain but does not associate
it with him/herself.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Kevin Aylward · Jul 20, 2004

fogh wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
fogh wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
fogh wrote:

legg wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:04:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design...

Doesn't it bug you, the avenues open to making a living these
days?
When you think of all the things that really need doing; and then
even serious work gets diverted. For example ...

A biomedical laser (portable in-office cataract surgery) ends up
being used as a high tech paint-ball on a tank.

A blood analyser ends up being used mainly for sports drugs or
other >>>'personnel' employee security clearance work.

It doesn't matter how high tech it is, if the chimpanzee you give
it >>>to only uses it to make noises by banging it against rocks or
the >>>bars to it's cage.

RL

The most typical example that heard of, around 10 years ago. Sorry
but I have no references :
A brilliant research study that could result in reliable tools to
measure pain of premature babies or autists was made.

Yeah, sure....

Cum Laude, et
coetera. The only problem is that no research lab, great
hospital,

Not surprising. Such a claim is completely vacuous.

or pharmaceutical company hired that researcher.
The only employer
that he/she found was a food-industrial, who got the technique
applied to the slaughtering of cows:

Who just want to appease the antivivisectionists, sure we can tell
when > the cow doesn't feel pain. Like, shit they can.

using the pain indicators it was
possible to strip and streamline the slaughter procedure until the
point where pain was detected.

Cold comfort indeed for the cows. No chance in hell that this
system > does as claimed.
Since there is no definition of consciousness, nor anyway to
determine > if something has consciousness, it is simply impossible
to construct a > "pain detector". There simply is no way of
numerically knowing when a > foetus has enough neurons to constitute
a feeling of pain within the > current understanding of the brain.
One can only "reasonable" say that, > say prior to 3 months from
conception, there are essentially no relevant > neural connections,
so no pain. However, where a "reasonable" line may > be drawn after
his point, is completely arbitrary guesswork.
Related stuff at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin,

you are biased and you currently assume (i.e. you are biased by an
currently source) that this research had stg to do with electronics
or systems.

We are all biased in general, but as far as scientific based, not a
chance. My opinions are based on simple and verifiable axioms.

This was a Phd study for the title of doctor in

medicine. I used the word "detector" loosely. I was talking about a
clinical procedure to look for non-obvious and non-expressed signs
of pain,

Oh...

rather than actual sensor equipment (as in thermocouple, Hall
probe ...). When you know a way to look for a set metabolic
manifestations that have been empirically related to pain,

This is not possible in principle. Tell me how a cat tells us that
it is feeling pain.

you can do
that with conventional equipment and you do not need to undertand
how the brain or neural nets function.

How the neural nets function is completely irrelevant. What maters is
*proving* that certain signals are directly related to a conscious
emotion.

It would be rather annoying if a
physician refused to serve your prescription of penicillin under the
pretext that he doesn t understand fully an down to
molecular/quantum level the interactions between host and germs.

You simply don't understand the issues involved. As I explained, it
is impossible to form a definition of pain, irrespective of what may
or may not physically causes it. There us no way to distinguish a
well programmed non conscious computer from a conscious individual.
That is, a machine can be made that to all intents and purposes
duplicates the output from a conscious individual, e.g. one feeling
pain. Since this duplicate machine can say, "I feel pain", there is
no way of knowing if in fact it does. Therefore the whole concept of
a pain detector is completely bogus. It is not possible, in
principle. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

If you (please) restrict the discussion to those premature foetuses
that are 7 month and older. Do you or don t you find that this
research had better been used to rationalise the prescription of
pain drugs in hospitals rather than efficiency of slaughterhouses ?

Irrelevant as there is no way to prove that such a machine can in
reality detect the pain of foetuses. What to you propose the featus
do, "oh, I say, that hurts". Get real dude.

Medical practice, and scientific practice, are full of empirical
procedures. I'm no epistemologist, but these are probably valid
scientific methods. A scientific method should not require
"understanding" (I would be even tempted to say that it rules it
out), and a theory does not "explain" either.

You *still* miss the fundermental point.

Let me be more formal about what I guess was the method in this study
(again: I only heard about it for a few minutes, and have no
references.) let there be
- a group A of people who you admit have the ability to suffer,

{snip 101 stuff}

Sure, we can make an "reasonable" correlation between different speaking
individuals in similar circumstances and obtain a fair guess on pain
verses output. We rationally make the assumption that we are all
conscious and have similar responses to the same stimuli. This fails
completely in setting up a control with foetuses for which *no* controls
can be established whatsoever. There is simply no way to know whether or
not a foetuses experiences pain or not. It can't tell us. Its that
simple.

We simply do not have an understanding of how the level of pain is made
"aware" to the conscience "mind" as the brain develops. One can argue
that a foetus doesn't experience pain at say, 6 months, or we could
argue that it does. There is simply no way to tell. In fact, some
philosophers claim that a born baby doesn't feel pain, ant that it takes
months before they feel pain "as we do". Ok, I don't hold to that view,
but the point is a valid one. There is no way to prove conclusively
otherwise. This is because consciousnes is fundamentally not derivable
from the laws of physics. You are under the false illusion that the
argument is about understanding the physical mechanics of how we feel
pain. This issue is simply not relevant to the discussion. We cannot
define pain. Without a definition of the basic variables, science can
say *absolutely* nothing about the matter.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

One of My High Technology Contributions to Microchip Design

Activ8

Guest

Tim Shoppa

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Tim Wescott

Guest

Andrew VK3BFA

Guest

Tim Wescott

Guest

Tim Shoppa

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

legg

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

legg

Guest

Andrew VK3BFA

Guest

Activ8

Guest

fogh

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

fogh

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor