OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

On Monday 20 September 2004 11:38 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us
with the following:

I know, but the above is very rigorous. However it is very, very wide.
Do not be mislead by this fact. If an entity can be copied it is a
Replicant. That's it. Period. That's all the definition that is
required. There is no more "technical level" to write about. This is why
the approach is so very powerful. Almost anything is either a Replicant
or Replicator, or both. That is why it is essentially, impossible to
deny the conclusions of the theory in a specific example. Real life
objects will invariable satisfy one or another of the definitions.

This is *why* I have so much err..faith, in the approach. I look at the
big picture. Its pretty much impossible to deny that the maths don't
apply to anything of merit.
And for precisely the same reason, I say, so tell me, exactly, what is
the utility of a set of axioms that essentially say, "Everything is
either A or B or Both", it kinda doesn't narrown things down much.

I guess what I'm going after is the metaphysical end, like, why
does a replicator decide to replicate? Because a meme told him to,
or is it in their nature? Is that covered in the paper?

Another thing I've noticed is that with a little judicious questioning,
I've been able to narrow down about 3 of your pages to a paragraph, in my
other post upthread. So maybe we can work through that one too, with you
translating for me. ;-)

And, of course, which came first, the chicken or the egg? And why? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
Guy Macon wrote:
I predict that Kevin will continue to claim that nobody has made a
single comments on the technical merits of his paper, despite having
replied to several of them.
I haven't seen any that shows the detractors understand anything about
science or mathematics sufficient to make any coherent objections.

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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

There have been many (Do a Google search on Swan in this thread
for just one example). The fact that you disgree with the many
technical compliants does not mean that they were not posted.

And your claim that there were, doesn't mean that there were.
There were none, so present them.

Like I said, do a google search on "swans" in this thread.
Another example is the post by Don Pearce *that you replied to*.

I meant a credible one. Don was trivially refuted.

And there, ladies and gentlemen (and Rich) is a prime example of
the Kevin Aylward Wriggle! Caught in a lie ("no technical complaints
posted") he changes his story to "no *credible* technical complaints
posted" ("Credible" being defined by Kevin Aylward, of course...)
Wriggle, little Kevin! Wriggle some more!
We have to get some sort of sense going on here. Those that complain
that I had no mention of Tinky Winky in my papers are not going to be
considered credible technical points.

You aren't fooling anyone, you know.
I don't need to, its obvious who the fool is here.

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.
 
Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
Kevin Aylward

And it might be trivially obvious to you, but it's equally trivially
obvious to me, if not even more so, that your expressions, theories,
protestations, and everything else going on here are prima facie
evidence of Free Will in action, right before our very eyes. You
just don't know it yet. ;-)
This has profound implications. Let's say that I was hiring someone.
Should I hire Rich Grise, who believes in free will, takes responsibility
for his actions, and honors contracts? Or should I hire Kevin Aylward,
who says that he has no control over his actions and who thinks that
biology is a good excuse for refusing to honor a contract freely entered
into? I would hire Rich, because he would either not agree to do what
I ask or would agree and then would do what he agreed to do. (Besides,
everyone likes Rich.)
 
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
"Sylvain Munaut" <tnt_at_246tNt_dot_com@reducespam.com> wrote in message
news:414f41e6$0$9013$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...


I'm searching on how to design a "simple" flyback smps that would work on

110AC and 220AC

There is really nothing simple about that - what do you need it for (If it
is for a product, in almost any case it will be cheaper to buy the thing as
a unit ready-made & tested from f.ex. Toko, If it is for learning I would
choose something a little less deadly to start out with ;-)?
It didn't sound that complicated ;) I just looked at the Viper100 from ST
and their design application and that looks like it could fit my needs with
little external components.

But at that level of power, it's working in continuous mode, I'm not sure to
know all the implications of that.

Prebuilt modules could do it for the final product (even if building one myself
still interests me for learning). I've looked at TOKO and didn't find modules ...



Also, I'm probably gonna need a "custom" transformer, any pointer on that

?

The voltages you quote are common - you job will be *a lot* easier - and
safer - if you at least choose a commodity transformer and design around
that!!
Yes certainly. But often in the app notes / design software given by pwm
controller manufacturer, they don't give reference for a part but just
number of turn / core / ...

Where could I get standard transformers ? I may not be searching for the good
word ...


Sylvain
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10l00v3o1cpfcb9@news.supernews.com>) about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Tue, 21 Sep 2004:
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

I have already given you a proof of no free will,

Care to explain why so many intelligent and educated people consider the
question of free will to be an unanswered question? Are they *all*
inferior to Kevin Aylward?
No, of course not, and I'm sure he doesn't claim that. Kevin's proof is
based on logic and science, which hold that for any system whose
characteristics are known, a given set of initial conditions produces an
outcome that can be exactly predicted. In practice, it is usually too
difficult to determine the system characteristics and the initial
conditions accurately and completely enough to make such a prediction.
Consider dropping a wineglass, for example. But we are somewhat
privileged in electronics in that our simulation programs often DO
produce reasonable and useful results.

Now, AIUI, Kevin says that the human brain is a physical system. So its
output is completely determined by its characteristics as a system, and
its inputs. Some of those characteristics and inputs may have random
elements. But, being random, they are not under any control. So, if you
wish to argue against this deterministic explanation of human behaviour,
and invoke a 'will', you have to postulate either new science or
something outside science altogether, such as a 'soul'. To put forward
either postulate seriously, you have to show some evidence for its
existence.

Maybe Kevin should hire me to ghost-write his papers, but of course he
doesn't believe in ghosts!

I dropped the name 'Nels Bergenholm' into the thread to see if anyone
would pick up the 'new science' idea, but you are obviously all too
young, or insufficiently well-read, to respond. (;-)
OTOH, we have had a bit of 'soul' stuff, but not to excess.
--
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
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid>
wrote (in <iq80l05mb7bgh9utciqc7dev9t6ng5hmkp@4ax.com>) about 'Ping
Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Tue, 21 Sep 2004:

Who owned your clock?
The local plumber!

Were they as pissed off as my sister was?
I believe so, but I wasn't really aware of it.
--
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
 
James Meyer <jmeyer@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:19:50 +0100, Terry Pinnell
terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wroth:

I bit the bullet last night and installed the 75 MB Service Pack 2 for
Windows XP. Wish I'd curbed my impatience and waited. Amongst other
things:
- Windows Update no longer works)
- NAV 2002 ditto


Someone who believes that a software manufacturer does *anything* to
benefit the *consumer* is in the same league as the female porn star who
believed the movie director when he told her that the babbon couldn't get her
pregnant.
So, you're still using DOS are you, Jim? <g>

They undoubtedly take a step back for every few forward, but since I
started using PCs ('82?), the software developers have managed to do a
few things that benefit me. Not their primary motive, of course, but
it happened nevertheless.

Anyone else with any practical advice please? I may take John's advice
tonight and uninstall NAV. But I have a feeling that will mean
re-installing XP2 as well. So I'm still hoping for a magic bullet
(preferably one within the mass-energy domain though, please!)

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK
 
xray wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:16:51 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I seem to be forced to put this on the open forum, but I am very
reluctant to do so, and consider it justified only through relieving
Kevin, I hope, from further futile criticism.

Kevin, like many other electronic engineers of high intelligence, is
somewhat dyslexic. It is not at all unusual for this to be
accompanied by 'denial' in the psychological sense. I know of
another case, a very respected recording engineer, whose writings
are **far worse** than Kevin's, to the extent often of being totally
incomprehensible. He is completely unaware of this. I have even
discussed dyslexia with him (the recording engineer) and he has
'sympathy for those who are affected by it'!

So DON'T continue to criticize Kevin for something he has no control
over and will not believe you about anyway.

This had not occurred to me.
Probably because it aint true.

It certainly is a possibility.
Not in a million years.

Ok, I'll try.
To remove your prejudgment based on one paragraph?

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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Of course I can. If I'm inventing my own theory, I can write what I
like.

That sounds like free will to me.
Not at all. Its only an illusion. The "I" in this case is the "freewill
trait generator" "I" have already described. "I" am the physical machine
telling the collection you call "Kevin" to type "I am inventing things".
Kevin isn't inventing anything, "I" am. "Kevin" is just a vehicle for
"my" interests.

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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

For example, according to the Babble, which 90% of American believe
in, apparently, god gave us free will to believe in him, or not as
the case may be.

Therefore, by your own argument, the "free will" theory must be
false.

Well, you've lost me again. I guess the doorway to your personal
little reality is a little narrow for me. Sorry.

I am not sure why Kevin is under the impression that what is in the
Bible has anything to do with Rich Grise's arguments, but he gets
the Bible wrong as well. See Romans chapter 9, starting with verse 19.
You can quote any chapter and verse you like, and in all likelihood
there is another one that contradicts it.

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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
Kevin Aylward

And it might be trivially obvious to you, but it's equally trivially
obvious to me, if not even more so, that your expressions, theories,
protestations, and everything else going on here are prima facie
evidence of Free Will in action, right before our very eyes. You
just don't know it yet. ;-)

This has profound implications.
In principle, yes. However, we can't ignore the truth because we don't
like it.

Let's say that I was hiring someone.
Should I hire Rich Grise, who believes in free will, takes
responsibility for his actions, and honors contracts?

Yeah.. yeah... anticipating what you actually implied below, I honor
contracts because not do so, would not be in "my" best interest.
Dah...this is trivially obvious.

Or should I
hire Kevin Aylward, who says that he has no control over his actions
As an exact scientific statement, this is correct. However, this has
nothing whatsoever to do with how I live my life.

and who thinks that biology is a good excuse for refusing to honor a
contract freely entered into?
I have never indicated that in the slightest. You confuse statements of
science from statements of my own personal behaviour.

Again, you think everyone is like the Nazis, i.e. killing off those
genetically "inferior" under the excuse that Darwinian Evolution says
that is what should be done.

I would hire Rich, because he would
either not agree to do what I ask or would agree and then would do
what he agreed to do.
Or because he has free will, he could freely decide to kill you, I, on
the other hand, am programmed that indiscriminate killing is not in my
best interests.


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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

There have been many (Do a Google search on Swan in this thread
for just one example). The fact that you disgree with the many
technical compliants does not mean that they were not posted.

And your claim that there were, doesn't mean that there were.
There were none, so present them.

Like I said, do a google search on "swans" in this thread.
Another example is the post by Don Pearce *that you replied to*.

I meant a credible one. Don was trivially refuted.

And there, ladies and gentlemen (and Rich) is a prime example of
the Kevin Aylward Wriggle! Caught in a lie ("no technical
complaints posted") he changes his story to "no *credible*
technical complaints posted" ("Credible" being defined by Kevin
Aylward, of course...) Wriggle, little Kevin! Wriggle some more!

We have to get some sort of sense going on here. Those that complain
that I had no mention of Tinky Winky in my papers are not going to be
considered credible technical points.

Wriggle all you want, but the facts remain:

[1] You claimed that there were no technical complaints posted. No
qualifiers, just a simple direct statement.

[2] You changed your story to no credible technical complaints
posted, with you deciding which technical complaints qualify.

Why don't you just admit that you lied when you said that there
there were no technical complaints posted?
Ok then, I lied. Feel better?

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.
 
xray wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:34:20 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

The papers are knee high just to explain this, and what it means.
Unfortunately, all those religious individuals don't see the forest
for the trees are in the way.

Much as some people can't see the point of spelling or grammar,
perhaps.
I don't know many like that. I know many that jump onto bandwagons.

The other issue, is that one's wives don't want to accept that we men
shag as many other women as possible when ever we can, either. They
just dont want to buy into that we are inherently programmed by our
genes to acting in said manner...


Wouldn't the female's genes be programmed to feel that way?
Indeed, although its a bit more complicated than this. If a women
believes that a man can not attract other females, she will lose
interest. She needs to select a mate such that its offspring will also
be popular with females so her genes gain that benefit.

There was an interesting Ally McBeal episode that illustrated this to a
T. Schoolboys hiring escorts. In court the whole argument was around
that having women attracts respect for the man by both females and
males. The other males of course, now desiring to associate with said
male with many females, in an effort to pinch some for himself. etc...

Keep the
protector at home. Keep her genes maximum in the gene pool. But you
just forgot this?
No. This is getting tiresome. I can't address all the details in one go.
Secondly, I was being humorous. Look, I have been looking at this for
some time now. I aint goanna miss this sort of trivial point.

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.
 
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:39:39 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

On Monday 20 September 2004 07:56 pm, Bill Sloman did deign to grace
us with the following:

Who (or what) is Clarence? He seems to have popped up recently, and
I don't recall see anything of his worth noticing.

He says he plonked you.

Evidently a thoroughly sensible chap, then! I can't recall a single
contribution from BS that's ever turned out to the least bit
interesting or enlightening.
Which is only evidence that you have a disgustingly poor memory.

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.
 
xray wrote:
I'm coming in to read this thread a bit late, so excuse me for posting
without reading what may follow in the thread. Hopefully I am not
thrashing a dead horse, and hopefully Kevin will check back and read
this with an open mind.
There's no dead horse left to thrash. Its all in pieces.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:32:38 GMT, in sci.electronics.design you wrote:

Probably the most annoying thing is this "Its Kevin's theory, so its
shit", when it aint true for neither. Its basically Darwin's theory,
and it aint shit. It works, and forms the mainstream understanding
for all of biology and zoology.

That is not true at all. I think most here appreciate you have a good
mind. They would better accept your opinions if only you followed more
of the accepted conventions that are the basis of successful human
communication.
I do, usually. How many times do I have to state that a few minor errors
have been blown out of all proportion.


It is your ability to focus keenly on some things and
completely ignore others that irritates.
This is a valid assessment in general.

Most geniuses seem to have mastered their native languages while they
are also absorbing all the information that then stimulates the new
theories or breakthroughs of their creative work. If one reads
something written by an english speaker, with twisted and error-prone
english one tends to think that the message they are trying to
present may also be crap.
I agree. However, as far as my papers go, this is most certainly not the
case. We have one actual paragraph in evidence, and 100's of complaints
on the whole papers prose, yet no other evidence has actually surfaced.
In addition, one of the main complainers made 3 independent non
understandable paragraphs in his own reply. Therefor said complainer
does not have the expertise to make such a criticism.

I think this is what the others are also trying to tell you.
No. Its clear what happened here. There are a few who have an issue with
my ability in certain areas, and felt a compensating need to raise
themselves up by bringing me down a peg or two. The attempt was
instigated by finding a couple of inconsequential faults on which to
base the execution on.

It is well known that when it comes to the single subject of English,
any minor faults are far more likely to result in major commendations
then any other subject. Like, errors in math? No problem, who can do
math anyway? Simply writing one sentence that is not on the ball will
lead to many accusations of complete incompetence. This is what has
happened there. If this were not so, more actual evidence would have
been presented, rather than just vacuous claims.

You seem
to have a tendency to say that anything that is not important to you
is not important. Not just this english language stuff but (for
example) your dismissal of some criticisms of the Superspice
interface or documentation.
Such as? I have modified SS quite a bit subject to user input.

I'll try to explain some of what smacks me in the face when I read
that first sentence:
"One of the principle understandings with the theory gained is the
explanations of why the behavior of men and women are fundamentally
different."

understandings with the theory gained --
Who's theory? Yours or someone else's. Are you talking about what you
are going to tell us or the existing theories? "Gained", seems odd in
this construction -- I don't know what to make of it.
You are way too late in the thread. You are referring to the same old
prose, corrected immediately it was pointed out.

explanations of --
You mentioned that you chose the plural because there are many things
involved. There is no problem with having an "explanation" that has
many subtleties. If putting all the pieces together explains it, then
there is an explanation. If there are alternative possibilities, then
there are explanations.

In your case, if there are multiple explanations, why is there just
one theory and not theories?
Simple. There are alternative, valid explanations as to how a particular
trait might be maximised. All of the alternatives are still contained
within the same axioms and theory. A concept to refer to here is
non-linarity. Non-linear systems can have many solutions, described by
the same equation.

For example we could argue that the female chose that particular male
because he was tall, or because he was well off. Both are consistent
with the *same* theory, but without additional information or
constraints, there may be no way to know which explanation is correct.
Maybe both are. Each one effect on their own may be enough to valid the
same choice.

If you can settle on "theory" then
"explanation" should be fine even if there are many threads in its
presentation. "One of" also implies that "explanation" would be more
appropriate.
See above. One theory, many explanations for behaviour. That's the way
it is.

behavior of men and women are--
This is a basic grammatical error. To analyse this phrase you extract
the modifier, "of men and women", which leaves "behavior are". That is
clearly wrong. Two choices: "behavior is", or "behaviors are".
Oh dear, we're still stuck on the one paragraph.

Similarly with, "is the explanations", if you really want to keep the
plural (bad idea, I think) it should be "are the explanations" -- then
of course, there is a problem with "One of the...".
Still stuck on the one paragraph.

So all of these types of things are REALLY distracting to most people
who are trying to extract your intent from the writings.
Maybe they should get over the fact that people make mistakes, now and
again.

I was trying to think of something to use as a comparison. "Coding and
Information Theory" by Hamming came to mind. A pretty small book with
ideas that have been well received. The first paragraph is a bit more
mathematical than the one we are discussing here, so I looked a bit
forward to the second page and:

1.2 HISTORY
"The beginnings of both coding and information theory go far back in
time. Many of the fundamental ideas were understood long before 1948,
when the two theories were first established on a firm basis. ..."

Those two sentences lead me, the reader, smoothly into the more
detailed explanations that follow. Your paragraph, which was
presented in the previous parts of the thread, starts as some kind of
cryptographic problem (for no reason) and reads like fingernails on a
chalkboard to anyone with basic english skills.

Not seeing these things (especially after review) is like not seeing
the difference between 2*3 and 2^3. I'm sure you can see that
although the results are near in value, they are not the same. The
rules of english grammar may be a bit more malleable than the rules
of mathematics but ignoring them, as you have done, can significantly
limit your audience.

If I give up and stop reading your paper, it should be either because
I reject your opinions or because I don't have the ability or
inclination to digest the information. It should not be because I
assume the theory must be crap because anyone who has a mind capable
of a good idea should be able to express it better than this.
Indeed I did. Once people actually get past this one dreadful, pus
filled, disgusting abominable paragraph, not fit for the eyes of mere
mortals, their opinions may have some weight.

Without looking at the context (which could change things) I might
suggest:
"This theory explains why the behavior of men and women is
fundamentally different."
I appreciate your input. However, this is a particular vicious meme that
has attacked you. You have made a judgement on how well the papers are
presented, based on one paragraph, and all the cliams, not the actual
evidence. The issue is now that, once judgements has been made, most
further work is usually just an effort to find evidence to back up that
first judgment. This is well known.


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.
 
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Dah...this is trivially obvious.
"this is trivially obvious" is not an argument. It is an assertion.
Please present actual arguments.

Yeah.. yeah... anticipating what you actually implied below, I honor
contracts because not do so, would not be in "my" best interest.
You said that you don't honor at least one kind of contract - a
marriage contract. You can shag all the girls you wish without
breaking a contract by staying single, but instead you describe
doing so after entering into a contract of marriage.

and who thinks that biology is a good excuse for refusing to honor a
contract freely entered into?

I have never indicated that in the slightest. You confuse statements of
science from statements of my own personal behaviour.
Search the thread for the word "shag" to find the statements you made
about your personal behavior.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Kevin's proof is based on logic and science, which hold that for
any system whose characteristics are known, a given set of initial
conditions produces an outcome that can be exactly predicted.

Werner Heisenberg showed us that the more precisely the position
of a particle is determined the less precisely the momentum is
known - thus we cannot, even in theory, know the initial conditions.
First, the above claim on my position is not accurate. I have already
explained that I specifically account for QM, and indeed use this notion
as the vehicle for my "free will" trait generator,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html. I then
give an argument that says despite indeterminate behaviour, it don't
save free will.

Second, Heisenberg was wrong. I thought you have read my QM paper. The
bit of relevance is not my work, but that of a professor of QM at Simon
Fraser University. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html

Read the appendix, where an experiment is described that has actually
been performed that violates a naive interpretation of HUP. The HUP is
about *prediction* not measurement.




Chaos theory provides a mechanism that allows very small unknowns
in the initial conditions to result in very large differences in
outcome. The outcome can *not* be exactly predicted.
But not irelevent to the notion of determinism. Chaotic systems are
strictly deterministic.

Now, AIUI, Kevin says that the human brain is a physical system. So
its output is completely determined by its characteristics as a
system, and its inputs. Some of those characteristics and inputs may
have random elements. But, being random, they are not under any
control. So, if you wish to argue against this deterministic
explanation of human behaviour, and invoke a 'will', you have to
postulate either new science or something outside science
altogether, such as a 'soul'. To put forward either postulate
seriously, you have to show some evidence for its existence.

The above would seem to apply if I was arguing that we have free will,
but I am not doing that. I am arguing that whether we have free will
is an unanswered question.
Only if you accept magic.

Let me ask you the same question I asked
Kevin; if, as you claim, free will has been proven to not exist, why
do so many intelligent and educated people consider the question of
free will to be an unanswered question? Why don't they accept the
proof?

(I also don't have to postulate either new science or something
outside of science altogether. The existence of emergent behavior is
enough to argue against a deterministic explanation of human
behaviour.)
No it isn't. The fact that consciousness (an emergent property) is not
derivable from its parts is not proof that any physical action can be
taken that is not directly determined by its parts.

There are no other true emergent properties, to my knowledge, despite
many claims that there is. If you actually look at the details of all
this "emergent behaviour" stuff on the web, none of it is. Its all
explainable by the parts.

Based, on my axiom 4, in my other post, consciousness must be a VDU. It
is simply an observer to the underlying mass-energy physical processes.
Show me some evidence that action may be taken that is not accouted for
by http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html

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.
 
Guy Macon wrote:
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

I once had 30 school kids, when I was at school, chase me for a
mile.

I applaud your decision to start pissing off entire newsgroups
rather than entire classrooms. Much safer.

I didn't start anything. Rich, followed by Porridge did.

I applaud your decision to respond to provocation in such a way
that you piss off entire newsgroups rather than responding to
provocation in such a way that you piss off entire classrooms.
Much safer.
I responded in this manner to *this* particular post. Feel free to
search my other 10,000 posts and note how rarely I personally insult
people.

This should be quite a compliment. You dudes stuck out from the crowd.
The only ones worthy of my insults. That's quite an achievement. You
must be very proud of yourself.

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.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:
On 21 Sep 2004 01:48:49 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Popelish wrote...

I think you can also reduce the effective parallel capacitance across
any single resistor by running a grounded shield trace between its
pad. Perhaps you can make several various combinations of series
resistors and shielded resistors on a test board. to compare them.
Please post a report here. I have been simulating this sort of thing,
lately, also.

You'd better add the deleterious effect I mention to your simulation.
It's a killer.

Hi Win,

Do you have any representative numbers for the stray capacitances?
Now we are getting somewhere. I have been trying to calculate the pad
to pad and pad to first buried layer capacitance for 0805 components.
I came up with almost a picofarad for the pad to buried layer (.012
deep) but haven't yet a clue for the pad to pad value (except that it
is less than this).

--
John Popelish
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top