Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:37:15 GMT, "Shiva" <helpdesk@666.com> wrote:

"Jon Elson" <jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote in message
news:3F0F25A6.4030403@artsci.wustl.edu...


George R. Gonzalez wrote:

Sometimes you wonder how some products ever made it out of the design
lab.

Sometimes there's so much wrong, you wonder if the item is a joke.

Someday I may relate the story of the no-name amplifier, but today's
story
is from a quite respected company, Bogen.

Respected? By who? They made a lot of public address gear, and a lot of
it
went up in smoke. I can't be sure, but I think I know someone who
wrestled
with this same amp, or maybe all their tube stuff was designed like this.
Very low-budget design, to produce a unit that barely met very low specs,
but absolutely couldn't be made cheaper, and to hell with the user.

After looking inside some of their stuff, **I** certainly never respected
the brand.


Well shheeet, John, if **you** don't respect it, it must indeed be trash!
And, John? there could be two reasons why you "[know] someone who [has]
wrestled with an amp like this": 1. the design sux. 2. the guy's an
idiot. Something makes me wann'a bet on the latter, 'coz I'm not the
brightest bulb in the tree, and I've had no problems doin' Bogens.
Budget-built? Sure. Unreliable? Hey, i'd love to see how modern toob amps
will fare in 40 yrs...

We know how well the modern SS amps hold up.

Those Bogens ran for decades with little or no maintenance. Just fix the thing
and it'll be fine. Any competent tech should have no problem with one of those.

Ron

 

[Fred McKenzie]

<< I have a couple old meters taken from an old stereo that I hope to use
in a new project. They were originally for measuring the left and right
speakers and are labeled "VU Left" and "VU Right". I found this site
http://members.shaw.ca/roma/twenty.html , which has info on metering
power supplies and finding a meters resistance. >>

N.V.-

Look at the bottom of the meter face to see if there is an indication of its
sensitivity. You might see something like "FS=1mA", indicating a One
Milliampere full scale movement. That plus the meter's resistance is needed to
use it for something else.

The only drawback might be if the meter movement is non-linear, but you may be
able to compensate for that with your software.

Fred

 

[Guillaume]

if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.

This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard fallacy.
When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are off. Its only
specific examples that can be handled, by taking the limit as x-
infinite, and this requires that the function be continuous. Most logic
deduced by assuming infinite leads to contradictions, e.g. 1=0, so you
simply can't use an argument like the one you describe above.

Exactly, this is an uneducated fallacy, which can look "ok" to most
people though.

Just because there is an infinite quantity of real numbers between 0 and
1, doesn't mean that 1 doesn't exist. That's basically what the
"infinite past" fallacy is pretending to prove.

Infinity is not equal to non-existence.

Another example of something that would falsely try and prove that
it's not possible to go from A to B, two distant points:

just cut the path in half: going from A to B can be achieved
by going from A to the middle of A and B, and then from the
middle to B. Apply the same principle for each such part of the
path. Since you can always cut a segment in half, you reach the
conclusion that you'll never be able to make it to B.

 

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Fred McKenzie" <fmmck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713140700.03232.00000264@mb-m12.aol.com...

The only drawback might be if the meter movement is non-linear, but you
may be
able to compensate for that with your software.

Most of the meter movements were reasonably linear and the circuits
associated with them made the functions funky.

Has to do with the linear spring constant and the linear nature of mag flux
vs. input current.

 

[Gyro]

Hi guys.

Thanks very much for the suggestions. I forgot to write that I have already
cleaned the lens; it didn't "look" dirty at all, so I assuming it's another
problem. It there an easy way of ridding the player of the skipping? It
usually begins halfway through a normal length CD.

Thanks again for the help

Andreas


"Tim Schwartz" <toschwartz@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F100D5A.F1A6F191@worldnet.att.net...

Hello,

Before you start playing with adjustments, I would suggest cleaning the
sled rails and lens as suggested by other posters. There is also a
common problem with the focus coil drive transistors because an
under-sized transistor was used. (This problem also occurs in the 5000
and 5440) Replace Q102 with a 2SD669 or similar transistor, and replace
Q103 with a 2SB649 or similar. Also look for overheated solder joints
in the area of the transistors.

Regards,
Tim Schwartz
Bristol Electronics

Gyro wrote:

Hi guys.

I'm searching for the above since the player has started skipping
towards
the end of a CD (tracking offset problem?).

The board is rev. issue 1A and there are five potentiometers; VR101, 102
to
105. Which one solves the tracking problem?

Any help appreciated

Andreas

 

[Misanthrope]

On 13 Jul 2003 09:56:40 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6bu0hvcaf7t12b6thps6fg8pfiq8b6kgmq@4ax.com>...
On 12 Jul 2003 10:06:37 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Well, then all of this predictability stuff is completely irrelevant.

I disagree. Determinism has consequences in the realm of epistemology
as well. In a universe where all that is known is known by subsystems
that are themselves embedded in this deterministic existence, it is
useful to examine what specific limits this imposes on what can be
known. I am looking for a reductio ad absurdum, or at least some
observable consequence of absolute determinism. If there is no
observable difference between a universe that deterministic and
one that is not, we will be unable to determine determinism's truth
or falsity. That is likely the result, but I am hoping for a more.

Note that if we wanted to be all positivitic about it, and it did
turn out that determinism was neither falsifiable nor verifiable,
we would likely consider the question meaningless.

Well, thst's the point. Unless we are all positivistic about it, the
"empirical verification" of determinism is beside the point. And, in
fact, positivism is simply mistaken. Determinism is one of many
things we must accept a priori whether we have the epistemological
benefit of predictability or not.

*snip*

We seem to be the products of genetics and
upbringing which doesn't detract from our having a *will* (that is not
metaphysically "free"), but we are not the uncaused causes that you
are talking about.

I will just point out that our wills, whether they be free or unfree,
are as self-referencing as the Liar's Paradox.

Well, I do think there is sort of an "epistemological free will",
then. We cannot be totally aware of our awareness. If we were then
our awareness would exist outside of itself which is a pradox. Or
more specifically, if we were at once consciously aware of our
complete consciousness, then that would have to include the aspect of
our consciousness that is at once consciously aware of our complete
consciousness. But that contradicts what was identified as our
consciousness in the first place. Or, more formally, if our
consciousness is A, then let B be our consciousness plus the thoughts
associated with creating a model of A (i.e. being aware of A). If we
are aware of our consciousness, then our consciousness has to be B,
not A, and clearly B is not equal to A. But, we designated our
consciousness as A to begin with, so therefore we must reject one of
the hypotheses, and the only one that we can reject is that we are
aware of our own consciousness. Therefore, we cannot be aware of our
own consciousness.

So, in our own *physical* world view, we cannot see ourselves as being
the effects of various causes. That, is different, though, from the
*meta*physical view that we nonetheless are the effects of some causes
even if we cannot personally know the precise chain of events that is
us. (Which again, we cannot personally be aware of literally
everything that makes us what we are, since if we were, we'd have to
be someone else.) I think this is along the lines of what Kant, for
instance, argues in the Critique of Practical Reason where he claims
that we can be as phenomenologically predictable as a lunar eclipse,
but must view our noumenal selves as beings with Free Will. At any
rate, I think all fo this leads to a sort of compatibilism which
includes the view of strict metaphysical determinism which is
basically required for any scientific or philosophical or rational
examination or discussion of nature ro reality.

---
Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[JURB6006]

Bob;

I just sent you an email from my open address with a possible explanation for
this difficulty. I did already add you to the allow list. You should be able to
reply directly to the email I sent you with an appropriate subject line. Unless
bluebottle rejects me as spam, we should be good to go.

JURB

 

[Michael Black]

Fred McKenzie (fmmck@aol.com) writes:

I have a couple old meters taken from an old stereo that I hope to use
in a new project. They were originally for measuring the left and right
speakers and are labeled "VU Left" and "VU Right". I found this site
http://members.shaw.ca/roma/twenty.html , which has info on metering
power supplies and finding a meters resistance.

N.V.-

Look at the bottom of the meter face to see if there is an indication of its
sensitivity. You might see something like "FS=1mA", indicating a One
Milliampere full scale movement. That plus the meter's resistance is needed to
use it for something else.

The only drawback might be if the meter movement is non-linear, but you may be
able to compensate for that with your software.

Fred

I suspect both your answers will strike out.

Since the meters came out of "an old stereo", I'm picturing cheap and
small meters. I don't recall seeing any markings on those I've pulled out
of old equipment.

And such equipment isn't usually looking for absolutes. Most of the time,
those cheap meters are for relative readings (such as signal strength)
and so it doesn't matter if they are linear or not. Even for these
"VU Meters", if it's cheap equipment all that matters is that one point
on the meter is where it's supposed to be.

A lot of those meters, for some reason, tend to be relatively sensitive,
ie in the 100s of uA range rather than mA.

Michael

 

[Bill Jr]

How about checking the part numbers on the boards and see if one of us can
decipher those to a proper model number. Then you may be able to get some
useful information.
BTW, even with the back missing they usually had a little white sticker on
the main board that had the model and serial number on it.

Good Luck,
Bill Jr


"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zpcQa.80025$TJ.4185360@twister.austin.rr.com...

Yes, a private pilot with electronics as a second hobby, looks like no
one is repairing any more

Arthur Jernberg wrote:
One question, with your username, are you a private pilot>> BTW just
saw a
VS400 setting in a scrap pile but have no access to any of it's
components.
"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M7LPa.76858$TJ.3963998@twister.austin.rr.com...

Need service manual, ckt boards for a Mitsubishi projection Tv model
unknown (rear cover missing) made mid '80s - early '90s, can email pic
Thanks

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:57:10 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Existence is pointless. We exist because the laws of physics allow it.
Thats all there is to it.
------------------

No, we're here because our inner nature allows the laws of physics
that make us possible in this manner.

Er, no. The point of existence is simply to reproduce successfuly.
We're all slaves to that all-pervasive macromolecule, DNA.
-------------------

The physical world cannot be shown to exist as other than thoughts
in the mind. DNA is merely an idea, even if a governing idea.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Jack]

We use MEK to clean circuit boards. Available at any Ace hardware store.Good
flux solvent.



"pjd business machines" <pjdbm@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qX%Fa.28157$ly.13561257@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

We use Blue Shower,expensive but good."Ralph Farr"
rfarr@preserves.worldspice.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19524437ecc63e66989681@news.wnm.net...
I was wondering what is the best cleaner to clean 30 years of dust off
of a stereo circuit board. Also what is the best cleaner for volume
controls and switches that are scratchy. I am confused by all the
different brands of cleaners available at places like MCM electronics.
Thanks for your help.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Misanthrope wrote:

On 13 Jul 2003 09:56:40 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6bu0hvcaf7t12b6thps6fg8pfiq8b6kgmq@4ax.com>...
On 12 Jul 2003 10:06:37 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Well, then all of this predictability stuff is completely irrelevant.

I disagree. Determinism has consequences in the realm of epistemology
as well. In a universe where all that is known is known by subsystems
that are themselves embedded in this deterministic existence, it is
useful to examine what specific limits this imposes on what can be
known. I am looking for a reductio ad absurdum, or at least some
observable consequence of absolute determinism. If there is no
observable difference between a universe that deterministic and
one that is not, we will be unable to determine determinism's truth
or falsity. That is likely the result, but I am hoping for a more.

Note that if we wanted to be all positivitic about it, and it did
turn out that determinism was neither falsifiable nor verifiable,
we would likely consider the question meaningless.


Well, thst's the point. Unless we are all positivistic about it, the
"empirical verification" of determinism is beside the point. And, in
fact, positivism is simply mistaken. Determinism is one of many
things we must accept a priori whether we have the epistemological
benefit of predictability or not.

*snip*

We seem to be the products of genetics and
upbringing which doesn't detract from our having a *will* (that is not
metaphysically "free"), but we are not the uncaused causes that you
are talking about.

I will just point out that our wills, whether they be free or unfree,
are as self-referencing as the Liar's Paradox.

Well, I do think there is sort of an "epistemological free will",
then. We cannot be totally aware of our awareness. If we were then
our awareness would exist outside of itself which is a pradox. Or
more specifically, if we were at once consciously aware of our
complete consciousness, then that would have to include the aspect of
our consciousness that is at once consciously aware of our complete
consciousness. But that contradicts what was identified as our
consciousness in the first place. Or, more formally, if our
consciousness is A, then let B be our consciousness plus the thoughts
associated with creating a model of A (i.e. being aware of A). If we
are aware of our consciousness, then our consciousness has to be B,
not A, and clearly B is not equal to A. But, we designated our
consciousness as A to begin with, so therefore we must reject one of
the hypotheses, and the only one that we can reject is that we are
aware of our own consciousness. Therefore, we cannot be aware of our
own consciousness.

So, in our own *physical* world view, we cannot see ourselves as being
the effects of various causes. That, is different, though, from the
*meta*physical view that we nonetheless are the effects of some causes
even if we cannot personally know the precise chain of events that is
us. (Which again, we cannot personally be aware of literally
everything that makes us what we are, since if we were, we'd have to
be someone else.) I think this is along the lines of what Kant, for
instance, argues in the Critique of Practical Reason where he claims
that we can be as phenomenologically predictable as a lunar eclipse,
but must view our noumenal selves as beings with Free Will. At any
rate, I think all fo this leads to a sort of compatibilism which
includes the view of strict metaphysical determinism which is
basically required for any scientific or philosophical or rational
examination or discussion of nature ro reality.

---
Misanthrope
-------------

Excellent!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Misanthrope]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:20:20 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

Misanthrope wrote:

On 13 Jul 2003 09:56:40 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6bu0hvcaf7t12b6thps6fg8pfiq8b6kgmq@4ax.com>...
On 12 Jul 2003 10:06:37 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Well, then all of this predictability stuff is completely irrelevant.

I disagree. Determinism has consequences in the realm of epistemology
as well. In a universe where all that is known is known by subsystems
that are themselves embedded in this deterministic existence, it is
useful to examine what specific limits this imposes on what can be
known. I am looking for a reductio ad absurdum, or at least some
observable consequence of absolute determinism. If there is no
observable difference between a universe that deterministic and
one that is not, we will be unable to determine determinism's truth
or falsity. That is likely the result, but I am hoping for a more.

Note that if we wanted to be all positivitic about it, and it did
turn out that determinism was neither falsifiable nor verifiable,
we would likely consider the question meaningless.


Well, thst's the point. Unless we are all positivistic about it, the
"empirical verification" of determinism is beside the point. And, in
fact, positivism is simply mistaken. Determinism is one of many
things we must accept a priori whether we have the epistemological
benefit of predictability or not.

*snip*

We seem to be the products of genetics and
upbringing which doesn't detract from our having a *will* (that is not
metaphysically "free"), but we are not the uncaused causes that you
are talking about.

I will just point out that our wills, whether they be free or unfree,
are as self-referencing as the Liar's Paradox.

Well, I do think there is sort of an "epistemological free will",
then. We cannot be totally aware of our awareness. If we were then
our awareness would exist outside of itself which is a pradox. Or
more specifically, if we were at once consciously aware of our
complete consciousness, then that would have to include the aspect of
our consciousness that is at once consciously aware of our complete
consciousness. But that contradicts what was identified as our
consciousness in the first place. Or, more formally, if our
consciousness is A, then let B be our consciousness plus the thoughts
associated with creating a model of A (i.e. being aware of A). If we
are aware of our consciousness, then our consciousness has to be B,
not A, and clearly B is not equal to A. But, we designated our
consciousness as A to begin with, so therefore we must reject one of
the hypotheses, and the only one that we can reject is that we are
aware of our own consciousness. Therefore, we cannot be aware of our
own consciousness.

So, in our own *physical* world view, we cannot see ourselves as being
the effects of various causes. That, is different, though, from the
*meta*physical view that we nonetheless are the effects of some causes
even if we cannot personally know the precise chain of events that is
us. (Which again, we cannot personally be aware of literally
everything that makes us what we are, since if we were, we'd have to
be someone else.) I think this is along the lines of what Kant, for
instance, argues in the Critique of Practical Reason where he claims
that we can be as phenomenologically predictable as a lunar eclipse,
but must view our noumenal selves as beings with Free Will. At any
rate, I think all fo this leads to a sort of compatibilism which
includes the view of strict metaphysical determinism which is
basically required for any scientific or philosophical or rational
examination or discussion of nature ro reality.

---
Misanthrope
-------------
Excellent!
-Steve

In true irony, my last post (I'll be away from the computer for some
time for a move after which I shall likely come back as a new persona)
as the Misanthrope will be

THANKS!

Later...

---
Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[cessna]

I'll check that, however one board is missing, several boards have part
numbers starting with 85xxx I'll get more numbers and get back.

Bill Jr wrote:

How about checking the part numbers on the boards and see if one of us can
decipher those to a proper model number. Then you may be able to get some
useful information.
BTW, even with the back missing they usually had a little white sticker on
the main board that had the model and serial number on it.

Good Luck,
Bill Jr


"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zpcQa.80025$TJ.4185360@twister.austin.rr.com...

Yes, a private pilot with electronics as a second hobby, looks like no
one is repairing any more

Arthur Jernberg wrote:

One question, with your username, are you a private pilot>> BTW just

saw a

VS400 setting in a scrap pile but have no access to any of it's

components.

"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M7LPa.76858$TJ.3963998@twister.austin.rr.com...


Need service manual, ckt boards for a Mitsubishi projection Tv model
unknown (rear cover missing) made mid '80s - early '90s, can email pic
Thanks

 

[t.hoehler]

Refurbished is good, I can't count how many failures I've come

across due to poor soldering or underrated components from the factory. A
new power supply or a professionally serviced used power supply will both
give you no problems, there's no magic or crystal ball involved in this,
just experience and knowledge, have some faith in the people who have
repaired dozens or hundreds or more TV's over the years, it's really not
rocket science and parts very rarely get partially damaged. High power
components generally either work or they catastrophically fail.

Refurbished/remanufactured in automobile spark control and fuel control
computers is *better* than new. Many times the reman will have beefed up
driver transistors, and more robust parts installed in areas known to fail.
So don't be afraid of a good reman or a good refurb. The key word here is
"good" Get them to back it up with a 90 - 180 day warranty, if it gets thru
that, you're home free.
Regards,
Tom

 

[Rich]

Bill,

Tried to contact you off list, but it did not work. Thanks for the
offer.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Jr" <bill@nospam.usa2net.net>

I've got 3 or 4 Deskjet 612's that you can have for parts if you
want them.
They all work, but I don't have the power supply for them.

 

[Garrett Mace]

"Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsB2Qa.8649$AD3.6057@lakeread04...

I am wondering if anyone has made a device that is basically a sound
card that can receive an Internet audio stream, but without having a PC?
I want to pick up some feeds, but don't want to invest in a PC. Thanks
for any replies.

There are many such devices. Most of them also have some internal storage.
Look up MP3 jukeboxes etc. I think the Streamium is such a device,

Here's something similar that someone made:
http://www.thepowleys.com/lanpipe/

It requires a PC on your network, but basically it's a device that you can
stream audio to and and it'll play it. Not much advantage over a pair of
wires, in my opinion, except you can have multiple streams on the same
network. Get yourself enough ambition and you can build your own.

I just got another FPGA devel board, maybe I'll try to one-up this guy with
an MP3 version....

 

[Kevin Aylward]

ShrikeBack wrote:

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6bu0hvcaf7t12b6thps6fg8pfiq8b6kgmq@4ax.com>...


As for the first cause argument, it is not complete. The burden,
then, is on you to prove that finite time implies a first cause and
that the existence of one first cause implies that we are each first
causes which is where free will comes from. The fact is that a first
cause is only required if time is finite AND linear. The reason time
is even thought to be finite is for the same reason space is thought
to be finite, namely because it is not linear. And even if there is
a first cause, it seems entirely likely that we are not ourselves
uncaused causes, anyway.

It was not my intention to try to establish the truth of the Liberty
of the Will in that argument, but rather to cast doubt on the Doctrine
of Necessity.

I thank you for bringing up the issue of non-linear finite but
unbounded time. That, I did not consider at the time. The reason I
had not considered it is that the current state of our knowledge
leads me to the conclusion that the universe will not collapse in on
itself, but rather expand indefinitely. This result could change, of
course.

One thing that I had not really thought about is that the oscillating,
finite but unbounded, non-linear timeline, when wedded with the
Doctrine of Necessity, leads to Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence.
So, we would have, in this cosmology, a timeline that continually
repeated the same set of causes and effects eternally.

It does not have to repeat. It could be a random oscillator.

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]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

No, our need to coooperate founds our need for rules. If we live alone
far apart we die off. If welive alone close together we win the whole
world and defeat all enemies, and strictly through the use of Rules.
Animals don't have social "rules", all theirs are genetic and
non-conscious.

In disagree. Animals behave within a framework and certainly animals
have conscious. Anyone with a cat can see this. I agree that it is not
much of a conscious, but they do have one. You cant just draw a line and
say, this has consciousness, this doesn't. There is a graduation of
awareness from pure automatic instinct, to what we call "free will"
consciousness.

This is the Meta-evolution of Memes and Genes as well.
It is like unto the first multi-cellular colonies that conglomerated
for safety and advantage.


So, Hume views above are *completely* and utterly wrong with regard
to this. Period.
---------------
I disagree completely.

Not surprising, you don't understand replicator theory.

No doubt because his/the knowledge of the selfish gene was
somewhat lacking at that time.
---------------
I think you have completely misunderstood Hume on Morality.
He indicates an advantage to fellow feeling in our nature.


For example, it took a lot of work to
come up with a correct mathematical model of why the Peacock, despite
adding apparent disadvantaged features, still resulted in a net
selfish advantage. All of the above are easily explained by the
selfish replicator theory. The whole idea of something like
"benevolence is an original principle" is nonsense. Social, or good
for the group theories died in the 60's due, in part, to a complete
failure to obtain any mathematical models to support such a view.
------------------------------------
Nope,

Yes.

I don't knmow where you get such crap.

I read respected books, and evaluate using the scientific method. What I
stated is well accepted by essentially, all scientist in the field.

didn't really emerge till the late 1980's.

"The selfish gene" was published in 1976. In this book Dawkins refers to
the old group theory approachs given up in the 60's. You should read it
sometime.

And it is a poor analysis

Its a correct one. One that is pretty much universally accept by
zoologists, biologists and evolutionist scientists. To deny it is to
deny evolution.

that Hume would never agree with, and neither would I.

Nevertheless, its correct. It based on trivial, easily verified,
assumptions.

1 Characteristics/traits are passed on to offspring.
2 Characteristics/traits are randomly generated
3 Characteristics/traits are selected by the environment.

These assumptions directly result in the "we observe what ever copies
itself the
most". Its really not debatable. Its almost a tautology. Jesus wept
dude, this is so obvious. If a replicator don't copy itself as well as
another replicator, after enough generations, the better replicator must
dominate. Any replicator that continually puts another's interests
first, must be overrun by one that doesn't. Its 101 maths. Its called
geometric progression.

reactionary, merely a lashing out by Rightists frustrated by the
whole of the latter half of the 20th century.

There is no emotion in this view whatsoever. Its a simple, cold,
application of the scientific method to known facts. Anyone, given the
same assumptions will be able to derive the same consequences.

Do humans satisfy the assumptions given above?

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]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:57:10 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Existence is pointless. We exist because the laws of physics allow
it. Thats all there is to it.

Er, no.

Er.. yes.

The point of existence is simply to reproduce successfuly.

There is no inherent reason or point that says things *should*
reproduce. It just so happens that the laws of physics are such that
they allow replicators.

We're all slaves to that all-pervasive macromolecule, DNA.

Wuite true, but this is not because there is any reason for it. It just
does.

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.