Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Kevin Aylward]

bigmike wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1xdTa.2208$751.457819@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Haines Brown wrote:
Can consciousness be represented in physical terms? I'd like to
return to this point and offer a hypothesis, for it is one that
interests me. I'd then like to test that hypothesis in terms of
what I take to be our common understanding of what "consciousness"
seems to imply.

First, the axioms. I start with the idea of an emergent (negentropic
process). Its state at any particular time will, I assume, be a
function of its initial state, of any subsequent external
influences, and of an element of randomness. That is, outcomes are
probabilistically related to an initial condition. Of course, I here
assume that a probabilistic causality can be an objective property
of things and not just an effect of our ignorance.

Now let's apply this to mental life. I posit the existence of three
memory registers in the mind: a) one records the initial state, b)
one records the present state of the mental system, c) and one
records the difference between these two states.

My hypothesis: this third memory is what we call consciousness. It
is the difference between an emergent mental state and its initial
state as a reflection of the world.

Does it satisfy what we intuitively think of as being consciousness?

Not really. I don't see this as being sufficient. Memory on its own
cannot be conscious. It requires some sort of processing of the
memory contents.

In classical mechanics, the key ideas are position and momentum.
Knowing both is sufficient to describe any situation. That is, you
need to know how things move, as well as where they are moved to. I
suggest that the brain and consciousness obeys the same laws. After
all, the brain consists of only the very same physical objects.

Brain memory information is located at different positions. Its
effect is dependant on where it is, and how it gets there. That is,
all of consciousness can be attributed to moving information from
location to location. From a classical point of view, it can not be
any other way. All we have is position and momentum. To suggest
otherwise, would require new physics.

Kevin Aylward

When a person listens to the music of a great composer, or looks at a
painting of a portrait by a great artist, or looks at the sunset on a
beautiful evening, all physics seems to go down to the tube.

Not at all.

There is
just no way for science to explain what is happening here.

In principle, of course it can.

We can, to
some degree, understand the mechanics of the mind, but not the power
of thought and the spirit of life.

There is no spirit of life. This is generic waffle speak.

I use the term spirit, not as a

religious meaning, but as a symbol for consciousness,

You either believe that the brain is made from *exactly* the same stuff
as any other object in the universe, and can be therefore be explained
by the laws of physics, or you must believe in magic.

since science
has no better terms to explain it, nor does science understand it in
any way whatsoever.

Not at all. Science, if you actually took the trouble to see what
science says, can say a lot about emotions. You, with all due respect,
have obviously not looked at the problem in enougth detail.

If I could explain what it is, I would, but it

seems to defy logic, which just might be true. I

Nope. Emotions are perfectly logical. It is trivial to get a qualitative
overview of how and why emotions come about. They are exactly what you
would expect from evolution of replicators.

am not a religious
person, so religion has nothing to do with my opinions. I just feel
that trying to explain the essence of consciousness as a physical
phenomenon may be futile.

I think the issue is that you have not looked at what science really
says. Its like you've went, shit, I don't know why, it all a mystery, so
that that's. We dont know.

Ok, it takes a bit of time to go over the details, but human emotions
can be explained by this outline of "The Theory of Replicators":

Consider the following:

1 Characteristics are continuously being generated randomly.
2 Characteristics are passed on to offspring.
3 The environment selects characteristics

Anything that satisfies these conditions will result in certain
predictable consequences. For example, there is considerable evidence
that all animals satisfy theses conditions.

Now consider a, randomly generated, characteristic that has the property
that it can replicate itself. Now consider various characteristics all
replicating. Suppose now that, due to the constraints of the
environment, characteristic A can replicate say, 1% faster than B. Also
assume that the initial numbers of A and B are equal. After 1000
generations the ratio of A/B = 1.01^1000=20,959.

So, if there is a *consistent* and *continuous* replication advantage
for one trait verses another, the one that is only *slightly* better,
will, given enough time, *completely* dominate. That is, "we only
observer that which replicates the most". Note that, some traits are not
consistent over time, for example, getting infinitly bigger then an
opponent has negatives in replication.

Consider a random generated trait that aided another trait to its own
final disadvantage. Clearly, it could not replicate as well as the trait
it was aiding, hence that trait would be driven to extinction. This is
the principle of "selfishness". Any trait that is not selfish, will be
overrun by another trait that is. Again, note that "selfishness" is by
reference to its final, outcome. It is quite possible to aid another
trait, if by doing so, it receives an advantage. A selfish trait must
take advantage of any unselfish trait, therefore, that's what we
observe. The maths demand it.

I will close with you to ponder on this.

Love - recognition that someone has something to aid your interests.

Hate - recognition that someone does something to impede your interests.

Envy - recognition that someone has something instead of you that would
aid your interests.

Pride - recognition that you have gained something that aids your
interests.

Guilt - recognition that you have done something that might impede your
interests.

So, emotions are simple traits that have developed that allows the
replicators within your to replicate themselves better. Its a sad world
indeed.

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.

 

[Gene]

science. Physics as we know it, can't help any here. I do not want to
let
myself fall into the trap of thinking that there is a scientific
explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that cannot be
explained
by the laws of physics.

An interesting thread, a bit OT, but nevertheless...thought provoking.
I would suggest only this. IMHO your sentence should contain an extra
tiny word i. e.:

"Physics as we know it TODAY, can't help any here."

"I do not want to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that there
is a scientific
explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that cannot be
explained
by the laws of physics."

How can you state that, when we know that it is the nature of science
itself to progress through time?

BTW I tend to agree with Kevin ideas. Greetings Kevin from Eugene
(Glenrothes....)

--
Gene
************************************************************************
emberti at yahoo dot com
(Messages trashed without the word KEYWAY in subject line)
************************************************************************

 

[Young Coot]

Hello again -

thought I'd close this thread with the solution to this particular problem.

Finally had an interval of time when I could take that unit out of service
and take the back cover off for examination. Solder joints didn't seem to
be the problem with this one; just dirt and (to my feel) loose plug-in
connections to the CRT socket board. I re-seated each of the plug-in
connections, including the one for the data cord as well as the socket for
the CRT tube itself, cleaned and firmed up the ground shield contacts, put
it back together, and... no flickers! It now has good consistent color like
I've come to expect from a computer monitor.

This was indeed an easy fix. I see others have written in with similar
issues, and while I cannot promise that theirs will clean up as easily I can
definitely agree that it is not a difficult job.

YC

"kc8adu" <nospam@spam.sucks> wrote in message
news:vfhq3v1md6vhaf@corp.supernews.com...

it is likely to be a bad solder joint.
take the shield off the crt socket board and have a close look at it.easy
fix.
"Young Coot" <Reply@Newsgroup.OnlyPlease> wrote in message
news:vfeavk2ecnv6e7@corp.supernews.com...
Hello -

Glad this group is here.

I acquired a Viewsonic G790 recently, at a thrift store, and found out
why
I
got it so cheap: while it is warming up, the red will flicker from
normal
to
very high intensity and anywhere inbetween those two extremes. At its
worst, all greens appear black and all is bathed in shades of red.
Whapping
the left side of the monitor case with an open hand will usually bring
color
balance back. After about an hour of warming up, sometimes an hour and
a
half, the color is perfectly balanced for the remainder of the session.
Color balance is also perfect when it is cold, for the first ten minutes
of
operation.

My experience tells me that it's probably a bad solder joint somewhere,
but
I'm not popping this cover off until I get some firm idea as to where to
look. I've learned to be cautious of CRT units.

Viewsonic gave me the number of a service center, but it is 850 miles
south
of me in L.A. I'm not partial to shipping a monitor, especially if it
happens to be something simple (like a cold solder joint) that I could
fix
myself.

Anyone have similar experiece with these puppies?

YC

 

[bigmike]

"Charles Schuler" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yYOcnYIJhtzfPoCiXTWJhQ@comcast.com...

I will close with you to ponder on this.

Love - recognition that someone has something to aid your interests.

Hate - recognition that someone does something to impede your interests.

Envy - recognition that someone has something instead of you that would
aid your interests.

Pride - recognition that you have gained something that aids your
interests.

Guilt - recognition that you have done something that might impede your
interests.

So, emotions are simple traits that have developed that allows the
replicators within your to replicate themselves better. Its a sad world
indeed.

I'll admit that what you have listed and is shown above has some merit.
However, Big Mike wrote: "When a person listens to the music of a great
composer, or looks at a
painting of a portrait by a great artist, or looks at the sunset on a
beautiful evening, all physics seems to go down to the tube."

I don't think these things send anything down the tube but they do pose
some
problems that I have often pondered. These things invoke a religious type
experience, even among heathens and engineers (redundant?). Now, if you
really want to help us, elaborate further, as you did above.

Okay, so the phrase "down the tube" was a bit much Still, I appreciate
you understanding my point. I don't think this is beyond the scope of
science: Oh boy, now I did it

 

[w_tom]

Question is how to avoid another failure. Every incoming
utility (cable, AC electric) must enter building at same
location to make a less than 10 foot connection to single
point earth ground. CATV wire needs no surge protector since
it connects directly to earth before entering the building (if
properly installed). A connection to water faucet or
equivalent is not satisfactory. That cable wire must enter
and be earthed at same location that telephone wire and other
utilities were earthed.

The most common source of VCR destructive surges is AC
electric. Again, incoming wire must connect less than 10
feet to earth ground. To make that short earthing connection,
a 'whole house' surge protector is installed in breaker box.

Difference between a plug-in protector and an effective
surge protector: effective protectors make that so essential
'less than 10 foot' connection to ground. Therefore effective
surge protectors are located where all utilities enter
building.

Furthermore, effective 'whole house' protectors cost about
$1 per protected appliance. How much for that plug-in
protector to only protect one appliance AND not even claim
protection from destructive type of surges? Quietly, plug-in
protectors forget to mention they don't even claim to protect
from the destructive common mode surge.

Even Home Depot sells two protectors for residential AC
electric. Intermatic EG240RC or Siemens QSA2020. However an
electrician may be required to upgrade the earthing system to
post 1990 National Electrical Code standards - a minimally
acceptable earth ground for effective surge protection.

How to identify ineffective surge protectors without losing
another VCR? No dedicated connection to earth ground AND must
avoid earthing discussion to sell their ineffective products.
A surge protector will only be as effective as its earth
ground - which that plug-in surge protectors did not have and
therefore avoid mentioning.

Don't let this VCR failure happen again. 1) Verify the CATV
was properly earthed before entering building. 2) Install
'whole house' protector on AC electric. 3) Upgrade, if
necessary, the building's earth ground.

Carol wrote:

Sarah: I didn't want to repair it. I'm just curious about whether or
not it's dead and garbage. Why buy a new one if this one may be
workable? I just bought a new DVD VCR player, and I'm worried now that
this will happen again. I was under the impression that the surge
protector strips were supposed to keep our electronics from burning.
Guess that was a wrong assumption :-(( Thanks for replying to all.

 

[Andre]

"Sarah" <Nolsar@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<x3cTa.37328$zwL.29590@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Why would anyone want to repair an emerson vcr? (especially a 2 head mono)
you can buy a brand new (better brand) 4 head hi-fi for $50.

Hardly . The newer VCRs are (unless you buy a reputable make)
plasticky junk that lasts about a week longer than the warranty .

The old VCRs are often still going after xx years (ours lasted 8 with
little maintenance) and the parts are often easily obtained .

We use a Ferguson Videostar here - got lightning zapped and blew just
one fusible resistor in the power supply . Fixed that and replaced the
worn out heads etc - cost all of 15 pounds . Still working 3 years
later !

Our JVC lasted a while - had the "dropped brass pin disease" that
required a replacement upper cylinder. It still works (or it did until
it suffered a basket problem caused by label on FRONT of tape)...
AAAUGHH!

I'd try and repair it . If nothing else the mechanics may be OK, so it
could be transplanted to a spare (good PCB) VCR with damaged mechanism
..

Just my E0.017595 worth
-A

"RCU" <nemesis@icequake.no_spam.net> wrote in message
newsan.2003.07.22.11.36.35.798230@icequake.no_spam.net...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:27:36 -0700, Sofie wrote:

TCS:
Your reply does not appear to be entirely correct......
Over the years there were many models of Emerson VCRs manufactured
......(
the OP did not include a model number)...... that had up to 3 fuses in
the
power supply...... one was the primary and there were one or two
secondary
fuses. They should be checked after a power surge.
To assume that it is not worth repairing could also be inaccurate
without
even a cursory and basic diagnostic...... and in most shops it won't
cost
$40 to diagnosis..... I would be out my present business if I charged
that
amount to "evaluate" a VCR considering the current market conditions.
The
bigger shops that are busy with satellite and home theater and the shops
that don't want to mess around with low-end repairs and want to
discourage
VCR repairs may charge that much, but not all shops do this..... ask
around..

Just to second this, I have an Emerson VCR that I'm trying to fix an
unrelated problem with, and it does have three fuses in the power supply
area (it uses a STK regulator).

 

[Andre]

RCU <nemesis@icequake.no_spam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.22.11.36.35.798230@icequake.no_spam.net>...

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:27:36 -0700, Sofie wrote:

TCS:
Your reply does not appear to be entirely correct......
Over the years there were many models of Emerson VCRs manufactured ......(
the OP did not include a model number)...... that had up to 3 fuses in the
power supply...... one was the primary and there were one or two secondary
fuses. They should be checked after a power surge.
To assume that it is not worth repairing could also be inaccurate without
even a cursory and basic diagnostic...... and in most shops it won't cost
$40 to diagnosis..... I would be out my present business if I charged that
amount to "evaluate" a VCR considering the current market conditions. The
bigger shops that are busy with satellite and home theater and the shops
that don't want to mess around with low-end repairs and want to discourage
VCR repairs may charge that much, but not all shops do this..... ask
around..

Just to second this, I have an Emerson VCR that I'm trying to fix an
unrelated problem with, and it does have three fuses in the power supply
area (it uses a STK regulator).

I have an STK5333 here - used it once and no it wasn't the problem
Cost 15 quid (!) you can have it for $8 + p&p

-A

 

[Haines Brown]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Not really. I don't see this as being sufficient. Memory on its own
cannot be conscious. It requires some sort of processing of the
memory contents.

Perhaps so, but I think you simply invite a deeper look at a question
that remains very opaque despite our efforts.

One project might be to reduce consciousness to its very essence, its
simplest expression, and then use that as a test of any explanation
that we might offer for it. For example, it seems consciousness starts
with some object of thought (even if that object is ourselves or a
fantasy), and we then stand back to become aware that we are holding
that object in thought. This suggests that memory, as a place to hold
information in thought, is a ncessary condition. While you agree, you
suggest more is needed than just this.

In classical mechanics, the key ideas are position and
momentum. Knowing both is sufficient to describe any situation. That
is, you need to know how things move, as well as where they are
moved to. I suggest that the brain and consciousness obeys the same
laws. After all, the brain consists of only the very same physical
objects.

Here you loose me. I'm not sure if you intend classical mechanics to
be merely an analogy or as an actual description. For example, I have
trouble applying a notion like "momentum" (which implies mass and its
physical motion) to thought processes. If you only meant it only as an
analogy, then I'm unclear as to just what is analogous between these
two levels.

If you suggest that the representation of any complex situation can be
reduced to a combination of simpler elements (forces and objects), I'd
generally agree as far as classical mechanics (except the multi-body
problem) is concerned, but I'd object strongly if you intend to
generalize the point to all of physics, so say nothing of all
reality. I'd put up a stiff resistance to any such reductionist
argument and would argue that wholes are often much more than the sum
of their parts. I've a sneaking suspicion you would disagree here.

Rather than get off on that side track, let me instead employ the
litmus test above. I suppose any mental operation requires the
transmission of signals in a network connecting memory banks, or
something like that. But does this explain how I acquire a sense of
myself as a constructor of a world map that I can think about and
evaluate? I don't think so. You may have specified an
electro-mechanical condition of consciousness without grasping
consciousness itself. For example, an awareness of the spark in my
sports-car engine igniting the fuel and driving the piston in its
cylinder is certainly valid knowledge, but it fails to capture the
excitement as I zoom along a country road. The operation of the engine
is merely a mechanical condition of my driving experience.

Brain memory information is located at different positions. Its
effect is Dependant on where it is, and how it gets there. That is,
all of consciousness can be attributed to moving information from
location to location. From a classical point of view, it can not be
any other way. All we have is position and momentum. To suggest
otherwise, would require new physics.

I suspect there's a lot more to it than this. Merely shuffling things
around seems a zero-sum game in which nothing unusual can happen. I
tend rather to support the position that reality consists of a
hierarchy of levels, with each level emerging from a more general
level. Each has its own distinctive rules of behavior that are limited
by those of the more general level from which it arose, but its
behavior can not be reduced to it. It would illuminating if I knew
whether you agree or not with such a point.

You didn't elaborate your position sufficiently for me to be sure, but
it appears you seek to explain consciousness through a reductionist
method. I would object that what we subjectively know consciousness to
be would inevitably be lost in the process. All the verbiage in my
previous note was an attempt to establish the relation between an an
initial state and the emergence of something novel that is not implied
in that initial state, but is not free of it either.

Sorry to drag this out, but it seems to me that we need to start with
some agreement over just what "consciousness" means. My handy
(on-line) dictionary suggests three definitions, only one of which
seems relevant here. If I be allowed to abstract from that definition,
consciousnesses is a reflexive knowledge. I had assumed that
(unreflective) knowledge is the equivalent of information stored in
memory. The act of reflecting seems to require a second memory that
stores the data associated with the act of reflecting itself. So far
you have information, and you know that you have that information, but
it there is no specific content for the act of knowing. To gain that,
you need to use that reflective act to build up yet another body of
data that combines both the subject and the object of knowledge to
give rise to knowledge (consciousness) that does not reduce to either
the object of knowlege or the act of knowing.

The aim here has been to illustrate my suggestion that we start with
what we know consciousness to be, and then seek to explain it. I get
the feeling that you prefer to work the other way around by starting
with certain mechanical principles and then try to use them as best
you can to encompass mental life. I doubt seriously that we can
explain consciousness by reducing it to its mechanical (or chemical,
electrical) conditions, but perhaps you can show there is a direct
relation between a dictionary definition of consciousness and the
motion of molecules.

--
Haines Brown
brownh@hartford-hwp.com
kb1grm@arrl.net
www.hartford-hwp.com

 

[bigmike]

"Gene" <emberti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I1iTa.444$S41.54931602@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

science. Physics as we know it, can't help any here. I do not want to
let
myself fall into the trap of thinking that there is a scientific
explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that cannot be
explained
by the laws of physics.

An interesting thread, a bit OT, but nevertheless...thought provoking.
I would suggest only this. IMHO your sentence should contain an extra
tiny word i. e.:

"Physics as we know it TODAY, can't help any here."

"I do not want to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that there
is a scientific
explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that cannot be
explained
by the laws of physics."

How can you state that, when we know that it is the nature of science
itself to progress through time?

Are we to believe that science knows everything? Could it not be that there
are things that science has not yet discovered, or simply can not
comprehend? I happen to believe there is more to the essence of life and the
mind, than science can explain. That would only make sense, because science
is based on the law of physics, and I have yet to here anything in
scientific terms, that explains what emotions are. We all know what they do,
and what triggers them, but not what they are in scientific terms.

BTW I tend to agree with Kevin ideas. Greetings Kevin from Eugene
(Glenrothes....)

--
Gene
************************************************************************
emberti at yahoo dot com
(Messages trashed without the word KEYWAY in subject line)
************************************************************************

 

[Kevin Aylward]

bigmike wrote:

I use the term spirit, not as a
religious meaning, but as a symbol for consciousness,

You either believe that the brain is made from *exactly* the same
stuff as any other object in the universe, and can be therefore be
explained by the laws of physics, or you must believe in magic.


To believe that nothing exists outside the laws of science, is
foolish,

Not at all. Science is the systematic study of all knowledge. There are
only currently *undiscovered* laws of physics.

Lets assume for simplicity that QM effects are not relevant. In this
case, knowing the momentum and position of all particles allows a
prediction of all physics. Since the brain is nothing more than a
collection of particles, physics *must* be able to explain *exactly*
what a brain will do at *any* future point. Therefore emotions are
understood.

It makes no rational sense to hold to some sort of nebulous view that
there are things that exist outside what can not be known by science.

and I do not mean that as an insult in any way. Everything
is "magic" when it cannot be explained through science. That does not
mean it's actually magic, it's just at the very least, the unknown.

But your suggesting that it is magic as you deny that science can not
explain it, in principle.

since science
has no better terms to explain it, nor does science understand it in
any way whatsoever.

Not at all. Science, if you actually took the trouble to see what
science says, can say a lot about emotions. You, with all due
respect, have obviously not looked at the problem in enougth detail.

You can see what science believes triggers emotions, and their
effects. You will find nothing about what emotions actually are, at
least not in terms of physics.

But if you accept that emotions have to be the result of conventional
physical processes, i.e. electrons protons atoms etc, which are fully
described by physics, then emotions are explainable in terms of standard
physics.

For example, my SuperSpice is around 100k lines of code. In principle,
since the initial state of all memory locations can be known, I can use
Maxwell's Equations to predict exactly how the program will function at
any point in time. Of course, its very difficult to see than big picture
with this approach, but the big picture cannot contain any more
information, than what Maxwell's Equations say is there. A concept of a
nand gate, is used for simplicity, not because it contains any more
information than that held by knowledge of its internal structure. It
cant contain any more knowledge.

If I could explain what it is, I would, but it
seems to defy logic, which just might be true. I

Nope. Emotions are perfectly logical. It is trivial to get a
qualitative overview of how and why emotions come about. They are
exactly what you would expect from evolution of replicators.

am not a religious
person, so religion has nothing to do with my opinions. I just feel
that trying to explain the essence of consciousness as a physical
phenomenon may be futile.

I think the issue is that you have not looked at what science really
says. Its like you've went, shit, I don't know why, it all a
mystery, so that that's. We dont know.

Oh, I have spent many years looking for scientific reasons, and have
done a great deal of study on the subject. The reasons science gives
may be enough for some, but it falls far short from explaining what
an emotion is to me.

I was not inferring that science, to *date* has a *complete* description
of *all* aspects of emotions, however, there is no intrinsic reason,
imo, why this is not possible. How can something that is constructed of
building blocks, which we understand, not be explained by those building
blocks.

Sure, it is often useful to have a higher level view of a process, but
this higher lever dos not contain any *new* information. All of the
information is still at the lower level, although it may be difficult to
appreciate at that lower level. For example, a germ is made from complex
interacting molecules. It is usually more convenient to examine it at
the level of reproducing, feeding etc, rather then solve its Shrodinger
wave equation for its 10000's of atoms. Although we might claim that we
understand it better at the higher level, it can't explain i.e. predict,
anything that the Shrodinger wave equation could not predict, given
enough computing resources.

So, emotions are simple traits that have developed that allows the
replicators within your to replicate themselves better. Its a sad
world indeed.

Kevin Aylward

Once again, this all just explains what causes emotions, but it does
not explain what an emotion is. You can't explain it, anymore than I
can. When somebody asks anybody else what an emotion is, they will
describe the cause and effect of an emotion, and that's it. I believe
that what the power of thought produces, cannot, and probably never
will, be explained through science.

I think you are wrong. There is a tremendous body of work on how the
brain works. Of course, there is much still to know, but the basic
framework is already there.

Physics as we know it, can't help

any here.

I see no evidence that the brain requires any new physics to explain its
operation. Indeed, certain effects of drugs on the brain/mind can even
be predicted by computer simulations of the drugs atomic structure.

I do not want to let myself fall into the trap of thinking
that there is a scientific explaination for everything, and that
nothing exist that cannot be explained by the laws of physics.

Oh dear, oh dear...This is not a trap. This is the only way it can be.
You confuse the difficulty of the problem, with its solution. Reread
what you have wrote, and think about what it really implies.


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.

 

[Roger Johansson]

The human brain is constantly being built out, new experiences cause
new nerve cells to grow out, and new blood vessels are built out to
supply the new structures.

These new structures, and modifications of old ones, are our memories.

The brain records what our senses tell it, both about the world
outside it and what happens inside the body, feelings of emotion,
pain, hunger, etc..

The brain associates new expediencies with earlier expediencies by
pattern recognition, similar patterns of expediencies recall memories
of similar earlier expediencies.

The brain remembers events, that is memories of all the important
feelings and sensory inputs which happened at the same time.

A similar situation may feel very differently if the basic emotion is
different. You see a tree differently if you are happy, hungry, in
love, scared, etc..
The event of watching the tree is mixed with the rest of the feelings
you have.

The human mind can think about itself, I can think about how my own
brain works, just as I can think about how my own body works, and how
I experience it.

If I say that I use my brain I have imagined me myself as something
else than my brain, that is a way of modeling which is not an exact
way of seeing things, because I am my thinking, there is no person in
my mind beside my thinking.

But people often use that way of imagining themselves as a person, or
even more than one, inside their mind, who can talk to each other, we
can have an inner dialogue.

It shows what possibilities for modelling and simulation the human
brain has.

So far I have talked about the natural functioning of our brains, or
maybe more exact, our nervous systems.
Now we can get into another chapter, the very excited brain.

Parts of our culture is built upon the phenomena that a very excited
brain can feel very good, as well as it can feel very bad.

We have learnt to use drugs and social manipulation to cause unnatural
states of mind which give some kind of excited satisfaction, social
dominance, etc..

When a very stressed up person suddenly becomes happy, maybe because
somebody she trusts takes care of her and guarantees her safety, her
stress becomes a very happy emotion, all the fear and unhappiness is
transformed to a very nice feeling.

It is not real peace of mind, it is still a very confused state of
mind, with a lot of fear inside, but she becomes convicted that
everything is fine because she has become dependent upon another
persons will power, and that other person is feeling strong and
powerful.

In our culture people have learned to live at high levels of stress,
and this leads to many complicated mental situations.
Some feels bad and some feels good.

Music is a way we can flood the brain with a lot of sensory input, we
can leave our brains in the hands of an artist or an orchestra, and
the music creates a conviction, just like a night with a loving
partner can create a conviction of happiness, which covers our
troubled minds with soothing expediencies.

Instead of resolving the problems we often just cover them up, just
like the icing on a cake covers up the inside of the cake.

Love is often the icing on a violent cake.
Our media channels are filled with people who have made love privately
and then go out and spread what their minds are filled with, the
confusion and fear inside the cake shows, but the people who make the
programs feel fine, because they feel the love.

So they can talk forever about anything, they enjoy meaningless
entertainment or violence while their cosy icing on the cake wears
off.
That is why there is so much crap in our media channels.

One could say that most of the public life is created by people who
create cosy feelings in private with their partners and then they go
out in the world and do things and talk while their cosy feeling wears
off. They are talking a lot of crap, but they think it is all fine,
because they feel fine.
When the icing wears to thin they disappear from the public life, they
go back to their secret lives and create more loving icing on the
cake.

That is why our media channels and our public life is filled with
meaningless entertainment, created by people who have no judgement and
their brains are filled with confusion and fears, under that icing of
their own coziness.

Instead of resolving the problems they cover it up.
Some people even try to create more problems, to raise the stress
level, so they can raise the level of excitement, for themselves and
others, because they have become dependent upon that speeded feeling,
love has become a drug which feels good and gives social strength.

So we live in a culture of lies and secrets, confusion and fear,
violence and strong convictions.

People do things because they are driven by mental forces which are
not natural but cultural, they are not relaxed and have not slept
enough, but they feel a strong urge to be active because they have
unresolved knots in their nervous systems.


--
Roger J.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

bigmike wrote:

"Gene" <emberti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I1iTa.444$S41.54931602@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
science. Physics as we know it, can't help any here. I do not want
to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that there is a
scientific explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that
cannot be explained by the laws of physics.

An interesting thread, a bit OT, but nevertheless...thought
provoking. I would suggest only this. IMHO your sentence should
contain an extra tiny word i. e.:

"Physics as we know it TODAY, can't help any here."

"I do not want to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that
there is a scientific
explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that cannot be
explained
by the laws of physics."

How can you state that, when we know that it is the nature of science
itself to progress through time?


Are we to believe that science knows everything?

Not currently.

Could it not be that
there are things that science has not yet discovered,

Yes.

or simply can
not comprehend?

Possible, but imo. doubtful.

I happen to believe there is more to the essence of
life and the mind, than science can explain.

This appears to be a faith based belief based on what you would like,
not how it might be.

The more I learn about science, the more I accept that it do do wonders.
Maybe, we wont fully understand all of the details of consciousness, but
we already know a lot. We can design drugs to effect the mind. We have
sound reasons why emotions evolved. We can trigger emotions by
stimulating the brain. The evidence is overwhelming that all we are is a
biological machine. There is no soul, life after death etc..etc..

That would only make

sense, because science is based on the law of physics, and I have yet
to here anything in scientific terms, that explains what emotions
are.

They are what they are. If we accept the classical description of the
brain, in principle, we could predict everything about consciousness.
The fact that we have not yet discovered some other general rules of
consciousness, that *simplifies* the information *already* contained in
the reductionism view, is just a bit of an inconvenience.

We all know what they do, and what triggers them, but not what
they are in scientific terms.

You mean, we just haven't gotten around to a fuller scientific
description yet.

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.

 

[bigmike]

"Bob" <bob030722@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fad5fcd2.0307221941.3a19136e@posting.google.com...

I need some advice. My Sony G500 monitor has developed a problem in
the last two months. Although the picture is still very sharp and
clear, it seems to have developed a contrast/brightness problem. I
first noticed a red tint to images displayed and the monitor doesn't
seem to be able to display "black". Black displays as a dark red.
I've been thru the manual and tried adjusting everything possible with
no luck what so ever. I called Sony and they walked me thru
(basically) the same steps. Again, no success at improving the
picture.

Only option at this point is to send the monitor into Sony for repair.
With my luck the warrantee was one week expired so I'll have to pay
Sony's flat rate for repair: $260 (includes shipping both ways).
Which I feel would be worth paying to restore the monitor. Only
glitch is that Sony excludes replacing the CRT. That (if it's needed)
will be extra. The Sony reprehensive warned me that if the CRT needs
replacing it would be cheaper to buy a new monitor rather than repair
this one. Sony can't advise me on whether the tube will need
replacing until I send in the monitor.

Can anyone advise me on whether or not the problem I'm seeing is a
symptom of the CTR or is this a symptom of the electronics driving the
tube?

Has anyone had any similar experiences getting Sony monitors repaired
which were out of warrantee?

Any help will be GREATLY appreciated, as this is a fair amount of
money to spend.

Thanks!

It could be either the tube, or in the RGB circuitry. 260 flat rate huh?
Good grief. By the way, I did a search on that Sony model, and you can still
buy it new for $249.00. Life is strange. Here's the link if you want to
check it out:
http://tomshardware.bizrate.com/,mss__cat_id--416,prod_id--5224117,rf--wgg,t
itle--Sony%20G500.html

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Its supported by the
10000's of bridges, millions of buildings, millions of roads, etc.
etc, all obviously designed and made by a consciousness, and such
that they could not have reasonable been built during my known
lifetime.
---------------------------------
But they don't exist when you're not looking at them.

Prove it.
-------------------
Not needed, YOU'RE asserting something you can't prove, the burden
is yours!


Nope. There is extensive evidence to indicate that things exist when one
dose not look at them.
---------------------

No, there are only more complicated ways of looking. But whenever you
don't look, it's not there. All you know when you have left a video
recorder watching something in your absence is that you can see more
later, NOT nack then!! You only INFER that it relates to something
that happened while you were gone, but you don't REALLY know what
happened, or whether the tape became recorded for you in the last
moment before you viewed it.

You simply don't know whether the physical laws are accomplished by
this "cheating" as you may wish to think of it, or whether things do
actually work the same way when you're gone!!!!!

You're being very dense about this!!!

For example, if a second person holds an object
hidden from me, this person might claim that he sees the object. He then
uncovers it so that I can see it as well. Am I therefore to disbelieve
effectively, million of people? That everyone else is lying?
---------------------------------

You see what you need to see to make it seem to you that time is the
same for all viewers, but you KNOW from Relativity that it IS NOT!
This is similar to what I've been telling you.

You assumption simple leads to numerous contradictions. No is able to
agree that just because you don't see it, it dose not exist.
---------------------------------

Of course it doesn't. Exist MEANS to do what it isn't doing when you're
NOT LOOKING!

Nor do they need to be "built again" for them to exist again.

If they don't exist, when not looking, then exist when looking, then
this is de facto that they need to be rebuilt. Dah..dont exist..
Dah..do exist...
----------------------
The notion of "built" is within the seen world, I'm speaking of the
seen-ness beyond it. Yes, if it were torn-down it would need
re-building, but it's not "removed", it simply doesn't exist.


So, it pops up as needed. And this is a good theory?
-------------------------------

It exists as needed, this appearance is not done by workmen who run
in when you're not looking and build things, it is in the nature of
time, seeing, and existence itself!

Thats right, but you take the assumption that *nothing* is every true
without proof.
---------------------------------
No. I merely say what we see. You don't LIKE what you see,

What I like is irrelevant. Its the evidence in support of a position hat
matters.
-----------------

Positions are political, the universe is experiential.
Positions, i.e., Beliefs are Inherently Anti-Science.

so you
invent phony stories about it that are easier for you to remember.


There are no phoney stories. Essentially, everyone agrees that objects
they can see exist, even if they are hidden from me. I don't find it
credible that *everyone* in the universe is mistaken or lying.
------------------------------

One does not have to believe that others are lying if they don't say
all the same things that you do. Likewise if they don't see the same
things that you do, but of course they don't! The thing you're believing
them about is not even the same thing that you saw when you were
looking!

What I'm saying need not be proven either to be right.

It needs to be shown to be a useful view of the world. It isn't. Its
pretty much universally accepted that the universe is pretty much as
we see it. It allows me to make appointments with people who I don't
happen to see all the time.
------------------------------------
I have no trouble using approximations either, and the approximation
that the world can be ignored as to whether it exists or not when
we're not looking is a useful one, but it is also useful to see the
universe for what it is, which is something that is NOT there when
you're NOT LOOKING!

Again, you have zero proof.
----------------------

This is not something that NEEDS "proof". This is the way the world
works! It is NOT THERE when you're not looking!! It is in the nature
of seeing!

All evidence to date blatantly contradicts
this view. You just stick your head in the sand because it isn't in line
what you wish it to be.
--------------------------------

What I wish it to be is irrelevant, and YOU should join me in this
sentiment!!!!!

Nope, it does not. Things still disappear when you close your eyes.
And when other people visit those places "at the same time" it ISN'T
even at the same time, because it is in THEIR Life, and NOT YOURS!

Mary had a little lamb.
--------------------------

Non-responsive.

Apparently RSW thinks otherwise. From time to time, I do observe
labourers building roads, bridges etc, it makes no rational sense
that these could all appear just for me.

Kevin Aylward
--------------------
If they had to appear other than when you saw them, you might be
right, but as strictly existing when you see them, they are just
part of what you are.

It makes no sense whatsoever, for things to disappear just because
they went out of my field of view.
------------------------
Have you ever seen "outside your field of view"? Of course not, you
CAN'T!

So what. The assumption that objects exist outside our view *never*
leads to contradictions. Absolutely never, so, its a very, very, good
assumption to make. To the contrary, to assume that objects don't
exist outside our view makes for a horrendous complication in
understanding even why it rains.
-----------------------------
Not at all. The rules are such that it must seem all-available, but
that is not provable, and never is! The fact that it is NEVER provable
is notable!

Not according to Goedal. Is a guaranteed occurrence for any complete
system.
-----------------

Which never exist!

Understanding the Universe and the Self is the result of
my view, as WELL as the World as Seen.

You have been completely suckered by this trivial notion of what you
see is green is not what I see as green etc...
---------------
Now that's an important thing to understand, because you may need to
realize that the world looks different to others sometime.

It certainly does.
-------------------------

Which means you can never see what they claim to see, this Universe
is nothing but you!

-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly. My view is
that space and time can not exist without mass-energy. Space is
simple the notion that objects exist in different positions, i.e. if
all objects occupied the same space, we could not identify another
position. Time is simple the notion that an object has changed its
position, that is if all objects stopped moving, time would have
stopped. Without objects you can't determine a distance, without a
distance change, you can't determine a time interval. Note that
*all* measurements, ultimately require a position measurement.
---------------
That's all thinking inside the box! You can't even escape the box
the way you're going!

Oh...

Care to define position without mass-energy.
------------------

Here. All positions are HERE!

Care to define time without mass-energy.
---------------------

Now. There is no other time.

I also take the view that, although our model of the universe is "A
free creation of the human mind" - Einstein, that is, they may be
more than one model to describe the universe, I take it that what
the models describe exist, and exists independent of any model, or
consciousness. To assume otherwise, is a major complication.
Kevin Aylward
-------------------
No, it's no problem for THIS physicist,

Because you too stupid to see the issues involved.

Kevin Aylward
--------------------

And you're too stupid to tell mw those issues.

-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

idlemuse wrote:

The first question that comes to mind is how you address relativity.
Isn't time dilation suggestive to you of that time is an objective
measureable? If we can reconcile the thing as being different in
different reference frames, aren't we suggesting that there is
something external that you and I are both experiencing?
----------------
No.
All is subjective, by definition, no matter the inherent rules.
And all other instances of different application of the rules are
speculations that don't occur. Only one future happens to us. And
Being in a Life the only way anything happens at all.
-Steve

Are you comfortable with the solipsism that results from this line of
thinking? You can't really argue existence beyond your perception
using your framework. If other minds don't exist unless you perceive
them, you are alone.
--------------------

Ah, but YOU'RE assuming that *I* think that *I* exist. And I don't!
I know that I am nothing but an illusion! In fact Another exixts in
my place and is the Only One Who Ever Exists, it is the "I Am That
I Am", the Self-Identified Being.

Consider Nihilipsism!!
-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Haines Brown wrote:
Can consciousness be represented in physical terms? I'd like to return
to this point and offer a hypothesis, for it is one that interests
me. I'd then like to test that hypothesis in terms of what I take to
be our common understanding of what "consciousness" seems to imply.

First, the axioms. I start with the idea of an emergent (negentropic
process). Its state at any particular time will, I assume, be a
function of its initial state, of any subsequent external influences,
and of an element of randomness. That is, outcomes are
probabilistically related to an initial condition. Of course, I here
assume that a probabilistic causality can be an objective property of
things and not just an effect of our ignorance.

Now let's apply this to mental life. I posit the existence of three
memory registers in the mind: a) one records the initial state, b) one
records the present state of the mental system, c) and one records the
difference between these two states.

My hypothesis: this third memory is what we call consciousness. It is
the difference between an emergent mental state and its initial state
as a reflection of the world.

Does it satisfy what we intuitively think of as being consciousness?

Not really. I don't see this as being sufficient. Memory on its own
cannot be conscious.
---------------

Turing said it could, depending on its contents.

It requires some sort of processing of the memory
contents.

In classical mechanics, the key ideas are position and momentum.
--------------

There are millions of people who are conscious who never heard of
physics, or position or momentum.


Knowing

both is sufficient to describe any situation. That is, you need to know
how things move, as well as where they are moved to. I suggest that the
brain and consciousness obeys the same laws. After all, the brain
consists of only the very same physical objects.
--------------------------------

Sure, we'd expect to see the rules followed, and that they would appear
that way, but that's because these "rules" were described by experience.

location. From a classical point of view, it can not be any other way.
All we have is position and momentum. To suggest otherwise, would
require new physics.

Kevin Aylward
---------------------------

No, you just need yours updated.

-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

 

[Arthur Jernberg]

Order a complete service manual from L/G-Zenith and repair it to your
satisfaction. It is highly probable the set requires replacement circuit
module(s) to function properly. If you indeed paid the service tech to
diagnose the set then he should have left with you a report as to what items
are needed for comprehensive repair, however if the service was preformed
"FREE" then you have what you compensated for.
"Sarah" <lstubble@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:bfl8la0mbs@enews4.newsguy.com...

I have a Zenith rear projection tv. When I turn it on, it shows a recent
power outage/reset clock message, that fades to almost complete blackness
after about a minute. A repairman spent not more than 5 minutes in it and
produced a perfect picture, but then he said to keep the perfect picture
would cost $500. I did not think 2 minutes worth of work with no parts
was
worth $500, so he put the tv back to its non-working condition. Does
anyone
know what he might have done? Or any course of action I could take? I have
a
degree in Electronic Engineering and I have experience working with high
voltage, so I am capable of fixing it, I am not experienced with TVs much
and I was hoping someone could save me a lot of troubleshooting with a
scope...
I would be greatly indebted to anyone that can help.... Thanks so much
-Lance Stubblefield
lstubblefield404@msn.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Its supported by the
10000's of bridges, millions of buildings, millions of roads,
etc. etc, all obviously designed and made by a consciousness,
and such that they could not have reasonable been built during
my known lifetime.
---------------------------------
But they don't exist when you're not looking at them.

Prove it.
-------------------
Not needed, YOU'RE asserting something you can't prove, the burden
is yours!


Nope. There is extensive evidence to indicate that things exist when
one dose not look at them.
---------------------
No,

Yep. You admit it below.

there are only more complicated ways of looking. But whenever you
don't look, it's not there. All you know when you have left a video
recorder watching something in your absence is that you can see more
later, NOT nack then!! You only INFER that it relates to something
that happened while you were gone,

See, you do admit it. That's right, one doesn't know for sure, however,
it is evidence in support of the proposition. By assuming that this
evidence is true, one constructs a view of the universe that appears to
work.

but you don't REALLY know what
happened, or whether the tape became recorded for you in the last
moment before you viewed it.

Indeed. And this would form a possible refutation of the evidence, in
principle.

You simply don't know whether the physical laws are accomplished by
this "cheating" as you may wish to think of it, or whether things do
actually work the same way when you're gone!!!!!

The evidence is still overwhelming that there is no cheating. It would
entail a remarkable amount of cheating to account for all the
observations.

You're being very dense about this!!!

I have explained, many, many times, than absolute proof is not
achievable. You apparently have no idea what evidence in support of a
proposition actually means. Evidence is not proof, it is something that
leads to acceptance of a proposition, or a disproof of a proposition.

For example, if a second person holds an object
hidden from me, this person might claim that he sees the object. He
then uncovers it so that I can see it as well. Am I therefore to
disbelieve effectively, million of people? That everyone else is
lying?
---------------------------------
You see what you need to see to make it seem to you that time is the
same for all viewers, but you KNOW from Relativity that it IS NOT!
This is similar to what I've been telling you.

Relativity highlights the fact that there are invariants in nature, that
is quantities, often expressed by tensors, that are independent of the
position and momentum of the observer or the object.

You assumption simple leads to numerous contradictions. No is able to
agree that just because you don't see it, it dose not exist.
---------------------------------
Of course it doesn't. Exist MEANS to do what it isn't doing when
you're NOT LOOKING!

Nope. This may be your definition, but it is decidedly not the one used
by sane people, including essentially all physicists.

For example, although there are a few physicists that might take some
sort of "observer" created reality as an reasonable option, they don't
in the daft manner that you use it. An observer in physics is not a
consciousness. You have a trivially naive understanding of what an
observer is in physics. Results in physics are universally accepted to
be independent of any conscious observer. If one sets up a double-slit
experiment, the "observer" is the equipment itself. The results only
depend on the equipment set-up, i.e. one or both slit closed. The fact
that the experimenter is having a cigarettes at the stair well or not
has no baring whatsoever on the recordings of the instruments. This
observer created reality view suggested by *some* physicists is when
they is *nothing* whatsoever to detect the object. Unfortunately, the
popular Bantam paperbacks that litters your library shelves often miss
this point.

Thats right, but you take the assumption that *nothing* is every
true without proof.
---------------------------------
No. I merely say what we see. You don't LIKE what you see,

What I like is irrelevant. Its the evidence in support of a position
hat matters.
-----------------
Positions are political, the universe is experiential.
Positions, i.e., Beliefs are Inherently Anti-Science.

Not according to Goedal. If we desire completeness, we must accept some
propositions as true, without absolute proof.

There are no phoney stories. Essentially, everyone agrees that
objects they can see exist, even if they are hidden from me. I don't
find it credible that *everyone* in the universe is mistaken or
lying.
------------------------------
One does not have to believe that others are lying if they don't say
all the same things that you do.

But they do. Well, at least the sane ones do.

Likewise if they don't see the same
things that you do, but of course they don't! The thing you're
believing them about is not even the same thing that you saw when you
were looking!

Rubbish.

What I'm saying need not be proven either to be right.

It needs to be shown to be a useful view of the world. It isn't.
Its pretty much universally accepted that the universe is pretty
much as we see it. It allows me to make appointments with people
who I don't happen to see all the time.
------------------------------------
I have no trouble using approximations either, and the approximation
that the world can be ignored as to whether it exists or not when
we're not looking is a useful one, but it is also useful to see the
universe for what it is, which is something that is NOT there when
you're NOT LOOKING!

Again, you have zero proof.
----------------------
This is not something that NEEDS "proof".

Of course it does. All evidence suggest otherwise.

This is the way the world
works!

Not in my book.

It is NOT THERE when you're not looking!!

Give just one example.

It is in the nature

of seeing!

Nope.



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.

 

[bigmike]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0QpTa.20$co5.18@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Gene wrote:
science. Physics as we know it, can't help any here. I do not want
to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that there is a
scientific explaination for everything, and that nothing exist that
cannot be explained by the laws of physics.

An interesting thread, a bit OT, but nevertheless...thought provoking.
I would suggest only this. IMHO your sentence should contain an extra
tiny word i. e.:

"Physics as we know it TODAY, can't help any here."

A key point.

Exactly. We might not understand it tomorrow either. I am not sure whether
physics alone could ever provide the answer, since the mind seems to defy
logic. Our ability to think and create abstractly, is hard enough to try to
explain, but when you throw in the "almost religious" experience we get from
artistic creation, then I cannot see where physics plays any part in this,
not from what we know at this point in time. I cannot explain why a
beautiful sunset can fill us with wonder, and even inspire us, can science?
Can religion? Can anybody?