Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Kevin Aylward]

bigmike wrote:

"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.

Oh.. In what way?

I have pointed out how emotions are logical. If we copy how we think the
brain works, e.g. neural nets, we get some pretty amazing methods to
solve problems previously (essentially) impossible to solve, e.g. the
travelling salesman.


Our ability to think and create abstractly, is

hard enough to try to explain,

Only if one hasn't tried to *seriously* examine the problem.

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.

"Artistic creation" is easily explainable. Its a randam process.
Consider an "orginal" design idea. It is one of the following:

1 The idea is derivable from existing knowledge, i.e. not new.
2 The idea is not derivable from existing knowledge, i.e. new.

Suppose one is trying to design a new circuit to solve a problem (might
as well introduce some electronics to this thread). First one looks at
existing circuits, and rejects the obvious non-hopers. One then, using
known rules, tries to construct reasonable possibilities, for example,
one generally dose not try taking an output from the base, or driving an
input into the collector. If we get a solution from this, its derivable.
If we don't get a solution, after an immense amount of trail and error
based on known ideas, and having exhausted *all* *rational*
possibilities, there is nothing left to do but try something at random.
Just randomly make a connection between components not already
eliminated. This is manifested in the brain as eureka! if it works There
is an idea, but no direct casual relation to any other ideas. We think
we're great because we have just come up with an "original" idea, but in
truth, its a shallow victory, the only alternative to "derivable" is
"not derivable", which is essentially equivalent to "random".

So, there you have it. "Creativity", is pot luck, known, physics.

I cannot explain why a beautiful sunset can fill

us with wonder, and even inspire us, can science? Can religion? Can
anybody?

Yes. We have general purpose programs that have evolved to deal with
numerous generic situations. We are not hardwired programmed for
specific tasks. Think a bit more on this one.

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]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@home.se> wrote in message
news:6sdshvcs5from5bggd803h6auei1c4nsu9@4ax.com...

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.

Thank you for your opinions Roger. Very interesting, and I agree with many
of them. Where I differ is this: these views explain the causes and effects
of emotions, even the evolution of emotions, but not what an emotion
actually is. We cannot explain it by physical properties, so how can one
explain it? You said that "a night with a loving
partner can create a conviction of happiness, which covers our troubled
minds with soothing expediencies" This is the case sometimes, and sometimes
not. Our minds can be untroubled and we can still experience the same
sensations. At the same time, what is happiness? Some people find happiness
in things that would make others unhappy. Some people seem determined to
live their lives unhappy, for some strange reason. They seem to function
better this way. My mother was one of these type of people that seemed to be
mad at the world 24 hours a day. Strange enough, she prefered being this
way, and attempting to make her happy, often made her unhappy. The mind
seems to be complicated beyond reason.

You said: "So we live in a culture of lies and secrets, confusion and fear,

violence and strong convictions"

No argument from me on that one.

 

[bigmike]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_uqTa.28$co5.17@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

bigmike wrote:


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

Thanks for the reply Kevin. The reason I said I did not want to fall into a
trap, is because I cannot be sure of anything that is unknown. I am not
confortable trying to apply science where it does not seem to be applicable.
I cannot explain why that sunset makes me feel the way it does, either
through science, religion, magic or by any other means. I simply don't know.
Regardless, as long as there is beautiful sunsets, music, and art, there
will be those in science, religion, and even those who beleive in magic,
trying to explain it. Maybe it's none of these things, or maybe it's all of
these things. Whatever it is, it's wonderful..

 

[Haines Brown]

Roger, your comments are useful, and I tend to agree with them. Just a
couple questions.

Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> writes:

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 palimpsest is a parchment document from which the writing has been
removed so that it can be reused, and scholars try to detect what was
originally written.

Likewise, the data coming in from sensory impressions are recorded in
memory. However, the brain so far has no more consciousness of that
record than the piece of parchment. So, as you say, the brain must
"remember" what is held in memory, and that's the point in the
dictionary definition's mention of reflexive knowledge.

But I believe we need to specify how this mental agency manages to
carry out its reflection, and it seems you leave that mechanism only
implicit. If this reflexive agency is basically a recording device,
then it merely duplicates the original data held in memory, and no
consciousness can exist. A copy can't have consciousness of itself,
but must gain a distance, not merely as a separate memory bank, but as
something different from the original. Indeed, it can't simply be
different, but the difference must emerge, for otherwise alien worlds
face each other in total incomprehension. A mere difference between
the original data and the different data held by the conscious agent
is therefore insufficient, and a third level of mind must reflect upon
that emergent difference, an not simply copy of the other levels. You
may not find all this necessary, but at least it suggests that the
reflexive agency needs to be defined and fleshed out.

Parenthetically, I would argue that the first level simply records raw
data, which is a function of the world and our sensory apparatus. The
second level involves the pattern recognition and other means to make
the data coherent and meaningful to the organism (such as
spontaneously jumping at a loud sound). And then the third level
reflects upon the difference between the first two levels and so
represents the effect of an intelligent agency reflecting upon its own
activity; an awareness of that agency is consciousness, is
self-awareness. Second, I'd look to thermodynamics to explain how a
system can emerge with an improbable outcome that satisfies the
definition of "creativity." But at this point in the discussion these
proposals would be too adventurous.

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.

Precisely, but what is that "something"? That is the question I try to
raise. If we can't or won't specify that "something," it ends up by
default as something mysterious, metaphysical, and that's exactly the
old position (man as semi-Urgos, as Promethian) we need to escape in
order to achieve naturalistic explanation. Another way to pose this
question is, how does this region of the thinking brain manage to
become different?

You offer a number of comments on mental moods. I don't know that I'd
be inclined to make any fundamental distinction between moods or
illusions and normal thinking, but that would be OT, and so I won't
pursue it.

People do things because they are driven by mental forces which are
not natural but cultural,

And why is culture not natural? Is not what is "natural" all that is
not metaphysical? The physical world is different from the biological
world, but surely biological processes such as the blossoming of a
flower are entirely natural. Then there's the world of human
consciousness (once called the noosphere by Teilard de Chardin). Why
is anything that emerges from nature, is subject to natural law, and
is in principle intelligible by unaided reason not natural? What is
unnatural descends from the heavens, is by definition metaphysical,
not subject to natural law, and is intelligible only with unnatural
help such as Revelation. A glance at the definitions of the word
"natural" in a dictionary is revealing, for only a minor definition
(number 8 in mine) hints at a distinction between lower and higher
(moral) powers. I bring this up, not to argue a case, but to encourage
a use of the word in its conventional sense, for I see no need here to
do otherwise. To describe culture as unnatural encourages a
mystification that anthropologists always must combat.

Another entirely different approach to this subject is to start with
animal intelligence and build from there. I recommend:

Bonner, John Tyler. The Evolution of Culture in Animals (Princeton,
1980).

Schmidt-Niels, Knut. How animals work (Cambridge, 1972).

I've a lot of citations for consciousness and brain, which I'll bring
out if there's any interest.

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

 

[Jane Mirito]

I found out this is the correct wiring:

mini-DIN8 <---> DB25

2 ------------------ 5,6
3 ------------------ 2
4,7,8 ---------------- 7
5 ------------------ 3
6 ------------------ 20,4
shld ----------------- shld


Now I have a bad focus when I turn open the brigthness (above 10%) and
contrast (above 60%)
I'm not an expert in TV electronics, but anyone an idea to look for please?

Jany


"Jane Mirito" <user@inter.net> wrote in message
news:bfjjk7$mc2$1@reader10.wxs.nl...

Does anyone have the wiring diagram for the Eizo F77 ... and others
series.?
As found on the nice website of Eizo, I found out the cable has and
adapter
too.
maintenance Cable (MD-C81) and Conversion Connector (MD-C82)

This is the only link I've found on the internet :-/

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=bg&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&frame=right&th=
9fd7ada1582f7802&seekm=37132F47.9C706503%40gecits-eu.com#link5

I hope someone can help me out with this one.

Regards Guys, Jany xxx

 

[Guillaume]

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

I don't quite agree with you on that one.

On the contrary, we have "scientific" ways of explaining it. A very
common "misconception" is to think that by getting to know how
"feelings" work, that will deprive us of the "beauty" of feelings,
and the corollary that we can never explain them scientifically
(that is, in a logical and rational way) because they are emotional
(and therefore, seem to defy our rational mind).

In my opinion, this is not so.

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

Ok, I see where you're getting at.
This only expresses your own opinion, though.

To begin with: what do you define as the "spirit of life"?
You seem to be putting some kind of higher sense of what life is,
although you claim not to be a religious person. I would like to
understand what your view of life is like.

I just feel that trying to explain the essence of consciousness as a
physical phenomenon may be futile.

Why would it be? As for me, I feel that trying to explain just anything
we are dealing with is never futile.

Keep in mind that you are the one, as a humain being, who defines what
consciousness is, who finds words to express it, who elaborates concepts
about it, and ultimately who claims that there is no way we can ever
really know or understand what it is, in other words you create a
concept that you yourself claim not to be approachable.

Philosophically speaking, that's a funky process of thinking.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

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.

Oh, that's news to me. Turing machines comes to mind. How you process
the same data will effect the results. Ok, one might be able to conceive
that all processing was done by a lookup table, rather than an
algorithm. However, we from programming, that this would be one mother
f'ker of a lookup table.

We do know that the rate of nerve signals are important to how the brain
perceives the signals, so its a very fair bet that the brain is still
like a conventional mechanical system at a basic level of approximation.

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.

And your point would be? The fact that a batsman can get a 0.4 batting
average with zero explicit calculation, does not negate the fact that
the ball hit is described by standard mechanics.

I am simply stating that, since classical mechanics describes processes
by position and momentum of objects, and these same objects are what the
brain consists of, the brain must also be explainable by position and
momentum of its objects. Ok, in principle, there could be redundancy,
such that momentum drops out of the equation, but this seems unlikely to
me.

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.

Oh, other than position and momentum of objects, what specifically do
you have in mind?

Note that I am obviously ignoring for the sake of this argument
complications like charge, and gravity. My thrust on this is that I
currently take these to be properties fundamentally due to motion as
well. That is I take it that *all* phenomena of the universe to be based
only position and motion. For example, magnetic fields are electric
fields in relative motion. Electric fields are exchange of photons,
gravity can be described by exchange of spin 2 bosons etc.

So, all there is in the universe are objects, that move from position to
position. there is nothing more.

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.

 

[TCS]

On 22 Jul 2003 17:42:10 -0700, Andre <testing_h@yahoo.com> wrote:

"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 .

as opposed to the emerson?

"newer" VCRs have been plasticky junk for at least the last 15 years.
At least VCR builders no longer build the transport on their own.

 

[johnnie7]

the method you used is exactly the same as most pc tecs would take
its all down to time and tryin bits...once a board fault is
found....replacemnet is the best option

john



"Doug Taylor" <techno2nospam@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnbht43i.ln.techno2nospam@localhost.localdomain...

Well here goes a run down of a typical PC repair experience
for me....

A friend gives me his old PC Pentium 100 Mhz as it's not working.
As a challenge I decide to dig into to see whats wrong.

First, I set it up on the bench, remove the modem and sound card
and restart it with only video card to see if It will boot.. Blank screen.
Then I sub out the video card and reboot... Blank screen.
Could be power supply, although seems to be getting power O.K.
to drives etc, check power plug motherboard with meter...O.K.
Sub out power supply anyways to be sure. ...blank screen.
Hummmmm whats next....
Sub out memory and re-seat.... no go.
Reseat CPU ..... nope............
Check out motherboard to make sure it is not shorted to bottom metal
plate.(happened once before on another system)
What's next.... motherboard or CPU....
Go out and buy used Pentium 125Mhz motherboard with CPU.
Sub CPU.... no go ....
Sub motherboard & CPU ....BINGO ... we got a winner......

Have to cut bigger hole in case for PS2 mouse & keyboard of new
motherboard as old motherboard had COM port mouse and DIN keyboard plug.

Plan to put Linux on this system and use as a learning tool.

Question: Do you people have some constructive input into
the method I used to troubleshoot this system?

I'm kinda old(54) dyslexic & semi-retarded with bad eyesight,
but besides that I'm not a total idiot. 8*)

My conclusion is that the BIOS Rom failed.
What do you think?

Doug



--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
D E A D O N A R R I V A L
B B S

telnet://doabbs.dynip.com http://www.dsuper.net/~techno

 

[Gary Tait]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:48:56 GMT, techno2nospam@videotron.ca (Doug
Taylor) wrote:

Well here goes a run down of a typical PC repair experience
for me....

A friend gives me his old PC Pentium 100 Mhz as it's not working.
As a challenge I decide to dig into to see whats wrong.

First, I set it up on the bench, remove the modem and sound card
and restart it with only video card to see if It will boot.. Blank screen.
Then I sub out the video card and reboot... Blank screen.
Could be power supply, although seems to be getting power O.K.
to drives etc, check power plug motherboard with meter...O.K.
Sub out power supply anyways to be sure. ...blank screen.
Hummmmm whats next....
Sub out memory and re-seat.... no go.
Reseat CPU ..... nope............
Check out motherboard to make sure it is not shorted to bottom metal
plate.(happened once before on another system)
What's next.... motherboard or CPU....
Go out and buy used Pentium 125Mhz motherboard with CPU.
Sub CPU.... no go ....
Sub motherboard & CPU ....BINGO ... we got a winner......

Have to cut bigger hole in case for PS2 mouse & keyboard of new
motherboard as old motherboard had COM port mouse and DIN keyboard plug.

Plan to put Linux on this system and use as a learning tool.

Question: Do you people have some constructive input into
the method I used to troubleshoot this system?

I'm kinda old(54) dyslexic & semi-retarded with bad eyesight,
but besides that I'm not a total idiot. 8*)

My conclusion is that the BIOS Rom failed.
What do you think?

Doug

Try disconnecting drives. Try a known working video card, or
that video card in a known working system. Same with other components.

 

[Ricardo Matos Abreu]

"Jiri Kuukasjärvi" <jiri.kuukasjarvi@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:3F1E9E5A.93ACC091@pp.inet.fi...

Hi!

I just got this DVD-player.. That has originally been bought from
central europe.
So no service here in Finland.

The problem is following:
PSU board bad. Player tryes to spin disc, but fails. Lights dim.. I
measured
voltages on PSI board connectors, and most are ok. But some..

Does anyone have schematics for that PSU board?
There´s a text "Apex digital" on it, and it looks like this:
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/jirikk/Images/Project/HIT_PSU.jpg

- Jiri K.

I've no schematics, but seems like a pretty regular switching power supply
to me. If you understand how these babies work, it may be pretty
straightforward. Since some voltages are OK, the primary side is probably
fine. Look at the secondary side, especially those outputs that fail. Check
diodes and electrolytics. If you can't those caps, just replace them.
Lots of usefull info on
www.repairfaq.com
You can find a specific section for switchmode power supplies, and, most
important of all, SAFETY instructuions.
DO IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Ricardo

 

[Roger Johansson]

"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote:

Where I differ is this: these views explain the causes and effects
of emotions, even the evolution of emotions, but not what an emotion
actually is.

To me an emotion is the same as a state of mind, a situation in the
nervous system.
It may depend upon earlier experiences, the outer stimuli at the
moment, etc..

We cannot explain it by physical properties, so how can one
explain it? You said that "a night with a loving
partner can create a conviction of happiness, which covers our troubled
minds with soothing expediencies" This is the case sometimes, and sometimes
not. Our minds can be untroubled and we can still experience the same
sensations.

Untroubled is a relative word. What feels like being untroubled
depends a lot on what we have been trained to.

For example a marine corps sergeant may feel untroubled while he
shouts threatening words at a recruit, while others might see that
situation as highly stressful.

If you are trained in stress handling you mat feel untroubled in tough
situations, but you may have lost something valuable during that
training. I you allow yourself to cool down over a time of many years
you might realize that you were very un-natural during your time as a
sergeant, you may regret that you hurt your own nervous system so much
during that time.

People often discover later in life that they were very stressed up
during an earlier period in their lives, but they were not aware of
that during that time.

So just because someone says he is untroubled and thinks he is, it is
not sure that he really is untroubled.

At the same time, what is happiness? Some people find happiness

Happiness is equally relative. People may think they are happy because
they have a company and have made millions of dollars.
Later in life the same person may think that he was very stressed up
during that time, and may wish that he had retired into a much more
comfortable lifestyle a lot earlier.

Sometimes people are forced to realize such a thing because they
suffer a heart attack, and have to slow down from that frenetic
lifestyle they lived earlier.

It is often our culture and the organization of our society which
drive people a lot harder than what is suitable for such biological
beings that we are.

Think of a gorilla family, you have probably seen on tv how they spend
their days eating, sleeping, some social activity like picking each
others lice.

They have a very much slower and more peaceful lifestyle than most
humans, and they have brains which are very much alike our brains.

That shows the difference between nature and culture.

in things that would make others unhappy. Some people seem determined to
live their lives unhappy, for some strange reason. They seem to function
better this way. My mother was one of these type of people that seemed to be
mad at the world 24 hours a day. Strange enough, she prefered being this
way, and attempting to make her happy, often made her unhappy. The mind
seems to be complicated beyond reason.

The culture we live in is complicated and violent beyond reason.
And it shouldn't have to be, we could change it.

--
Roger J.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Haines Brown <brownh@hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

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.

Precisely, but what is that "something"?

Just as we can imagine people who are not present, we can imagine
ourselves.

"What would my father have said about this if he was here now?"

"What could I do right now, in the present situation?"

We can simulate both other people and ourselves in our minds, that
allows us to be self-reflective.

You tend to see our thinking in too complex terms, that is what I
think. You think of the brain as it would be a computer, and that
complicates your thinking about it.

I prefer to see the it in simple terms.

Observation, Pattern recognition, comparing with ideals, adjusting the
world, or the experiment apparatus, new observation..etc

That is how we think and that is how we do science and technology.


--
Roger J.

 

[Sofie]

Jonie:
Make and Model numbers would be most helpful? What kind of amp??? More
circuitry description??
Any of the 2n3055 variations you described SHOULD NOT produce the widely
varying results you are seeing..... and are probably NOT the problem. Since
this amp uses a pair of NPN transistors in push-pull you should be certain
to check the "smaller" npn and pnp driver transistors ahead of the PO stage
for leakage and the other open/shorted components in that part of the
circuitry. As always, suspect are solder connections near and around the
high heat producing components.
Are you certain that the biasing is correct? If this is a stereo unit, is
the other channel likewise having problems????..... if so, look for faults
that are common to both channels such as main PS .... balanced (+) and (-)
B+, etc.
If the other channel works fine, then you have a valuable source for
troubleshooting, testing, voltage readings and measurement reference.....
and even replacement parts....
....if you continue to suspect the 2n3055 transistors you could temporarily
use the pair from the good channel so you can test your theory.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Jonie" <jonie@capella.ae.poznan.pl> wrote in message
news:bfm06c$4rn$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...

I've had to replace a shorted 2N3055K transistor in a vintage power amp.
Its
power end consists of a pair 2N3055(E,S,U) and 2N3055K. Replacing the
transistor changed the frequency response lower limit from about 30Hz to
70Hz. U symetry and base saturation are tuned correctly, distortion
appears
at relatively low signal levels too. Any frequencies above 70Hz are
amplified correctly. Using different transistors of the same kind gives a
bit different results, but the outcome is never perfect. Any idea what a
transistor would fit?

 

[Charles Schuler]

"Jonie" <jonie@capella.ae.poznan.pl> wrote in message
news:bfm06c$4rn$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...

I've had to replace a shorted 2N3055K transistor in a vintage power amp.
Its
power end consists of a pair 2N3055(E,S,U) and 2N3055K. Replacing the
transistor changed the frequency response lower limit from about 30Hz to
70Hz. U symetry and base saturation are tuned correctly, distortion
appears
at relatively low signal levels too. Any frequencies above 70Hz are
amplified correctly. Using different transistors of the same kind gives a
bit different results, but the outcome is never perfect. Any idea what a
transistor would fit?

Poor low frequency response is often due to an electrolytic coupling
capacitor that is drying out.

 

[Sofie]

TCS.....
Emerson has built some really good, well made and reliable VCRs over the
years..... and just like every other VCR maker they have built some junk
too. There a some specific models of Sony, JVC and Panasonic that fall
into the "junk" category too !
Since the OP did not include the model number we are all guessing here.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"TCS" <The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbht7q9.b9b.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turing.kaosol.net...

On 22 Jul 2003 17:42:10 -0700, Andre <testing_h@yahoo.com> wrote:
"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 .

as opposed to the emerson?

"newer" VCRs have been plasticky junk for at least the last 15 years.
At least VCR builders no longer build the transport on their own.

 

[Jane Mirito]

That's it man,
Plug and pray. There are no constructive ways to findout what is wrong when
a PC wont boot at all since the complexity of the separate (and very litle)
components is way to big.
Moreover you had the chance you know something about electronics and
measured the powerwires.
Most PCtechnicians dont even know what a multi-meter is LOL

Way to go... good luck with your new treasure


"Doug Taylor" <techno2nospam@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnbht43i.ln.techno2nospam@localhost.localdomain...

Well here goes a run down of a typical PC repair experience
for me....

A friend gives me his old PC Pentium 100 Mhz as it's not working.
As a challenge I decide to dig into to see whats wrong.

First, I set it up on the bench, remove the modem and sound card
and restart it with only video card to see if It will boot.. Blank screen.
Then I sub out the video card and reboot... Blank screen.
Could be power supply, although seems to be getting power O.K.
to drives etc, check power plug motherboard with meter...O.K.
Sub out power supply anyways to be sure. ...blank screen.
Hummmmm whats next....
Sub out memory and re-seat.... no go.
Reseat CPU ..... nope............
Check out motherboard to make sure it is not shorted to bottom metal
plate.(happened once before on another system)
What's next.... motherboard or CPU....
Go out and buy used Pentium 125Mhz motherboard with CPU.
Sub CPU.... no go ....
Sub motherboard & CPU ....BINGO ... we got a winner......

Have to cut bigger hole in case for PS2 mouse & keyboard of new
motherboard as old motherboard had COM port mouse and DIN keyboard plug.

Plan to put Linux on this system and use as a learning tool.

Question: Do you people have some constructive input into
the method I used to troubleshoot this system?

I'm kinda old(54) dyslexic & semi-retarded with bad eyesight,
but besides that I'm not a total idiot. 8*)

My conclusion is that the BIOS Rom failed.
What do you think?

Doug



--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
D E A D O N A R R I V A L
B B S

telnet://doabbs.dynip.com http://www.dsuper.net/~techno

 

[TCS]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:36:40 -0700, Sofie <sofie@olypen.com> wrote:

TCS.....
Emerson has built some really good, well made and reliable VCRs over the
years..... and just like every other VCR maker they have built some junk
too. There a some specific models of Sony, JVC and Panasonic that fall
into the "junk" category too !

My experience over the last 15 years is that emerson doesn't manufacter
VCRs at all; they buy other maker's overruns and sell them under their
own name. They are no more a VCR maker than sears is.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Just as we can imagine people who are not present, we can imagine
ourselves.

One form of self-reflecting is the way a con man can fool others, by
having kind of two levels of consciousness, one which is on the same
level as the person he fools, and another level where he sees both
himself and the fooled person, so he has control over emotions and
reactions in a social situation where he himself also participates.

This is often what street smart people use to manipulate or fool more
naive people.

The explanation is that the con man is extremely excited, but has
learned to control himself so he appears to be normal.

In this way he gets a great advantage in social situations, but of
course at a cost, he has to be very stressed up and control himself in
a way which the naive and natural person does not have to do.

This is also the basis for creationism, the creation of the male mind,
an initiation into the male grown-up world, how boys are transformed
to men, creation of love, and such social traditions.

We often hear people call the gorilla "timid".

But that is also saying something about us.
If we call the gorilla timid we have made a comparison with ourselves.
We could just as well have called ourselves aggressive.

Our culture makes us into aggressive, hyperactive beings, and we pay a
high price for that, we have far too much aggression, violence,
crimes, etc..

A lot of people have learnt to talk "between the lines".
They pretend they are talking about football, food, or whatever, when
they are actually talking about other things, about other people,
about their social development, etc..

This secret communication is very common in the social life, it
separates the street smart people from the naive ones.

The street smart people think that they are the real people, the awake
ones, and the other ones are seen as sleeping, as less knowing.

The super-smart people think that they have the right to manipulate
the naive ones, and train them to become like them.

"God took a piece of clay, shaped it in his own shape, and blew life
into it, to create man." (common creation myth)

But we could see it in another way. The super smart people have
trained to be very aggressive and have gained control of the society
in that way. They have made their own state of mind into a norm, the
normal.
They think they own this world and have the right to transform all
others into such devious beings too.

But they cause a lot of fear, pain, violence, beside the speeded love
they create. That creationist culture is slowly being abolished, but
is still strong.

They represent a system for social control which we do not need, and
they are losing a battle which has been going on for thousands of
years, between the mental monsters and more natural and wise people.

Lao-Tzu was a great anti-creationist, and his little book Tao-te-Ching
is one of the most known books in the history of mankind.

Just like other wise men he has been misinterpreted to fit into a
creationist perspective. and taoism was soon transformed into a
mystical worshipping cult, but his words are still among the best
texts we can find about a simple and natural life, an alternative to
the frenetic lifestyle of the creationists.


--
Roger J.

 

[Haines Brown]

Roger, interesting.

Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> writes:

Just as we can imagine people who are not present, we can imagine
ourselves.

Yes, we can have an object in thought that recalls what no longer
exists and even of what may never have existed.

We can simulate both other people and ourselves in our minds, that
allows us to be self-reflective.

You tend to see our thinking in too complex terms, that is what I
think. You think of the brain as it would be a computer, and that
complicates your thinking about it.

I prefer to see the it in simple terms.

Observation, Pattern recognition, comparing with ideals, adjusting
the world, or the experiment apparatus, new observation..etc

Indeed, I could be over-complicating things, but you don't really
address my point, and so I'm not sure yet whether that complexity may
not be necessary.

My point about the palimpsest is that stored information (memory,
illusion, whatever), does not amount to consciousness, even if
reflective. Every object is sensible to the impressions left by every
other object, but that is not consciousness. That one thing mirrors
another thing, is impressed by it, is modified by it, does not at all
imply consciousness. It merely means that all things are contingent. I
get the feeling you are disagreeing with me on this point by
suggesting that if one think reflects itself, it is conscious of
itself.

Your reference to a simulation of self in mind, while undoubtedly
important, must surely involve more than just data in
memory. Subjectively speaking, your consicous mind can think of
people, and if one of those people happens to be oneself, then clearly
the thought is reflexive. But notice here that this line of argument
_presumes_ a conscious mind and fails to demonstrate how it comes into
being or what distinguishes it from mere reflexive data in memory.

If I set up two mirrors facing each other, so that one reflects the
other and "sees" in the other an image of itself, we seem to meet the
condition of reflexivity, but surely the mirrors lack consciousness.

Your suggestion that I think of the brain as a computer may reveal our
difference, for indeed to an extent I think of the brain as in some
ways a very powerful, sophisticated, complicated, etc. computer. I
thought everyone (in the sciences) did, and so I'm surprised that you
do not. You might specify in what respect the brain differs from an
biologically-based computer.

But notice that I appealed to thermodynamics when I spoke of emergence
of consciousness. I believe that this means my line of argument does
not simply think of the brain as a computer, but more as a
thermodynamic engine.

I suspect the real point here is my mode of argumentation, which may
be too naturalistic for you. I need to know what element you are
bringing into this discussion that distinguish mental operations from
natural processes in the material world, or distinguishes
consciousness from mere data held in memory about oneself. Perhaps you
attribute to mental behavior certain features or behaviors that are
inherently alien to the material world. If so, we may have to part
ways; if not, then I need to know just what you have in mind.

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