I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward kevindotaylwardEXTR
wrote (in
..net) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23
Nov 2003:

Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it must
use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut the
mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little Darwinian
computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner.

What is a 'Darwinian computer'? Is this a term that you have introduced?

Sensors by
themselves are not key.

I believe they ARE key to *the *emergence* of consciousness.

We can have someone becoming deaf dumb and
blind, but still being conscious.

But their brains are the result of 100 million years of evolution, or
even more if you push your luck. (;-) That's like taking an *already*
self-aware computer and disconnecting its sensors (not its CPU or
memory).

However, with no inputs whatsoever, in
the long run, I think consciousness would probably collapse by running
amuck.

Sensory-deprivation experiments appear to offer strong confirmation of
that, although, AIUI, some people can resist the effects.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that MDHJWH
: wrote (in ) about 'A
: little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
:
: Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
: understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years as
: children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a
: finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?
:
: I don't see it as a big deal at all. Language is a way of coding thought
: for transmission to others. One might as well wonder how it comes about
: that if you learn 26 characters in Morse code, you can send and receive
: messages of unlimited length and complexity.
: --
: Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
: Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
: http://www.isce.org.uk
: PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

With all respect, John, but it *is* a big deal. Reading Chomsky, Piaget,
Steiner even,
one cannot escape that sense of wonder/amazement/awe of learning as
witnessed
in children. Say we would have an LQ, for learning quotient, people in
these NG's
say average of 140. Then for young children, it'd be more like 300 !!
Imagine yourself learning chinese, writing & all, in 7 years. Now, you'll
have a
damned tough time doing that (I know some sinologists, but you have all
these
advantages: already know a language, trained in handling concepts, etc,
etc.
Of course, young children have the 'advantage' of a neural network being
'in-the-making', indeed some of this hardwiring will have permanent
consequences
one problem for someone from the west, when trying to reach some kind of
decent pronunciation of chinese is, that one simply cannot distinguish
certain
phonemes as being different from some others - we don't hear that
difference,
just incompatable hardware - same problem there, trying to 'compete' with an
Eskimo to differentiate 23 different 'shades of white'
Rudy

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: What part of "I have proven that consciousness can not be derived" do
: you have trouble with?

Hm, that should be obvious by now, i'd think: *proven*
Rudy
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
:
: Yeah right on. *Nothing* you have said so far has been correct or
: useful.

Tsk, tsk.: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk

:
:

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward kevindotaylwardEXTR
: wrote (in
: .net) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23
: Nov 2003:
:
: Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it must
: use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut the
: mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little Darwinian
: computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner.
:
: What is a 'Darwinian computer'? Is this a term that you have introduced?

I think he means neurons.
But the altogether unscientific stance (no falsification possible) of

"while we don't yet know, in the future, with sufficient added ..
(network elements, representation for electrical & chemical phenomena, etc.)
, we will"

is already refutes by biological machines, take the moth there, that have
nowhere near those 10^10 neurons & interconnects, etc,
still they 'do their thing'

let alone the fact 'consciousness' is just a word we use, but we should
never forget, it is not an object we can manipulate, neither is it a
quality, in any ordinary sense, like mass, colour, etc.
All been pondered at by philophers long time b4 Kevin was born..

Rudy

: Sensors by
: themselves are not key.
:
: I believe they ARE key to *the *emergence* of consciousness.
:
: We can have someone becoming deaf dumb and
: blind, but still being conscious.
:
: But their brains are the result of 100 million years of evolution, or
: even more if you push your luck. (;-) That's like taking an *already*
: self-aware computer and disconnecting its sensors (not its CPU or
: memory).
:
: However, with no inputs whatsoever, in
: the long run, I think consciousness would probably collapse by running
: amuck.
:
: Sensory-deprivation experiments appear to offer strong confirmation of
: that, although, AIUI, some people can resist the effects.
: --
: Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
: Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
: http://www.isce.org.uk
: PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ruud Broens
wrote (in ) about 'A little
knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:

All been
pondered at by philophers long time b4 Kevin was born..

I think that's irrelevant. Philosophy isn't finished yet, even if maybe
we'd not be seriously inconvenienced if philosophers were extinct. (;-)

Whether Our Kev can add to the sum of human knowledge down the road he
chooses to travel is quite another thing.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ruud Broens
wrote (in ) about 'A little
knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that MDHJWH
: wrote (in ) about 'A
: little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
:
: Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
: understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years as
: children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a
: finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?
:
: I don't see it as a big deal at all. Language is a way of coding thought
: for transmission to others. One might as well wonder how it comes about
: that if you learn 26 characters in Morse code, you can send and receive
: messages of unlimited length and complexity.
: --
: Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
: Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
: http://www.isce.org.uk
: PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

With all respect, John, but it *is* a big deal.


I maintain that **the specific point you made**, i.e.:

: Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
: understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years as
: children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a
: finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?

is not such a big deal. That is NOT the same point as you make below.

Reading Chomsky, Piaget,
Steiner even,
one cannot escape that sense of wonder/amazement/awe of learning as
witnessed
in children. Say we would have an LQ, for learning quotient, people in
these NG's
say average of 140. Then for young children, it'd be more like 300 !!
Imagine yourself learning chinese, writing & all, in 7 years. Now, you'll
have a
damned tough time doing that (I know some sinologists, but you have all
these
advantages: already know a language, trained in handling concepts, etc,
etc.

Those aren't 'advantages'. They would be if Chinese children learned
solely for books, but they have five years or so of total immersion in
Chinese and no preconceived concepts to hinder their learning.

Of course, young children have the 'advantage' of a neural network being
'in-the-making', indeed some of this hardwiring will have permanent
consequences

Yes, it's self-evident that children are predisposed to learn. Their
memory systems are organized to that end. Adults' are organized
differently.

one problem for someone from the west, when trying to reach some kind of
decent pronunciation of chinese is, that one simply cannot distinguish
certain
phonemes as being different from some others - we don't hear that
difference,
just incompatable hardware

You don't have to appeal to Chinese for that; the differences are
significant even in closely-related languages. You ask a Spanish person
if an Italian speaks Spanish with an accent!

- same problem there, trying to 'compete' with an
Eskimo to differentiate 23 different 'shades of white'
Rudy


The 'white' thing is a matter of understanding exactly what the concepts
are, and that is not conveyed by the word 'white'. The words take
account of different appearances and different mechanical properties.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

"MDHJWH" wrote in message
om...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
:
: What do you think, MDHJWH,
: is there hope yet
: for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward
: if he hires a female co-writer
: to make it pallatable ?
:
: And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ?
: These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins !
: W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans
: Inductance in Single Ended Triodes'
:
: Ayn Marx

well, the brits have taken up some french,
channel tunnel, cheap french cottages &
'bloody cheap fags' and all that, so maybe

"Systemes Triodes Irreversible Turquoises "

Rudy

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Ruud Broens
: wrote (in ) about 'A little
: knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
: : http://www.isce.org.uk
: : PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
:
: With all respect, John, but it *is* a big deal.
:
:
: I maintain that **the specific point you made**, i.e.:
--Err, twasn't me, posting that, but the 'tabula rasa' question is,
like the nature-nurture one, so lightheated & humourously
touched in "Trading Places", a highly interesting one--
:
: : Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
: : understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years
as
: : children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a
: : finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?
:
: is not such a big deal. That is NOT the same point as you make below.
:
: Reading Chomsky, Piaget,
: Steiner even,
: one cannot escape that sense of wonder/amazement/awe of learning as
: witnessed
: in children. Say we would have an LQ, for learning quotient, people in
: these NG's
: say average of 140. Then for young children, it'd be more like 300 !!
: Imagine yourself learning chinese, writing & all, in 7 years. Now, you'll
: have a
: damned tough time doing that (I know some sinologists, but you have all
: these
: advantages: already know a language, trained in handling concepts, etc,
: etc.
:
: Those aren't 'advantages'. They would be if Chinese children learned
: solely for books, but they have five years or so of total immersion in
: Chinese and no preconceived concepts to hinder their learning.
:
: Of course, young children have the 'advantage' of a neural network being
: 'in-the-making', indeed some of this hardwiring will have permanent
: consequences
:
: Yes, it's self-evident that children are predisposed to learn. Their
: memory systems are organized to that end. Adults' are organized
: differently.
:
: one problem for someone from the west, when trying to reach some kind of
: decent pronunciation of chinese is, that one simply cannot distinguish
: certain
: phonemes as being different from some others - we don't hear that
: difference,
: just incompatable hardware
:
: You don't have to appeal to Chinese for that; the differences are
: significant even in closely-related languages. You ask a Spanish person
: if an Italian speaks Spanish with an accent!
:
: - same problem there, trying to 'compete' with an
: Eskimo to differentiate 23 different 'shades of white'
: Rudy
:
:
: The 'white' thing is a matter of understanding exactly what the concepts
: are, and that is not conveyed by the word 'white'. The words take
: account of different appearances and different mechanical properties.

Err, actually, no - if upholding a set of cards with sligthtly different
'shades of white', you'd see only 1 in 4 there as 'different', the
Eskimo seeing them all as clearly different.
Just better resolution through better -early- neural network buildin'
Rudy
: --
: Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
: Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
: http://www.isce.org.uk
: PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Ruud Broens
: wrote (in ) about 'A little
: knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
:
: "John Woodgate" wrote in message
: ...
: : I read in sci.electronics.design that MDHJWH
: : wrote (in ) about 'A
: You don't have to appeal to Chinese for that; the differences are
: significant even in closely-related languages. You ask a Spanish person
: if an Italian speaks Spanish with an accent!

Hehe, yes know what you mean. I once knew this Swiss girl
who'd just finished an intensive language training at the Delft University.
After just 9 months, i swear, both her pronunciation and command
of dutch were leagues ahead of, say, that of 95 % of the dutch !
Well, it did help that she was one hell of a talented lady..

: Rudy
: --
: Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
: Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
: http://www.isce.org.uk
: PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself:
: it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena
: in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of'
: time by using complex numbers, but
:
: a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time,
: whatever your modeling might lead you to believe.
:
: Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue.

Here's Johnny!
err, phase, sounds like a qualification of some'in
*continuous* ....he, ho
wasn't we gonna deal with some 'physical thinking'
---sure you know the type i'm talking off

read my lips: c-e-f 0 time
And what's with the link-trowing all the time ?
Gets you a penny sponsoring or so every time ?
If so, better make a business arrangement with me then,
let's populate another NG, *get that link clicked*
Only fair, *we* pay good money for some fine
british humore over here...

Rudy
:
: Its all in the wash. The math accounts for any and all time delays. One
: just crunches the numbers.
:
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
: therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
: intrinsically unsolvable.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
:
:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...

An SET amp using a 211 tube can be a subconscious threat
to any female wandering into a male listening dominion.
The 211 is hot, large, and glows and pulses with life, and upstanding,
( and delightful!)

But have you ever sat on one ?

Snip..
Now we have the symbol of the male phallus hitting us in the eye every time we
see a tube, but what is the audio equivalent of the female equipments?

Er...The Ionophane horn loaded tweeter?

P31

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: Not at all. You haven't actually presented any actual views other than
: suggesting I go an look at other peoples views.

Well, since you insist...[oh, but i must, i must]
and i'm just about done doing some business here...
he, can do a little c & p, myself :

: Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
: sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
: its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
: It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.

:The details don't matter. Its input, processing and output. The brain
:has storage and there are sensors here and there, and it gets
:replicated. Thats all that is required to get a good picture of what's
:going on.

How about a Goedel 'proof' of God ? I can simply state

it's simply a result that occurs when the Universe(ae) gets sufficiently
complicated.
Will *thath* hold ?

(religious persons please note: no intention to enter rel. debate)
Rudy




: Kevin Aylward
:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:52:24 +0000, John Woodgate
wrote:

Whether Our Kev can add to the sum of human knowledge down the road he
chooses to travel is quite another thing.

I have grave doubts on that. I think if Kev were confident about the
theories he propounds, he'd discuss them in more appropriate groups -
and learn more as a result (from being put straight by specialists in
that particular field). The fact that he choses to post all this
inaappropriate stuff to *this* group would seem to indicate to me that
he doesn't believe his own work is up to scratch. It's more of an
attempt to show off in front of those who - he expects - will know no
better, thereby gaining for him the acceptance of craves. The plan
doesn't seem to be going too well, though...
:-)
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

MDHJWH wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...

An SET amp using a 211 tube can be a subconscious threat
to any female wandering into a male listening dominion.
The 211 is hot, large, and glows and pulses with life, and upstanding,
( and delightful!)

But have you ever sat on one ?

No.
Perish the thought!



Snip..
Now we have the symbol of the male phallus hitting us in the eye every time we
see a tube, but what is the audio equivalent of the female equipments?

Er...The Ionophane horn loaded tweeter?

Ah, so tweeting is a female thing?
Probably, since woofing is male,
and midranging is protestant.

And visually, there must be something about it that begs to have something
inserted.
I mean, there *are* male and female plumbing fittings;
if you ask at the plumbing shop counter, "I want a connector for disconnector trap"
the first thing they ask is "male or female?"
If you are not a plumber, you could be forgiven for the nervous pause
before deciding to say " huh ?"

In fact the whole world is constructed of male and female things, although
mortise and tenon joinery isn't done too much these days, and
things are sexlessly tacked together with staples.

The Ionophone gave off an ozone smell.
To be sure I have smelt a few women, but one smelling of ozone I have never met.

I reckon we are left with the humble tube socket,
which gets multiple gang bangings every time a tube is plugged in,
since there are lots of pins and slots.
And their appetite for being rogered a plenty has increased since 1932,
when there were only 4 pin grippers per socket,
but the american invention of the 12 pin compactron
was positively obscene.

Patrick Turner.






P31

In article ,
says...

"MDHJWH" wrote in message
om...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
:
: What do you think, MDHJWH,
: is there hope yet
: for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward
: if he hires a female co-writer
: to make it pallatable ?
:
: And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ?
: These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins !
: W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans
: Inductance in Single Ended Triodes'
:
: Ayn Marx

well, the brits have taken up some french,
channel tunnel, cheap french cottages &
'bloody cheap fags' and all that, so maybe

The Britts like cheap fags? I knew there were a lot of French
fags (aren't they all?), but I didn't know the Britts went that
way.

--
Keith

"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
: In article ,
: says...
:
: "MDHJWH" wrote in message
: om...
: : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: :
: : What do you think, MDHJWH,
: : is there hope yet
: : for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward
: : if he hires a female co-writer
: : to make it pallatable ?
: :
: : And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ?
: : These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins !
: : W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans
: : Inductance in Single Ended Triodes'
: :
: : Ayn Marx
:
: well, the brits have taken up some french,
: channel tunnel, cheap french cottages &
: 'bloody cheap fags' and all that, so maybe
:
: The Britts like cheap fags? I knew there were a lot of French
: fags (aren't they all?), but I didn't know the Britts went that
: way.
:
: --
: Keith

X my heart, Keith, honestly hadn't thought of *that* meaning.
Hehe,
Rudy

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: ~~ You mean, you *have* the capability to work out the details for
: yourself????--

: Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
: doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
:
: And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
: demonstration of your lack of knowledge here. ????
:
: velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
what velocity are we talking about here, Kev.? .....tsk, tsk
sloppy science...
: Sound travels at 330 m/s
let's not be pussy, let you get away with that one
: df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
yeah, yeah, let's kick that sine out the window

:
: (technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same
: via wavelength)
comments not required here..

------u know who-------

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:

Well, you did ask for it, remember ?

:If you do have any *valid* objections :

let's give it a slowstart, office staff there can take only 'so much'

feeble quality of arguments - part I

Great though the web can be for all sorts of matters, I don't think
some cut & paste actions constitutes the base from which you gather an
in-depth knowledge & understanding of subjects such as these.

K:I disagree on this last bit. If you do a bit of trolling and read a few
K:snippets of the pros papers on there university sites, you can get a
K:reasonable feel as to what the overall views are.

---but then--

K: Quite frankly, whenever I have trolled the web on this, its all crap.
K: Every, bit of it.


I object to your 'methods' of acquiring in-depth (don't make us
knowledge
Goodmoorrrning, Kevin

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: N. Thornton wrote:

: Regards, NT
:
: This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical
: matters.
:
: I don't recall that one.

He, Kevvie, little c & p to bring it all back to you ?
nah, all that bw abuse, better leave that capacity
for betta things...ok, just a link then:
http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=nl...6635.030820075
9.ddeba27%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmedical%2Baylward%2
Bthornton%26hl%3Dnl%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Da7076635.0308200759.ddeba2
7%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1
2003-08-20 08:59:40 PST
hm, don't seem to be all *that* long ago, powers of
recollection as good as those of reasoning ??
Nearly coffee time...errr, tea time
Rudy

:
: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: "Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
: therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
: without referring to itself for the explanation,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
: is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
:
:
:

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message ...
Ruud Broens wrote:
Not at all. You haven't actually presented any actual views other
than suggesting I go an look at other peoples views.

Well, since you insist...[oh, but i must, i must]
and i'm just about done doing some business here...
he, can do a little c & p, myself :

Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function
of its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It
just is. It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not
derivable.

The details don't matter. Its input, processing and output. The brain
has storage and there are sensors here and there, and it gets
replicated. Thats all that is required to get a good picture of
what's going on.

How about a Goedel 'proof' of God ? I can simply state

it's simply a result that occurs when the Universe(ae) gets
sufficiently complicated.
Will *thath* hold ?


As usual, you have no idea what your talking about. The argument was
*not* a proof of consciousness, it is an argument of how it came about.
It is *assumed* that consciousness exists. We can be reasonable
convinced that a brick has no consciousness. We accept consciousness
exists because "I think, therefore I am". Humans are more complicated
then bricks, therefore the conclusion is that consciousness results from
complexity, irrespective of the fact that we have no idea about the
details.

Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:52:24 +0000, John Woodgate
wrote:

Whether Our Kev can add to the sum of human knowledge down the road
he chooses to travel is quite another thing.

I have grave doubts on that. I think if Kev were confident about the
theories he propounds, he'd discuss them in more appropriate groups -

I do. Unfortunately, those groups are not populated with many with
expert knowledge either, much like this NG. NGs are just banter. No one
seriously expects to get any credibility from NGs. However, it is away
of declaring priority for ideas though:-)

I have no doubts whatsoever about my approaches. Its way to simple to be
incorrect. Its so simple that one believes that anyone can understand
it.

Frankly, if someone cant understand the basics of what is being said
here, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/notes.html, there is probably
no hope for them to tie their own shoelaces.

Oh, I have submitted a paper to a pro journal, wonder how long it will
take to get the rejection notice:-)


and learn more as a result (from being put straight by specialists in
that particular field).

There arnt any that know what their doing. As I have stated in my
papers, most asumme that memes can copy themselvs. This is demostarable
false
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/notes.html

1 Put DNA in a culture dish. Can it replicate itself or its genes?

2 Put a phrase in a dish. Can it replicate itself?

I can understand why you think that hey, why should Kevin know more than
all these published "experts", I mean we had that idiot with his faster
than light crap. However, this should tell you that I am actually the
establishment. There is no one more sceptical than me. The difference
here is that my approach already agrees with 99% of accepted knowledge,
but simple adds to it. Where it does not agree, as in the above, I
*prove* why the accepted knowledge is false.

I have been in this game to long to be a dreamer.


*******

The fact that he choses to post all this
inaappropriate stuff to *this* group would seem to indicate to me that
he doesn't believe his own work is up to scratch.

Nonsense. Your arguing from ignorance. I don't know just what to takes
to convince you. The main issue here, with all due respect to you, is
that you are not that technical. For example, out of probably 10,000
posts, the number of my technical discrepancies number in the units. You
often profess some doubt about my technical electronics opinions, yet
when have you actually seen a post of mine where I lost an electronic
argument?

If it was inappropriate, nobody will respond. This stuff obviously has
some general appeal.


It's more of an
attempt to show off in front of those who - he expects - will know no

Now why would *you* feel aggravated about people who you might perceive
to be showing off?

better, thereby gaining for him the acceptance of craves. The plan
doesn't seem to be going too well, though...
:-)

Ahmmm...It certainly generates interest, no news is bad news.

Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

Ruud Broens wrote:
"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR wrote (in
.net) about 'A little
knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:

Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it
must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut
the mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little
Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner.

What is a 'Darwinian computer'? Is this a term that you have
introduced?

I think he means neurons.

Not necessarily, But could be.

But the altogether unscientific stance (no falsification possible) of

"while we don't yet know, in the future, with sufficient added ..
(network elements, representation for electrical & chemical
phenomena, etc.) , we will"

A Darwinian machine doesn't care on how it is implemented. Darwinian
means subject to variation, replication and selection. Thats it. End of
story.

see http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html

For example, research is showing that neurons are powerful full
computers in their own right.
http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Hameroff.html

Microtubules is the buzz word. So, we have 100 billion neurons which
themselves are immensely powerful computers.


is already refutes by biological machines, take the moth there, that
have nowhere near those 10^10 neurons & interconnects, etc,
still they 'do their thing'

See above. Biology cant refute the fact the brain exists, and operates
under the laws of physics.


let alone the fact 'consciousness' is just a word we use, but we
should never forget, it is not an object we can manipulate, neither
is it a quality, in any ordinary sense, like mass, colour, etc.
All been pondered at by philophers long time b4 Kevin was born..

And many have missed the boat. "Any sufficiently advanced philosophical
discussion is indistinguishable from bull****".

Consciences exists. This is undeniable. It is not explainable by summing
up the parts. Its a new property of mass-energy systems. We simply add
it to the list of physics axioms like, entropy always increases, the
speed of lig is invariant, all inertial motion is relative, etc...


Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR wrote (in
.net) about 'A little
knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:

Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it
must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut the
mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little
Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner.

What is a 'Darwinian computer'? Is this a term that you have
introduced?

Nope. Very well known in concept, maybe the *term* itself is not used so
often though. Look up Genetic Algorithms, these are Darwinian processes.
Darwinian means subject to variation, replication and selection. All GA
computing uses this Darwinian method.

Explained here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html


Sensors by
themselves are not key.

I believe they ARE key to *the *emergence* of consciousness.

Very possibly correct in the sense that consciousness is all about
understanding ones environment. It would be hard to conceive of
consciousness actually arising without sensor input. My point is that
sensors are not themselves consciousness. After the sensors are removed,
consciousness, imo would still exist.


We can have someone becoming deaf dumb and
blind, but still being conscious.

But their brains are the result of 100 million years of evolution, or
even more if you push your luck. (;-) That's like taking an *already*
self-aware computer and disconnecting its sensors (not its CPU or
memory).

That's right. All I am doing is highlighting that consciousness is
distinct from its sensors.


However, with no inputs whatsoever, in
the long run, I think consciousness would probably collapse by
running amuck.

Sensory-deprivation experiments appear to offer strong confirmation of
that, although, AIUI, some people can resist the effects.

Indeed. Without any inputs, there would be no self correction or
training to stop random memes beings generated and taking over. We need
to be able to check ourselves with the environment.

Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in
: message ...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: Not at all. You haven't actually presented any actual views other
: than suggesting I go an look at other peoples views.
:
: Well, since you insist...[oh, but i must, i must]
: and i'm just about done doing some business here...
: he, can do a little c & p, myself :
:
: Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
: sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function
: of its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It
: just is. It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not
: derivable.
:
: The details don't matter. Its input, processing and output. The brain
: has storage and there are sensors here and there, and it gets
: replicated. Thats all that is required to get a good picture of
: what's going on.
:
: How about a Goedel 'proof' of God ? I can simply state
:
: it's simply a result that occurs when the Universe(ae) gets
: sufficiently complicated.
: Will *thath* hold ?
:
:
: As usual, you have no idea what your talking about. The argument was
: *not* a proof of consciousness, it is an argument of how it came about.
: It is *assumed* that consciousness exists. We can be reasonable
: convinced that a brick has no consciousness. We accept consciousness
: exists because "I think, therefore I am". Humans are more complicated
: then bricks, therefore the conclusion is that consciousness results from
: complexity, irrespective of the fact that we have no idea about the
: details.

So what *is* it, your li'lle theory purports to have anything to say about ?
~~~~I have proven that consciousness can not be derived~~~~

all that 'proofin', but just -what it is- you're prov'n
depending on
observations of a brick...tsk tsk
Rudy

: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: "Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
: therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
: without referring to itself for the explanation,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
: is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
:
:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:

: Kevin Aylward wrote in message
: Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it
: must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut
: the mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little
: Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner.

: is already refutez by biological machines, take the moth there, that
: have nowhere near those 10^10 neurons & interconnects, etc,
: still they 'do their thing'
:
: See above. Biology cant refute the fact the brain exists, and operates
: under the laws of physics.
:
balony etc. snip

what is it, *you don't get* ? you are living in model space, cat !
here we have
"cuttin' the mustard at 10^11, I am reasonably
convinced it must use many independent processors"
and yet, a biological entity with some ?10^4? processors
seeming to do just fine....
math, math,
mathiculous
Rudy

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

:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...

Er...The Ionophane horn loaded tweeter?

Ah, so tweeting is a female thing?

No, no ducky! You obvoiusly haven't laid eyes on an Ionophane tweeter
..
Snip..
And visually, there must be something about it that begs to have something
inserted.
I mean, there *are* male and female plumbing fittings;
Why not male/male ? You are such an old fashioned boy Pat.
Snip..

In fact the whole world is constructed of male and female things,

Only becasue we bother to give them those titles. There really is
NOTHING male ar female about RCA connectors,banana plugs etc .

The Ionophone gave off an ozone smell.
To be sure I have smelt a few women, but one smelling of ozone I have never met.

You ain't met me honey!!!!!!!!!!!

Snip........ american invention of the 12 pin compactron
was positively obscene.

Tee Hee Pat --a great many American inventions are obscene. we could
start with napalm and go on but I'm getting way off topic again. In
fact I'm just an imposter here - I know next to nothing about valves
except that I remember a Leak 20/20 and an Audio Research D 70 as
being the two most (can I be vulgar & subjective here?) musical amps
I've ever owned. Sadly the later example had a habit of going volcanic
on a regular basis.

MDHJWH wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote in message ...

Er...The Ionophane horn loaded tweeter?

Ah, so tweeting is a female thing?

No, no ducky! You obvoiusly haven't laid eyes on an Ionophane tweeter
.
Snip..
And visually, there must be something about it that begs to have something
inserted.
I mean, there *are* male and female plumbing fittings;
Why not male/male ? You are such an old fashioned boy Pat.
Snip..

I am such an old fashioned lad, but quite happy to be so,
and boy-to-boy sex is "not my cup of tea."

I do know that alternative sex to normal boy-girl does happen,
and can be very ecstatic, but not for me.

I am happy with female blondes,
or brunnetes, redheads, but finding willing women
who won't ruin one's life isn't easy.




In fact the whole world is constructed of male and female things,

Only becasue we bother to give them those titles. There really is
NOTHING male ar female about RCA connectors,banana plugs etc .

I don't know very many women with a prick,
or men with a vagina, but I guess they exist,
and as long as they are happy, then I have no problem.

I would never feel sexually comfortable or attracted to either,
but I don't let that stand in the way of a friendship.

But to save the confusion at the plumbing counter,
something which penetrates is male, and what gets penetrtated is female.


The Ionophone gave off an ozone smell.
To be sure I have smelt a few women, but one smelling of ozone I have never met.

You ain't met me honey!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, you give your doover the name of "Honey"
Sounds really swweet, and does it come when you call out to it?

Snip........ american invention of the 12 pin compactron
was positively obscene.

Tee Hee Pat --a great many American inventions are obscene. we could
start with napalm and go on but I'm getting way off topic again.

Well indeed.
Americans invented so, so many things. Countless things.
Some are quite obscenely blood curdling, others obscenely
erotic, and beautiful.
Stalin, on the other hand didn't invent much at all, but
alas he made a few millions die screaming.
This brings us to knowledge.
It aint the size of the knowledge that counts,
its the way you use it.


In fact I'm just an imposter here - I know next to nothing about valves
except that I remember a Leak 20/20 and an Audio Research D 70 as
being the two most (can I be vulgar & subjective here?) musical amps
I've ever owned. Sadly the later example had a habit of going volcanic
on a regular basis.

The Leak 20/20 is remarakble when you consider its technical shortcomings.
But I know a bloke with a pair of them in a biamping set up, to drive
spherical concrete speakers.

I like more bass than he gets from his speakers, but each time I have listened,
its been very pleasant.

I have not been a great fan of the Audio Research range of amps.
They are too complex imho.

Tube amps should be simple, but not too simple.
Its a fine balancing act.

All should be fitted with active current sensing and protection
circuits for each output tube.
No more volcanoes.
Just polite, or even sullen silence, sometimes, but at least
no fused output transformers.

Patrick Turner.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Patrick Turner
wrote (in
u) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Mon, 24 Nov
2003:
But to save the confusion at the plumbing counter, something which
penetrates is male, and what gets penetrtated is female.

XLR connectors get me all confused, though. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Patrick Turner
wrote (in
u) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Mon, 24 Nov
2003:
But to save the confusion at the plumbing counter, something which
penetrates is male, and what gets penetrtated is female.

XLR connectors get me all confused, though. (;-)

They are 3 pin connectors.
There are 3 sexes in the world, blokes, sheilas, and the clergy.
Simple and elementary, although role swapping occurs.

Some couplings are AC/DC, and this complicates matters.

Patrick Turner.


--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message ...


As usual, you have no idea what your talking about. The argument was
*not* a proof of consciousness, it is an argument of how it came
about. It is *assumed* that consciousness exists. We can be
reasonable convinced that a brick has no consciousness. We accept
consciousness exists because "I think, therefore I am". Humans are
more complicated then bricks, therefore the conclusion is that
consciousness results from complexity, irrespective of the fact that
we have no idea about the details.

So what *is* it, your li'lle theory purports to have anything to say
about ? ~~~~I have proven that consciousness can not be derived~~~~

all that 'proofin', but just -what it is- you're prov'n
depending on
observations of a brick...tsk tsk
Rudy


oh dear..., oh dear....concluding that complexity is essential to
consciousness is not a derivation on consciousness. Complexity does not
explain anything.


Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message ...
N. Thornton wrote:

Regards, NT

This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical
matters.

I don't recall that one.

He, Kevvie, little c & p to bring it all back to you ?
nah, all that bw abuse, better leave that capacity
for betta things...ok, just a link then:

http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=nl...6635.030820075

Link don't work. No idea as to what this refers to.

Kevin Aylward

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

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message ...
Ruud Broens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote in message
Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it
must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut
the mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little
Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated
manner.

is already refutez by biological machines, take the moth there, that
have nowhere near those 10^10 neurons & interconnects, etc,
still they 'do their thing'

See above. Biology cant refute the fact the brain exists, and
operates under the laws of physics.

balony etc. snip

what is it, *you don't get* ? you are living in model space, cat !
here we have
"cuttin' the mustard at 10^11, I am reasonably

I never claimed that 10^11 were *required* for consciousness. I made two
*independent* statements.

convinced it must use many independent processors"
and yet, a biological entity with some ?10^4? processors
seeming to do just fine....

10^4 is many in my book. No telling if a moth is conscious or not.

Is the problem that your English is not that good, or is it that you're
illiterate?

Kevin Aylward

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

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in
: message ...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: Kevin Aylward wrote in message
: Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it
: must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut
: the mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little
: Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated
: manner.
:
: is already refutez by biological machines, take the moth there, that
: have nowhere near those 10^10 neurons & interconnects, etc,
: still they 'do their thing'
:
: See above. Biology cant refute the fact the brain exists, and
: operates under the laws of physics.
:
: balony etc. snip
:
: what is it, *you don't get* ? you are living in model space, cat !
: here we have
: "cuttin' the mustard at 10^11, I am reasonably
:
: I never claimed that 10^11 were *required* for consciousness. I made two
: *independent* statements.
:
: convinced it must use many independent processors"
: and yet, a biological entity with some ?10^4? processors
: seeming to do just fine....
:
: 10^4 is many in my book. No telling if a moth is conscious or not.


yeah, was just cutting you some slack, there
but now it's getting somewhat heated up, it seems*.

: Is the problem that your English is not that good, or is it that you're
: illiterate?
:
: Kevin Aylward

tsk, tsk, best thing you can come up with there, not even
"i seem to observe your's sir, is not the command
of the english language, proper "
where were you born, boy ?

* don't worry, plenty acomin', in this, cold season
(this part of the globe)

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Paul Burridge wrote:
: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:52:24 +0000, John Woodgate
: wrote:
:
: Whether Our Kev can add to the sum of human knowledge down the road
: he chooses to travel is quite another thing.
:
: I have grave doubts on that. I think if Kev were confident about the
: theories he propounds, he'd discuss them in more appropriate groups -
:
: I do. Unfortunately, those groups are not populated with many with
: expert knowledge either, much like this NG. NGs are just banter. No one
: seriously expects to get any credibility from NGs. However, it is away
: of declaring priority for ideas though:-)
:
: I have no doubts whatsoever about my approaches. Its way to simple to be
: incorrect. Its so simple that one believes that anyone can understand
: it.
: Ahmmm...It certainly generates interest, no news is bad news.
:
: Kevin Aylward

Tea time !
Decided to clip the linky stuff there from now on, he, that's not fair,
did i make not yers 'n biz prop 'bout that ?

I have given you outlets, a plenty
I've 'tekken al yer craph' in sentry
And now you ask, for all the world
To come and see this *really* 'twirled' ?

Very well then, cat's getting hungry,
only so much fun *playing* with da mousy

Let the play begin

O, i fancy music, he, when working in London,
twas pub -bored meetin time now-
well, have to imagine the tipsy bit there now
at least, i've got the right company, KA

Now, where was I, hm, where am I,
brain in-a-vat ? white coats feeding me data
(just an insider joke, there, Kev, no need to worry)
A yes, let's play some metaphysical jazz

clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right
here i am, stuck...
-- that was the 'give the guy some false hope' bit
not *really* stuck, waddoyou think ?

Physics, metaphysics, existence, proof
ladies, gents, kids (having a good time he
every 15 year old i fed with "what part of..."
came up with ..."Proof ?" i take that back -
pretty clever, this web-gen, actually ,
aliens-with-a babelfish (*)

here we have this theory, on the left side
of my desk (ordnung muss sein, eh)
mind you, it's just form, a metamagical construct
not inherently endowed with 'meaning'
telling us, nai, it's a proof -- oh, glory awaits --
consciousness, non-derivable from matter
just somehow 'oozin' out there

.....know what - give you the time for
that tea there, biscuits & all
after all, so

...to be continued
Rudy

* A man's gotta know his classics, Kev
...utterly delicious british, too..

(Ben Bradley) wrote in message . ..

http://www.vintec-audio.de/


It says:
" first and only all tube mixing console worldwide."

certainly seems like a strange claim, considering that most consoles
were all valves for quite a long time. (Not all, there were passive
ones too)

Anyone care to defend the above claim??^?


Regards, NT

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
: ...
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in
: : message ...
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: :
: : what is it, *you don't get* ? you are living in model space, cat !
: : here we have
: : "cuttin' the mustard at 10^11, I am reasonably
: :
: : I never claimed that 10^11 were *required* for consciousness. I made two
: : *independent* statements.
: :
: : convinced it must use many independent processors"
: : and yet, a biological entity with some ?10^4? processors
: : seeming to do just fine....
: :
: : 10^4 is many in my book. No telling if a moth is conscious or
not.

--------quoty, quoty:
What is
: consciousness, that which can perceive things. Get the drift.----end quoty
:
: yeah, are just cutting you some slack, there
: but now

Rudy

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...

I envy you, Kevin
You switch on the telly
there it is:
Red Dwarf season 9
all for the takin'

[int. audience please note:
beg, bribe, bustle your station managers
y o u HAVE to see this
...even the iraqi's 'll love the brits
having seen THAT ]

but then, with some,
it doesn't rub off......

Dinner time
almost
Rudy

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:46:46 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Frankly, if someone cant understand the basics of what is being said
here, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/notes.html, there is probably
no hope for them to tie their own shoelaces.

Oh, I have submitted a paper to a pro journal, wonder how long it will
take to get the rejection notice:-)

I think it's a bit off accusing others of being unable to understand
your ideas given the quality of the way they're put forward. I mean, I
mean you no disrespect, but are you dyslexic? I know there's nothing
wrong with that; many of the cleverest people with whom I'm acquainted
suffer from some degree or other of this disorder.
Basically, it's very hard to get to grips with what you're trying to
say when hit by all these glaring grammatical and spelling errors, not
to mention your obfuscated style of writing on top of all that.
Perhaps if you could get someone to re-write your stuff for you we
could get a better idea of what you're trying to say. AISI, that
should be your No.1 priority before you expect to get anywhere with
having your theories seriously considered, let alone accepted.

Quick example:

There arnt any that know what their doing. As I have stated in my
papers, most asumme that memes can copy themselvs. This is demostarable
false

C'mon. How do you expect to be taken seriously writing like this?


Nonsense. Your arguing from ignorance. I don't know just what to takes
to convince you. The main issue here, with all due respect to you, is
that you are not that technical. For example, out of probably 10,000
posts, the number of my technical discrepancies number in the units. You
often profess some doubt about my technical electronics opinions, yet
when have you actually seen a post of mine where I lost an electronic
argument?

I've certainly seen you involved in may electronic arguments, but as
you know, I'm not qualified to be able to say who came off best.

If it was inappropriate, nobody will respond. This stuff obviously has
some general appeal.


It's more of an
attempt to show off in front of those who - he expects - will know no

Now why would *you* feel aggravated about people who you might perceive
to be showing off?

I'm not "aggravated" by it at all. It just strikes me that's your main
motivation: "Look at me, I'm Kev, I'm brilliant."

Seriously, you won't get anywhere until you sort out your English.
HTH.
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:36:35 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Is the problem that your English is not that good, or is it that you're
illiterate?

FFS, Kev. Wake up!!!
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in
: message ...
:
: oh dear..., oh dear....concluding that complexity is essential to
: consciousness is not a derivation on consciousness. Complexity does not
: explain anything.

Google, ain't it great ?
didn't seem to recall previous engagements with other 'ignorants' ?
it will cut the mustard for ya !

here goes
aylward + thornton + medical

do we have to spell out the NG's ?

2003-08-20 08:59:40 PST
hm, don't seem to be all *that* long ago, powers of
recollection as good as those of reasoning ??

Lovely night acomin'
Rudy
: Kevin Aylward
nah...none a that sales-rap
....finding the package bit hard to swallow