yes!

[john larkin]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

[Joe Gwinn]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.



Joe Gwinn

[john larkin]

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn

Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn

Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.

Perhaps you should attend this:
https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/

[john larkin]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:26:12 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn

Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.

https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/

Two great mysteries are quantum mechanics and consciousness. Maybe
they are the same thing.

It's hilarorious that one big argument against our brains being
quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
temperatures.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:26:12 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn

Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.

https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/

Two great mysteries are quantum mechanics and consciousness. Maybe
they are the same thing.

And pigs might fly.

Post by john larkin
It's hilarious that one big argument against our brains being
quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
temperatures.

Quantum mechanics happens at all temperatures. The argument actually is
that entanglement does too, but it doesn't last long at temperatures
higher than the boiling point of liquid helium.

It pays to understand what going on before you declare it to be
"hilarious".

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:26:12 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin

<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>

Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn

Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.

https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/

Two great mysteries are quantum mechanics and consciousness. Maybe
they are the same thing.

You can find as many great mysteries as you want here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=great+mysteries
Maybe they are all the same thing.

Post by john larkin
It's hilarorious that one big argument against our brains being
quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
temperatures.

I think you'll find that quantum mechanics happens at any temperature.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

My experience is that everything in this universe is connected
Future is already known

'There is nothing you can know that is not known' is a text from a Beatles song
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=beatles+nothing+you+can+know+tha+tis+not+known
Using google does help with that of course... ;-)

But my own experience in life did make me see some important things decennia before those happened.
I had this with dates...

Nature is far ahead and using things we have not even discovered in studying life.
It has always been that way, since we learned as species how to make fire and earlier.

I remember Leonardo (I had a book about him as a small kid) made a drawing of a basic helicopter
https://theconversation.com/leonardo-da-vincis-helicopter-15th-century-flight-of-fancy-led-to-modern-aeronautics-116241

[Jeroen Belleman]

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Anything for which we do not have an adequate explanation
needs to be quantum entangled these days. It's mostly nonsense.

Jeroen Belleman

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:21:37 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Anything for which we do not have an adequate explanation
needs to be quantum entangled these days. It's mostly nonsense.
Jeroen Belleman

In medieval times if you stated that looking in a box would show your face at the other end of the world
all because of electromagnetic waves,
would get you accused of being a witch.
Chances were you would be burned.

It is true that to get published these days using the 'quantum' word may help
as it has been useful to use 'CO2 and glowballworming' nice the Al Gore sales hysteria.
'Prove Albert Onestone was right' also helped.

Everything in the Universe (as we know it) is connected.

Do events propagate FTL?
Even the speed of light is not the same
If an electron moves here, a bit later its effect is felt everywhere.
Away with A. onestone :-)
mamaticians are the big hurdle and fake truth.
Incomplete equations describing things the output of which are taken for absolute truth
and brainwashed into the poor humming-beans that fall for it.

Bit like Ohms law without electrons,
Fleming tube: 'a current in vacuum' did away that and showed electrons that and gave us amplification and radio,
now singularities are sold,..
In a Le Sage theory of gravity there are no singularities as at some point all particles are intercepted.
There are no singularities in nature, something will always give way.
Would be interesting, if humming-beans still exist, to see what a few million years from now the science is
and what can be done and is done on a daily basis.
CERN on the desktop.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:21:37 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<***@nospam.please> wrote in <v9kdl7$sueb$***@dont-email.me>:
PS you may want to read this:
https://www.space.com/higgs-particle-could-break-physics-throughout-universe-but-has-not#main

I said this before, black holes came first, were parts of the bing-bang

Loading Image...

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:21:37 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<***@nospam.please> wrote in <v9kdl7$sueb$***@dont-email.me>:
PS you may want to read this:
https://www.space.com/higgs-particle-could-break-physics-throughout-universe-but-has-not#main

I said this before, black holes came first, were parts of the bing-bang

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FGxeVxwmxhWZz9csezXhpJ-1200-80.jpg

[Martin Brown]

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.

A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.

Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.

So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

Human brains and octopus distributed leg processing are wired entirely
differently but both show high intelligence and self awareness.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html

Some octopuses in research captivity also have a wicked sense of humour
throwing slightly dodgy fish back at their keepers and/or escaping with
monotonous regularity. A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk
(or bite through mains cables, windscreen wipers and paint tin lids).

[john larkin]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.

Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

It's just code.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

It's just code.

What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??

[john larkin]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

There must be over 10 billion smartphones and computers all networked
now. Be very afraid.

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??

If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be
conscious.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

There must be over 10 billion smartphones and computers all networked
now. Be very afraid.

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??

If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be
conscious.

But you are talking to me over a digital communication channel which requires a pattern of bits.
How do you know I'm conscious and not just a state machine with n bits and an n bit memory?

[Jeroen Belleman]

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

[Snip! ...]

Post by john larkin
If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be
conscious.

If it pretends really well, then how would you tell the difference?

Jeroen Belleman

[Martin Brown]

Post by Jeroen Belleman

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

[Snip! ...]

Post by john larkin
If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be
conscious.

If it pretends really well, then how would you tell the difference?

It has become rather tricky now with generative AI. There are enough
humans around that could not pass the Turing test to save their lives.

So far the most powerful AI's have restricted domains of applicability
but the one which effectively solved Go is truly scary in its potential.

I find some of the captcha challenges just about impossible now. As AI
image recognition gets better they keep making them tougher and with
multiple layers which makes them rather annoying for a genuine human.

[Martin Brown]

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

In a word *YES*. I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.

OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.

The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.

QM certainly plays a big role in making rhodopsin and chlorophyll work.
The former being way more archaic and is still present in our eyes.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

It's just code.

Not any more it isn't. Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
--
Martin Brown

[john larkin]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

In a word *YES*. I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.

But that's no reason to outright dismiss interesting conjectures. Most
science started with wild, unpopular ideas, so small but important
fraction of which turned out to work.

Post by Martin Brown
QM certainly plays a big role in making rhodopsin and chlorophyll work.
The former being way more archaic and is still present in our eyes.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai

OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,

Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

[john larkin]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:00:48 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

Long ago, many years ago, I found an article in a German magazine by a prof
who had some model cars controlled by a simpe 2 or was it 3? neuron net, coded.
There was a choice of how to connect those,
One way the cars were endlessly circling each other, forming a 'swarm' if you want
and the other way those were constantly avoiding each other.
Just a few neurons in software.
I decided to code that, do his experiment
Behavior control, so simple.
Almost human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

Same as to 'conciousnes'
If you have a sunscreen with a light sensor you can make a system (analog or digital) that closes it as the sun bemones too intense.
Now add a voce that says:"
It is to hot here, I am closing
or
it is so dark here, I am opening
So much for Descartes 'I think so I am'
remove the speech part and is it then uncounciuos?
Doctor will test for an eye or knee reflex...
You can sedate a person an cut him, no reaction.. Unconcious?

There is some Linux open source software so you can build your own neural net, tried it long ago.
https://slashdot.org/software/neural-network/linux/
even for your Raspberry...

Neural nets can learn, the 'learning' is in the value of the weights between the neurons.
Without training it to set the weights it will not do what you want it to do.
Those 'weights' can be analog or digital. Or quantum states?

I think much of Elon's cars use neural nets to navigate traffic, it works!
Now end-to-end is being tested:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-teslas-end-to-end-neural-network-diana-wolf-torres-0yf4c

There is so much more than I can type here.
Just a while before we have an AI US president?
;-)

[john larkin]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:00:48 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

Long ago, many years ago, I found an article in a German magazine by a prof
who had some model cars controlled by a simpe 2 or was it 3? neuron net, coded.
There was a choice of how to connect those,
One way the cars were endlessly circling each other, forming a 'swarm' if you want
and the other way those were constantly avoiding each other.
Just a few neurons in software.
I decided to code that, do his experiment
Behavior control, so simple.
Almost human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
Same as to 'conciousnes'
If you have a sunscreen with a light sensor you can make a system (analog or digital) that closes it as the sun bemones too intense.
Now add a voce that says:"
It is to hot here, I am closing
or
it is so dark here, I am opening
So much for Descartes 'I think so I am'
remove the speech part and is it then uncounciuos?
Doctor will test for an eye or knee reflex...
You can sedate a person an cut him, no reaction.. Unconcious?
There is some Linux open source software so you can build your own neural net, tried it long ago.
https://slashdot.org/software/neural-network/linux/
even for your Raspberry...
Neural nets can learn, the 'learning' is in the value of the weights between the neurons.
Without training it to set the weights it will not do what you want it to do.
Those 'weights' can be analog or digital. Or quantum states?
I think much of Elon's cars use neural nets to navigate traffic, it works!
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-teslas-end-to-end-neural-network-diana-wolf-torres-0yf4c
There is so much more than I can type here.
Just a while before we have an AI US president?
;-)

NNs remind me of the fuzzy logic fad. A magical way to avoid thinking
about hard stuff like control theory.

Good way to kill people on the streets.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:00:48 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

Long ago, many years ago, I found an article in a German magazine by a prof
who had some model cars controlled by a simpe 2 or was it 3? neuron net, coded.
There was a choice of how to connect those,
One way the cars were endlessly circling each other, forming a 'swarm' if you want
and the other way those were constantly avoiding each other.
Just a few neurons in software.
I decided to code that, do his experiment
Behavior control, so simple.
Almost human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
Same as to 'conciousnes'
If you have a sunscreen with a light sensor you can make a system (analog or digital) that closes it as the sun bemones too intense.
Now add a voce that says:"
It is to hot here, I am closing
or
it is so dark here, I am opening
So much for Descartes 'I think so I am'
remove the speech part and is it then uncounciuos?
Doctor will test for an eye or knee reflex...
You can sedate a person an cut him, no reaction.. Unconcious?
There is some Linux open source software so you can build your own neural net, tried it long ago.
https://slashdot.org/software/neural-network/linux/
even for your Raspberry...
Neural nets can learn, the 'learning' is in the value of the weights between the neurons.
Without training it to set the weights it will not do what you want it to do.
Those 'weights' can be analog or digital. Or quantum states?
I think much of Elon's cars use neural nets to navigate traffic, it works!
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-teslas-end-to-end-neural-network-diana-wolf-torres-0yf4c
There is so much more than I can type here.
Just a while before we have an AI US president?
;-)

NNs remind me of the fuzzy logic fad. A magical way to avoid thinking
about hard stuff like control theory.

Of course they do. You don't understand either concept, so you use them
as terms of abuse.

Post by john larkin
Good way to kill people on the streets.

Not as good as the woefully ill-drafted second amendment to the US
constitution.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Nobody does, but it is being worked on.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Functional magnetic resonance imaging does give some insight into where
the processing happens as various - short - times after the human brain
has been exposed to a stimulus. Not a hell of lot so far, but it is
being worked on.

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature already had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

They seem to work in speech recognition

https://theaisummer.com/speech-recognition/

I knew a couple of people that worked on that, and lots of neural nets
didn't work, but there seems to have been progress on finding variations
that can be made to work progressively better.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?

I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Post by john larkin
and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

Have you not used Google Images?

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.

I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.

[john larkin]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Ignorance is appealing.

But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.

I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.

What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Ignorance is appealing.

As you persistently remind us.

Post by john larkin
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.

Not that you've got much of either.

Post by john larkin
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.

It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.

Post by john larkin
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

[john larkin]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Ignorance is appealing.

As you persistently remind us.

Post by john larkin
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.

Not that you've got much of either.

Post by john larkin
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.

It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.

Post by john larkin
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Ignorance is appealing.

As you persistently remind us.

Post by john larkin
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.

Not that you've got much of either.

Post by john larkin
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.

It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.

Post by john larkin
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945

That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their
discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up
doing.

Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.

[john larkin]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding

So you understand how brains work?

Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.

Post by john larkin
Where are images stored,

Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.

Ignorance is appealing.

As you persistently remind us.

Post by john larkin
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.

Not that you've got much of either.

Post by john larkin
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.

It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.

Post by john larkin
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945

That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their
discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up
doing.

I only got a couple of pages in AoE3, but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.

What difference does the design process make, if the result works?

I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.

The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Eletronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.

Post by Bill Sloman
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

<snip>

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945

That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their
discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up
doing.

I only got a couple of pages in AoE3, but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.

Your stuff sells under your name. Mine sells too, but not under my name.

Post by john larkin
What difference does the design process make, if the result works?

Thought-out designs work better and cost less.

Post by john larkin
I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.

Academics don't resent people who are creative. They aren't fond of
people who don't talk about how they get to their results, because
academics are in the teaching business - academies are where people
learn stuff - and if they can get hold of approaches that work, they can
pass them on to their students.

Instincts aren't teachable and you can't pass them on - sometimes your
kids inherit them. There are quite a few people who don't like passing
on their skills, and consequently claim that they operate by instinct,
so that they won't have to educate potential competitors.

Post by john larkin
The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Electronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.

There are academics who study all kinds of creative arts - painting,
sculpture and music all have their academies.

Knowing what you are doing, and how it fits in with what other people
have done, doesn't seem to stifle creativity.

Getting a Ph.D. isn't any kind of training in being creative, and most
of the ones I've known haven't been all that creative. I got together
with my wife before she did her Ph.D. training, and it didn't beat any
creativity out of her - she was an original thinker before she started
(despite having aready got a Master's degree) and she stayed creative
thereafter (and wrote lots of highly cited papers along the way).

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.

Language probably is that better way. We can now talk about individual
defects in particular genomes, and use CRISPR to correct some of them.

It's taken more than three billion years to get this far, which would be
crazy inefficient if we'd known where we were going.

Efficiency in this context, would the ratio of the time a perfect system
would take to the time our actual system has taken. Since we don't know
what a perfect system would be it's an imaginary number.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Post by john larkin
but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.
What difference does the design process make, if the result works?
I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.
The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Eletronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.

Post by Bill Sloman
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.

[john larkin]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524

Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

[john larkin]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.

[john larkin]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.

One of the things I have learned is to stay confused for a while,
stagger around in the solution space for a few days at least.

Too many engineers dislike uncertainty, so they lock down a design,
preferably a textbook-sanctioned design, asap so they can implement.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.

One of the things I have learned is to stay confused for a while,
stagger around in the solution space for a few days at least.

Sounds reasonable to me. And it applies to any form of art.
Here's a silly example.

Post by john larkin
Too many engineers dislike uncertainty, so they lock down a design,
preferably a textbook-sanctioned design, asap so they can implement.

Back when I used to read magazines like this one
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Practical_Electronics.htm
I particularly liked "Ingenuity Unlimited" because it gave lots of examples of how to do things.
Much like AoE does.

[john larkin]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:52:49 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.

One of the things I have learned is to stay confused for a while,
stagger around in the solution space for a few days at least.

Sounds reasonable to me. And it applies to any form of art.
Here's a silly example.
http://youtu.be/p3yN7YjJWVI

Post by john larkin
Too many engineers dislike uncertainty, so they lock down a design,
preferably a textbook-sanctioned design, asap so they can implement.

Back when I used to read magazines like this one
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Practical_Electronics.htm
I particularly liked "Ingenuity Unlimited" because it gave lots of examples of how to do things.
Much like AoE does.

I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:52:49 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:52:49 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in

...

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Martin Brown]

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.

Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

[john larkin]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?

When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

Yes I had to have WW every month too.
I think WW was a bit more globally distributed.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

That's one of the first things I learned from this
https://www.google.com/search?q=philips+guide+to+junior+electronics

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:55:26 -0400) it happened "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

Yes I had to have WW every month too.
I think WW was a bit more globally distributed.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

That's one of the first things I learned from this
https://www.google.com/search?q=philips+guide+to+junior+electronics

I have build some of the Philips kits as a kid.
This was a good read back then in the fifties:
https://frank.pocnet.net/other/sos/JongensRadio_Deel2_1950.pdf

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

<snip>

Post by john larkin
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

It is an insultingly simple circuit, and many of them may decide at that
point that they don't fancy working for a guy who would be that rude
when interviewing potential hires.

There are two aspects to job interviews - the people doing the hiring
learn about the people being interviewed, and the people applying for
job learn about the people doing the hiring.

I had a campus interview - as a graduate student - with the personnel
guy from the organisation that I actually joined after I graduated. He
started reading out the leaflet that I'd been given (and had read) and
ended the interview when I asked him to stop doing that and answer some
questions about the work being offered.

The actual job interview with the engineers that I ended up working with
went rather better, though they did start off by asking me to explain
how a Xerox machine worked, which is an odd question to ask a physical
chemist, though it made a lot of sense when I found out what the job
actually involved (and I did know quite a lot of the details about how
Xerox machines worked).

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...

As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

[john larkin]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.

I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.

I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!

Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Post by john larkin
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.

Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.

Post by john larkin
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.

In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of spec you pay?
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/

When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.

[john larkin]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Post by john larkin
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.

Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.

Post by john larkin
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.

In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of spec you pay?

We do a lot of aerospace instrumentation, but nothing that's
life-safety critical. Our only stuff that flies is used on engine test
flights and wouldn't kill anyone if it failed.

I have done flight stuff, planes and rockets, and the testing and
paperwork hassles dominate the design. That's boring.

Post by Jan Panteltje
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/

Boeing is a mess. So is Intel. When the bean counters and stock-market
manipulators take over from the engineers, things go bad.

Of course, the craze for fuel savings make everything as light and
flimsy as possible. People sweat every ounce. I wonder if they weigh
the flight attendants' underwear.

Post by Jan Panteltje
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.

Highly paid old-timers are force-retired to save money. They should
spend their later years training the next generation.

[Jeroen Belleman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Post by john larkin
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.

Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.

Post by john larkin
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.

In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of spec you pay?

We do a lot of aerospace instrumentation, but nothing that's
life-safety critical. Our only stuff that flies is used on engine test
flights and wouldn't kill anyone if it failed.
I have done flight stuff, planes and rockets, and the testing and
paperwork hassles dominate the design. That's boring.

Post by Jan Panteltje
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/

Boeing is a mess. So is Intel. When the bean counters and stock-market
manipulators take over from the engineers, things go bad.
Of course, the craze for fuel savings make everything as light and
flimsy as possible. People sweat every ounce. I wonder if they weigh
the flight attendants' underwear.

Post by Jan Panteltje
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.

Highly paid old-timers are force-retired to save money. They should
spend their later years training the next generation.

Yes, but if the newcomer is on a short-term contract and doesn't
get a indefinite appointment after, the effort is largely wasted.
I've seen that happen often.

Jeroen Belleman

[Edward Rawde]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Why should he have? No-one does that any more.
If your time is taken up by other things such as your latest text message and if everything electronic that you need (such as your
Mobile Phone, TV, Microwave Oven, Toaster etc) is readily available by magic then why would you want to learn how to design anything
yourself?

In any case no-one wants you to know anything about their latest designs because you might become a competitor and eat into their
profits.
I wonder whether anyone patented the two-resistor voltage divider when it was first invented.

Most companies don't care what you do or did at home.
If they want electronic design they'll tell HR to find an individual with suitable qualifications.
If that process doesn't go well (perhaps because the interviewer couldn't tell whether a candidate was suitable or not) then a lot
of time and money will be needed to fix whatever was designed. This is seen as normal in many places. I had one manager tell me
"It's not a requirement for it to work" In an assertive non-joking tone. I didn't reply but my mind said "well in that case I think
you should find someone else to do it".

It's also true that home electronics is now so much more reliable than it was 60 years ago that no-one at home needs to care how
anything works.
My father could repair a toaster no trouble. But these days when toasters die they go to the dump not the repair shop. The repair
shop no-longer exists for that reason. Repair shops were often associated with the home of the owner and the same test equipment
used for repair could be used for design.

There are also many reasons why you can't sell anything you design at home because you don't have the money to make sure it complies
with safety and other standards.
And you don't have money for the lawsuit when someone claims your product injured them.

Post by Jan Panteltje

Post by john larkin
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.

Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.

Post by john larkin
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.

In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of
spec you pay?
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.

[john larkin]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:12:23 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Why should he have? No-one does that any more.

The tinkerers are to be found in maker spaces.

They are exposed to a lot of hardware/software/mechanical things,
classes and other peoples' projects, and some will trend to
electronics.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:12:23 -0400) it happened "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Phil Hobbs

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.

Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.

WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky
resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.

Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.

Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...

The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.

Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'

Why should he have? No-one does that any more.
If your time is taken up by other things such as your latest text message and if everything electronic that you need (such as
your
Mobile Phone, TV, Microwave Oven, Toaster etc) is readily available by magic then why would you want to learn how to design
anything
yourself?
In any case no-one wants you to know anything about their latest designs because you might become a competitor and eat into
their
profits.

Oh, I once signed a non-dislosure contract for a company I did work for,
But I am an open-source guy.
That goes for hardware I designed and software I designed
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
All puters run Linux here.
Some asm stuff:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html
https://panteltje.nl/index1.html

Post by Edward Rawde
I wonder whether anyone patented the two-resistor voltage divider when it was first invented.
Most companies don't care what you do or did at home.

Real ones do
I got the job at the national TV network here
in the interview I pointed out I just designed and build a portable TV camera.
Not many existed...
1968 that was
Knew the answer to all the questions...

Post by Edward Rawde
If they want electronic design they'll tell HR to find an individual with suitable qualifications.
If that process doesn't go well (perhaps because the interviewer couldn't tell whether a candidate was suitable or not) then a
lot
of time and money will be needed to fix whatever was designed. This is seen as normal in many places. I had one manager tell me
"It's not a requirement for it to work" In an assertive non-joking tone. I didn't reply but my mind said "well in that case I
think
you should find someone else to do it".

I have done many sorts of jobs all around the world.
The requirement always is that you deliver.

For a while I had my own TV repair shop in Amsterdam.
People expect the stuff you repair to work.
Went to US for some weeks, needed somebody to fix any quarantee cases for a few weeks,
guy came in, I gave him a defective set, can you fix this?
He did, hired him.

In broadcasting I have seen higher educated people than me break down and actually quit.
Guy I replaced left after he had a work stress related breakdown.
My boss later ended up in the mad house, last we heard from him was a postcard from that place.
Always thought it was my declarations that made him flip ;-)
When I was hired we got six month payed in the schoolbenches learning everything from managment to cameras to TV to satellite to audio to security to fire
all top level, you had to be able to repair stuff on the spot.
Studios (we had 6 to look after) were extremely complex with millions of dollars
stuff and the show must go on...
And there was film too in those days.

In depth knowledge, thousands of circuits, speed, human interaction (always stress, producers, artist waiting..
you cannot sell a black screen), much more to it, glowbal networking
Dreaming on a table with a pen and a peace of paper was not an option.
And shifts, early morning to late night...
I have seen people drop out...
When those moon landings happened I was sometimes in the head control room here relaying it..
Lots of tube equipment there back then.

Done many other things, technical translator, writing docs from lab reports, programming, art, airport electronics,
security, what not.
Started with designing power electronics for the army and navy and telcos, dangerous work on those navy ships,
Broadcasting was at least safe :-)

Post by Edward Rawde
It's also true that home electronics is now so much more reliable than it was 60 years ago that no-one at home needs to care how
anything works.
My father could repair a toaster no trouble. But these days when toasters die they go to the dump not the repair shop. The
repair
shop no-longer exists for that reason. Repair shops were often associated with the home of the owner and the same test equipment
used for repair could be used for design.
There are also many reasons why you can't sell anything you design at home because you don't have the money to make sure it
complies
with safety and other standards.
And you don't have money for the lawsuit when someone claims your product injured them.

Well, add a disclamer ;-)

Too many lawyers anyways..

Most I learned about software and microprocessors I learned designing things at home,
Some good books... 'Micro processor interfacing techniques' in the seventies...
https://www.amazon.com/Microprocessor-Interfacing-Techniques-Rodnay-Zaks/dp/0895880296
started with a Sinclair ZX80

There is now a right to repair movement going on, at least in the EU

[Edward Rawde]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:12:23 -0400) it happened "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message

Post by john larkin
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

...

Post by Jan Panteltje

Post by Edward Rawde
In any case no-one wants you to know anything about their latest designs because you might become a competitor and eat into
their
profits.

Oh, I once signed a non-dislosure contract for a company I did work for,
But I am an open-source guy.
That goes for hardware I designed and software I designed
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
All puters run Linux here.

I run what gets the job done here.
That means Windows workstations, Linux (usually Debian) servers and Linux in Hyper-V as needed.

Post by Jan Panteltje
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html
https://panteltje.nl/index1.html

...

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Post by Jan Panteltje
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...

In .de, we had Funkschau for the radio-oriented and ELEKTRONIK at the
industrial engineering level, above mine when I was in school.
On a visit in .cz, I found Amatérské Radio, interesting but unobtainium
on this side of the iron curtain.

Elektor was not taken too serious, could not be cited, but occasional fun.
I remember, under the heading "Elektortur":

Man: 100K, 1/4 W

No more sure about the exact numbers.

cheers, Gerhard

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:31:17 +0200) it happened Gerhard Hoffmann

Post by Gerhard Hoffmann

Post by Jan Panteltje
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...

In .de, we had Funkschau for the radio-oriented and ELEKTRONIK at the
industrial engineering level, above mine when I was in school.

Yes, used to read several German magazines,
just did find an old MC from 1988 in a drawer 5DM :-)...
That was all about micro-computers.
Used to buy those at the train station kiosk whenever I did see one.
We get German in highschool here, so no reading problems.
I was reading C't too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%27t
and a few more...

Some US stuff, Wireless World for example
Scientific American sometimes...

Post by Gerhard Hoffmann
On a visit in .cz, I found Amatérské Radio, interesting but unobtainium
on this side of the iron curtain.
Elektor was not taken too serious, could not be cited, but occasional fun.
Man: 100K, 1/4 W
No more sure about the exact numbers.
cheers, Gerhard

Elektuur had some nice project, tried some.
Learned a lot from it.
They at one time had 'teletor', scope TV set!
https://www.elektormagazine.nl/magazine/elektor-196511
modified it for a real CRT

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't
explain what his circuits are intended to do or what problems their -
presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,

Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do,
and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be specific about
both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted
solves them.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they
actually work. That isn't design.

I have put circuits together that worked better than I expected, but I
then put a lot of effort into finding out what was actually going on, so
it didn't stop working in the middle of demonstration.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't explain what his circuits are intended to do or what
problems their - presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,
Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do, and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be
specific about both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted solves them.

Yes I agree.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they actually work. That isn't design.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with stumbling across a solution.
But I agree that in electronics it should then be possible to explain how it works.
Other forms of art have similarities and differences.
Elgar likely couldn't explain where he got this from

But he clearly would have had two things.
Training in music theory, and knowledge of plenty of music written by others.

When I started work I was very concerned with finding the best circuit to meet the requirements.
But sometimes I wasn't allowed to use the circuit I came up with because although I could explain how it worked, I couldn't explain
where I got it from and I didn't immediately have any mathematical model for it. My mind had likely pieced it together from ideas
gathered from many sources including magazines a decade before.
Also I wasn't always allowed to try things out to see if they worked well for a specific requirement because as a qualified
electronics engineer you should be able to produce the required design straight from the relevant circuit theory and mathematics,
shouldn't you?

So I wonder what will happen when an AI with similar or better capability than AlphaGo is trained using AoE and the contents of a
site like this one:
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/index.htm

JL may think it won't produce anything useful but time will tell.

Such a system would theoretically be reducible to an algorithm but that doesn't mean it's necessary to understand the specific
algorithm any more than it's necessary to understand where images are stored in our brains.

I have put circuits together that worked better than I expected, but I then put a lot of effort into finding out what was actually
going on, so it didn't stop working in the middle of demonstration.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[john larkin]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:38:30 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't explain what his circuits are intended to do or what
problems their - presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,
Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do, and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be
specific about both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted solves them.

Yes I agree.

Post by john larkin
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they actually work. That isn't design.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with stumbling across a solution.
But I agree that in electronics it should then be possible to explain how it works.
Other forms of art have similarities and differences.
Elgar likely couldn't explain where he got this from
http://youtu.be/sUgoBb8m1eE
But he clearly would have had two things.
Training in music theory, and knowledge of plenty of music written by others.
When I started work I was very concerned with finding the best circuit to meet the requirements.
But sometimes I wasn't allowed to use the circuit I came up with because although I could explain how it worked, I couldn't explain
where I got it from and I didn't immediately have any mathematical model for it. My mind had likely pieced it together from ideas
gathered from many sources including magazines a decade before.

Yes. Invention is a complex and mysterious process.

Post by Edward Rawde
Also I wasn't always allowed to try things out to see if they worked well for a specific requirement because as a qualified
electronics engineer you should be able to produce the required design straight from the relevant circuit theory and mathematics,
shouldn't you?

I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.

I think a lab (with a Dremel!) is a fundamental requirement. Parts
aren't always characterized well enough that one can design just with
math, or with simulation. Abs max ratings are for wusses.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/v1yow0euq40xxyc7dy3cd/ALhGPhnhPEyV32GS2M5LChk?rlkey=cicg0l3ccdgdxbav856silaag&dl=0

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 8/21/24 01:08, john larkin wrote:
[...]

Post by john larkin
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.

[...]

Amazing. I wouldn't have believed that there could be such a
disconnect between a management and the things they pretend to
manage.

I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
days in meeting rooms. ;-)

Jeroen Belleman

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by john larkin
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.

[...]
Amazing. I wouldn't have believed that there could be such a
disconnect between a management and the things they pretend to
manage.

Then you haven't worked in industry in the UK.

There were engineering managers who had been engineers - or at least
knew enough about the underlying science to have some clue what was
going on - but most of them had been through engineering management
courses where they were taught that engineers were hopeless
perfectionists who had to be chivied into releasing stuff to production
as soon as it looked like something that production could put together.

Post by Jeroen Belleman
I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
days in meeting rooms. ;-)

They can't shout loudly enough to bully their subordinates effectively
in open plan offices.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by john larkin
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.

[...]
Amazing. I wouldn't have believed that there could be such a
disconnect between a management and the things they pretend to
manage.

The best managers for those who design electronics are generally those have been electronic circuit designers themselves.
Like most things it does also depend on human psychology.
I can think of one exception to the above but he thought he was god's gift to management.

Post by Jeroen Belleman
I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
days in meeting rooms. ;-)
Jeroen Belleman

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:57:48 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

Well, I do much the same - I wake up with a new idea. And cannot say
how it happened - I slept through it.

To patent something, it is _not_ required that one know how it works,
or even that one's theory be correct. Many are not. Only the ability
to make it work on request is required.

Fifty years ago, Jacques Hadamard queried his colleagues (like
Einstein, etc) on where their insights came from - they woke up with
the idea, or it just came to them after intense thinking.

.<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029313/the-mathematicians-mind?srsltid=AfmBOorGBqfWjsV-ccnfGdcrSWWK0XKWZw43dFPWsgape-G7rfI4xCTy>

Joe Gwinn

[john larkin]

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:57:48 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

Well, I do much the same - I wake up with a new idea. And cannot say
how it happened - I slept through it.

Some people, like us, invent in our sleep. Some famous people invented
while walking.

I used to think that overnight ideas were delivered in my morning
shower, and they are, but now I believe that ideas happen in a nice
hot shower too, any time of day.

Post by Joe Gwinn
To patent something, it is _not_ required that one know how it works,
or even that one's theory be correct. Many are not. Only the ability
to make it work on request is required.

Right. Ultimately, we really don't know how anything works.

Post by Joe Gwinn
Fifty years ago, Jacques Hadamard queried his colleagues (like
Einstein, etc) on where their insights came from - they woke up with
the idea, or it just came to them after intense thinking.
.<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029313/the-mathematicians-mind?srsltid=AfmBOorGBqfWjsV-ccnfGdcrSWWK0XKWZw43dFPWsgape-G7rfI4xCTy>
Joe Gwinn

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:57:48 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

<snip>

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
Well, I do much the same - I wake up with a new idea. And cannot say
how it happened - I slept through it.

Some people, like us, invent in our sleep. Some famous people invented
while walking.
I used to think that overnight ideas were delivered in my morning
shower, and they are, but now I believe that ideas happen in a nice
hot shower too, any time of day.

Ideas come from the sub-conscious (if you use Freudian terminology) or
our back-ground processing. It pops up into our conscious mind when we
aren't distracted by more immediate concerns. For my father that was
when he was shaving. You have to devote a lot of conscious though to
solving the problem before it can percolate down into your sub-conscious.

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
To patent something, it is _not_ required that one know how it works,
or even that one's theory be correct. Many are not. Only the ability
to make it work on request is required.

Too true.

Post by john larkin
Right. Ultimately, we really don't know how anything works.

But mostly we have pretty good idea, quite good enough for all practical
purposes. Most people can explain that idea in terms that other people
can understand, if they want to. John Lark may not want to or may not be
able to.

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
Fifty years ago, Jacques Hadamard queried his colleagues (like
Einstein, etc) on where their insights came from - they woke up with
the idea, or it just came to them after intense thinking.
<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029313/the-mathematicians-mind?srsltid=AfmBOorGBqfWjsV-ccnfGdcrSWWK0XKWZw43dFPWsgape-G7rfI4xCTy>

I suspect that the intense thinking is essential, but it probably
doesn't have to happen just before you get the idea. If you've left a
question unresolved for years, your sub-conscious can pick up the extra
information it needs when it does become available, and serve up the
solution when you aren't distracted by more immediate problems.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin

...

Post by john larkin
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

Which pages?

Around 360.

Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.

Winfield Hill used to post here a lot, and is probably aware of John
Larkin's appetite for flattery."To which we've added a few decorations"
dilutes the endorsement.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

<snip>

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

It's just code.

Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Post by Martin Brown
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.

John Larkin's imagination is given free reign by his restricted
knowledge base. It's not constrained by much real world knowledge - not
than he realises this - which lets him imagine that he is rather more
creative than he appears to be be to other, better-informed, people.

[john larkin]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

In a word *YES*.

Cool. I can set up a trashy lunatic web site and link to a scientific
journal, or to wikipedia or to the BBC, and ruin them.

Post by Martin Brown
I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.

That's called "science."

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

Post by Martin Brown
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.

OK, simplify science by immediately rejecting all speculation. That
simplifies electronic design too. We don't need no stinkin' ideas.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?

In a word *YES*.

Cool. I can set up a trashy lunatic web site and link to a scientific
journal, or to wikipedia or to the BBC, and ruin them.

Post by Martin Brown
I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.

That's called "science."

It's called speculation.

"Science" is the business of relating speculation to experimental
evidence that can support some speculations and reject others.

Philopsophers have been speculating for a few thousand years. Science
developed a few hundred years ago to weed out the less useful speculations.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

It might be a hypothesis. Dignifying it by calling it a "theory" is a
considerable stretch.
In this case it's a more a pretentious assertion.

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.

OK, simplify science by immediately rejecting all speculation. That
simplifies electronic design too. We don't need no stinkin' ideas.

Science necessarily rejects a lot of speculations. That is what it was
set up to do. You may feel hurt because your speculation has been
treated as half-baked, but asserting that this means that every
speculation would be rejected is an unrealistic over-reaction.

[Joe Gwinn]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:16:51 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

[snip]

Post by john larkin

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

There is a simpler issue. Un-myelinated nerve fibers (axons) are
relatively slow, which isn't a problem for small critters and/or
brains.

But if a signal has to travel six feet, myelin helps a lot, because
the jump from node to node is at electrical speed.

Joe Gwinn

[Martin Brown]

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Direct sensor input of neuron pulses to the brain using a mesh of micro
electrodes to stimulate the visual cortex has already been used to
interface limited resolution sight and sound to humans creating in
effect cyborgs. Problem is that even with the best biocompatible
materials is gets covered in scar tissue and stops working.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-frontier-for-brain-implants-is-artificial-vision-neuralink-elon-musk/

They must understand the brain's basic signalling system to be able to
make the link work. The brains plasticity allows it to learn to decode
the signals sent and so get a crude image of the external world.

Likewise with the latest generation of bionic limbs that the user can
control by thought much like they would a real flesh and blood arm.

[john larkin]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.

Now consider what tappens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.

Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

[john larkin]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

[Edward Rawde]

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf

[john larkin]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:46:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf

There are objective tests for electronic design.

Does it work?
Does it sell?

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:46:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"

Post by Edward Rawde

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf

There are objective tests for electronic design.
Does it work?
Does it sell?

These are objective tests for the quality of the circuit that has been
produced. They don't say anything about the process that lead to the
selection of that particular circuit.

If you can't say why you did something in a particular way - and you
never do - you can't claim to have designed it.

Inspired designers may sometimes get things right first time. Most
designers rip up any number of first tries at a design before coming up
with an approach that can be made to work reasonably well. You don't
tell us about your false starts.

Sometimes those those false starts can become practical when the
technology moves on - I thought up one scheme in 1976 which didn't
become practical until 1993 (when I got my hands on a big-enough cheap
programmable logic device) and it shows up in my 1996 milli-degree
thermostat paper (section 2.6).

Meas. Sci. Technol. 7 (1996) 1653–1664.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.

There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

[john larkin]

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.

That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.

Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.

Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine
in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles
are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then
all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary
particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes
(like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming
beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part
of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

If you parameterize using the LC values, I believe that. It’s very
difficult to tune a high-order filter unless you start out pretty close.

Parameterizing f_0 and Q for each section works much much better.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[john larkin]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine
in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles
are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then
all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary
particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes
(like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming
beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part
of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

If you parameterize using the LC values, I believe that. It’s very
difficult to tune a high-order filter unless you start out pretty close.
Parameterizing f_0 and Q for each section works much much better.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Active filters are easier, where the sections don't interact.

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by john larkin
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

<snip off-topic maunderings>

Post by john larkin

Post by john larkin
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

If you parameterize using the LC values, I believe that. It’s very
difficult to tune a high-order filter unless you start out pretty close.
Parameterizing f_0 and Q for each section works much much better.

Active filters are easier, where the sections don't interact.

Yeah, you just pick the poles and zeros. Of course the GBW has to be
several times f_0*Q.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:16:54 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

Sounds about right. Convergence depends on the existence of even a
tiny average gradient.

But if one keeps at it, eventually a lucky jump will occur. It may
take a million years to get anywhere useful.


Joe Gwinn

[john larkin]

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:16:54 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

Sounds about right. Convergence depends on the existence of even a
tiny average gradient.
But if one keeps at it, eventually a lucky jump will occur. It may
take a million years to get anywhere useful.
Joe Gwinn

The Nuhertz software designs amazing LC filters using standard-value
Ls and Cs. Fast. I don't understand how that is even possible.

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:04:29 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:16:54 -0700, john larkin

Post by john larkin

Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

http://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.

John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..

Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.

Post by Jan Panteltje
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.

How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.

Sounds about right. Convergence depends on the existence of even a
tiny average gradient.
But if one keeps at it, eventually a lucky jump will occur. It may
take a million years to get anywhere useful.
Joe Gwinn

The Nuhertz software designs amazing LC filters using standard-value
Ls and Cs. Fast. I don't understand how that is even possible.

Nuhertz is a product of Ozen Engineering, who ain't talking directly
about this. But it seems to be that the speedups come from better
choice of what exactly to optimize, and especially the equivalent of
better mesh generation (for finite-element design).

I'll mull it over.

Joe Gwinn

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.

Well, they do cite a reputable rag: "The study, published this month
in the journal Physics Review E, suggests...".

Post by Martin Brown
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.

We'd already know if this were true for sure - direct sunlight (a
kilowatt per square meter) would knock us out, and critters whose
brain worked some other way would have had us for lunch while we were
out cold, well warm.

Post by Martin Brown
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.

Isn't this circular?

Post by Martin Brown
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

Not just _any_ really complex network, but OK.

Post by Martin Brown
Human brains and octopus distributed leg processing are wired entirely
differently but both show high intelligence and self awareness.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html
Some octopuses in research captivity also have a wicked sense of humour
throwing slightly dodgy fish back at their keepers and/or escaping with
monotonous regularity.

My favorite story is when it was discovered that an enterprising
octopus was clambering out of its own tank, crawling across the floor
to another tank, catching and eating some fish there, and then
returning to its home tank. The mystery of the vanishing fish was
eventually solved by a hidden camera.

It turned out to have been known far earlier, like Lee 1873:

.<https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27379/did-an-octopus-visit-another-tank-to-hunt>

Post by Martin Brown
A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk
(or bite through mains cables, windscreen wipers and paint tin lids).

Parrots. Bird brains are yet another model.

All three kinds of critter seem to be conscious, but their brains are
built rather differently, so there is likely some common mathematical
and/or algorithmic structure from which consciousness arises.

On the matter of defining consciousness, while no widely accepted
definition has arisen, people seem to know it when they see it, and
everybody comes to more or less the same ranking of critters. So
there is a unifying principle, even if we don't know what it is.

Joe Gwinn

[Edward Rawde]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible. If they are right then you should be able to alter
consciousness by flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just another variant of the "action at a distance" in
Newtonian gravity that will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently complex computational network. The big super
computer networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

I can remember when this guy told us why we couldn't do it back then.

Jump to 49:12
But that was then.

Post by Martin Brown
Human brains and octopus distributed leg processing are wired entirely
differently but both show high intelligence and self awareness.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html
Some octopuses in research captivity also have a wicked sense of humour throwing slightly dodgy fish back at their keepers and/or
escaping with monotonous regularity. A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk (or bite through mains cables, windscreen
wipers and paint tin lids).
--
Martin Brown

[Sylvia Else]

Post by john larkin
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

Some intuition might make us rebel against the idea that a suitably
programmed classical deterministic computer could be conscious. But we
don't know what consciousness is, which makes it rather difficult to
formulate a reasoned argument against its existence in such a computer.

Sylvia.