Re: Another Puppy On sci.electronics.basics Gets House Trained
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Another Puppy On sci.electronics.basics Gets House Trained         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Immortalist
Date: Aug 5, 2008 20:30

On Aug 5, 12:31 pm, "Rod Speed" gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin Aylward kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>> Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Which project?
>>>>> All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind
>>>> How do you know with seeing them?
>>>> Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?
>>> Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great inventor, child.
>>> Just a pathetic wanker, actually.
>>>> To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.
>>> Thats just plain wrong too.
>>>> Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.
>>> You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.
>>>> Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.
>>> Some do, plenty dont.
>>>> You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.
>>> You in spades above, child.
>>>> And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
>>>> the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.
>>> You in spades, child.
>>> Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.
>>>> Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.
>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>>> Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.
>>> Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.
>>>> "There are no bad ideas."
>
>>>> -- the Governator
>
>>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
>> I am stunned with this answer.
>
> Your problem.
>
>> Its trivially obvious that by most random variations (i.e. new ideas)
>
> New ideas are nothing like random variations.
>
>> are detrimental variations, noting the inherent Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
>> the brain actually uses.
>
> Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
>

Neural Darwinism, a large scale theory of brain function by Gerald
Edelman, was initially published in 1978, in a book called The Mindful
Brain (MIT Press). It was extended and published in the 1989 book
Neural Darwinism - The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection.

Edelman won the Nobel Prize in 1972 for his work in immunology showing
how the population of lymphocytes capable of binding to a foreign
antigen is increased by differential clonal multiplication following
antigen discovery. Essentially, this proved that the human body is
capable of creating complex adaptive systems as a result of local
events with feedback. Edelman’s interest in selective systems expanded
into the fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology, and in Neural
Darwinism, Edelman puts forth a theory called "neuronal group
selection". It contains three major parts:

1. Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during
development. This creates a diverse primary repertoire by differential
reproduction.

2. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second
selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience
through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic
connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary
repertoire by differential amplification.

3. Reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for
spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism
>> (http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html, see illusion of creativity bottom of page)
>
> Just more completely silly stuff along the same lines.
>

Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

To keep a reaction going according
to the law of mass action, there
must be a continuous supply of
energy and of selected matter
(molecules) and a continuous
process of elimination of
the reaction products.
- P. Mora
- http://tinyurl.com/px9j6

Trial and error (AKA: generate and test or guess and check) is a
method of problem solving for obtaining knowledge, both propositional
knowledge and know-how.

One selects (or generates) a possible answer, applies it to the
problem and, if it is not successful, selects (or generates) another
possibility that is subsequently tried. The process ends when a
possibility yields a solution.

In some versions of trial and error, the option that is a priori
viewed as the most likely one should be tried first, followed by the
next most likely, and so on until a solution is found, or all the
options are exhausted. In other versions, options are simply tried at
random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial-and-error

Use the Process of Elimination

Virtually all problems with PCs involve more than one component or
subsystem. The difficulty is usually in figuring out which component
is responsible for the problem.

Using the process of elimination
you can usually narrow the problem
down rather quickly by making small
logical changes and observing the
impact on the problem.

Your objective is to isolate the cause of the problem so you can
correct it.

The key is to make only one
change at a time and then see
if the problem goes away;

...if it does, then whatever you changed is likely responsible for the
problem (although it could be fixing the problem indirectly in some
cases.) If you make more than one change at a time, you cannot readily
discern which change was responsible for fixing the problem.

You will want to first check
the most probable sources of
the problem, and also the things
that are easiest to change.

[For example]: if you are having a problem with your disk drive being
recognized, it's a lot easier and cheaper to explore things like
double-checking jumpers and connections or replacing the interface
cable, than it is to try replacing the drive itself. That is something
you'd only do after you had eliminated all the other possibilities (or
if the evidence implicated the hard disk directly).

Here's a simple example. Let's suppose one morning your PC will not
turn on. You hit the switch and nothing happens. There could be many
different possible causes for this problem: the power to the house
could be out; there could be a malfunction in the wall socket; the
surge suppressor that the system is plugged into might have blown; the
electrical cord may be loose; the power supply could be damaged. To
figure out what is going on you need to eliminate these variables by
making small changes and seeing what happens. For example:

Change the wall socket you are using. If the PC now boots, you have
isolated the cause to the electrical wiring in the house.
If the problem persists, examine the surge suppressor. Change it, or
temporarily bypass it and plug the PC into the wall directly. If it
now works, the surge suppressor is the problem.

If the problem still isn't fixed, try changing the power cord.

If the problem persists still, you may then have to open up the box
and look at the power supply unit to see if it might need replacing.

Realize that the key here is making these changes one at a time. If
you approach this problem by changing the wall socket you use,
bypassing the surge suppressor, and changing the power cord all at
once, your problem may go away but how will you know what caused it?

http://www.pcguide.com/ts/gen/diagElimination-c.html

Football Manager logo competition shortlist is published – winner to
be found by process of elimination over the next 14 days. ...Visitors
to each of these sites will be asked to vote for their favourite logo,
with the least popular being eliminated as the days unfold.

http://forums.ic-games.co.uk/showthread.php?t=325
>> I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
>> example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors
>> he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.
>
> Irrelevant to how many inventions happened nothing like that. Most obviously with the Wright Bros and Parkes.
>
>> Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless.
>
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>> Its that simple really.
>
> Just because you proclaim that doesnt make it so.
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!