Horowitz-Hill: Serious scholarly query

We recognize patterns instinctively. The great human skill is the freedom to recognize and order concepts and action-sequencial concepts the way simpler organisms recognize patterns. Once we develop concepts, we automotize them into sequences. They are no longer conscious. Probably happens while we sleep - concepts get encoded in RNA which affects how our neural nets switch, and deteremines what tracks our train of thought follows.

Jokes are metaphors that don't work. Creativity is employing metaphors that do work.

It shows what works and what doesn't. It is practical.

Chess playing is accounting. How few moves can you win in deteremines how good you are, not merely that you win or lose.

It's a hard choice to decide what to scan.

If a book is used a lot, then it is worth keeping in paper form. The seldom used ones are not worth the labour of scanning. Some are just too big (Petzold, and Horowitz & Hill).

I the end I just scanned the few I thought might be needed when out on a contract.

Maybe there isn't much demand for it because they are heavy reading and limited appeal. I'd have thought the Harry Potter books would be scanned and OCRd before the first day's takings were collected.

What the ????

Oh, it's you again.

What lovely imagery springs forth from your mind.

Please get it evaluated and serviced if necessary.

You're ranting again.

Please seek visit the doctors before they or the police have to visit you.

Philosophy is about whether your reason and mathematics is valid analysing the universe, whether truth is obtainable.

Science assumes systematic knowledge and the scientific method is valid. The STR axiom assumes truth and science are consistant and valid regarding motion. Philosophicaly, to deny truth and science is to deny the efficacy of your consciousness, which is either metaphysically given, or you are having an insane delusion =)

Anyways, the only reason humanity evolved reason is that it is valid in dealing with life and reality. If the laws of physics change tomorrow, we are all SOL =)

As opposed to being remembered as a neurotic comedian who married his daughter?

Oscar wilde suggested another way to be posthumously remembered.

"It is only by not paying one's bills that one can hope to live in the memory of the commercial classes"

Good, but for extra credit there should have been a typing mistake in it.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill wrote (in ) about 'Suggestions for AoE 3rd Ed.', on Thu, 23 Dec 2004:

You have to allow for it to be thrown at the wall (or the boss) when even its sage advice doesn't solve the problem. (;-)

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

And what method will the aristocracy employ to correct my deviant thought? Ice-pick lobotomy? Insulin shock? Shock treatment? Neuroleptic neurotoxins? Perhaps old-fashoioned torture the Soviet dissendent Bokovsky describe? Roll-ups? Beatings?

Perhaps you know a more effective "therapy" to make me conform?

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens wrote (in ) about 'Suggestions for AoE 3rd Ed.', on Fri, 24 Dec 2004:

The good news is that you live in a democracy, so you get to CHOOSE!

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

OK, everything is Darwinian because everything depends on something else existing before, so everything has evolved from something else, and some randomness is always involved.

Whoopee.

That helps me design electronics not at all.

John

Yes, but that is why "Invention" was in quotes. I was specifically distinguishing "true" invention from a derived work.

Of course they are. We only have Darwinian processes.

Of course they did, things always follow from prior structure. Does iron exist? Are not *all* products that use iron a variation from iron?

But this *is* and means that all inventions are still evolutionary. Its irrelevant whether there was prior art in the *same* field. All that matters is that something existed, irrespective of where, that had a randam component to it, selected and replicated. That's what evolution is. Maybe you misunderstand how much "varied" applies to. A random generator automatically includes random variation of *anything* already existing. If this means combining apples with silk stockings, so be it. Its totally general.

There is simply *nothing* that cant be included with the Darwinian axioms. We can even argue that there have been billions of big bangs, with the laws of physics undergoing a darwinian process until such laws allow us to exist.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

It is in the sense I am using the word. That's why its in quotes. dah...

In this context I am referring to both science and engineering being disciplines of objectivity. That is, their procedures can be systemised in a way that is difficult to do for say, art as in painting. Sure, one can use a bit of geometry in a painting, but for the most part, a painting is subjective.

As is engineering. What universe do you live in?

Neither is engineering, however, this is besides the point.

Your comment here is simply ludicrous. Engineering is about meeting objective specifications in a given time at the given cost.

This is in a different context. Sure at the *higher* level, there is no point in life. However, this discussion is at the down to earth street level, in which case we are dealing with our pretend purposes.

Of course its a "science". You clearly know f'all about engineering as its nothing about beauty.

No it isn't. A local maximising process is an objective measure. Either something is maximised, or it isn't. In contrast to say painting, where there are no objective measures for its "goodness".

Sure, but that's irrelevant.

But this educated guess *is* a result of strict algorithm in the brain.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Yes. Have you forgotten my papers already:-)

Genes and memes are essetially, equivelent. This is a bit subtle in the sense that many/most accounts describe genes incorrectly. Both genes and memes cant do anything on their own. A gene itself is essentially a passive piece of information, as is a meme. Genes can't self-replicate. Genes are part of DNA. It is the DNA that is the Replicator *machine*. Genes and memes are only Replicants.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Of course they are indepandant, and this is one of my "not debatable" claims. This is 101 relativity. What part of the standard and universally accepted axioms/postulates of special relativity:

1) All inertial frames are equivelent. 2) The speed of light is an invariant.

do you not understand?

If one was deducible from the other, there wouldn't be the two. Dah...

No it doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have SR at all. With all due respect, this means you don't understand what "behaves the same" actually means. Consider the sun emitting light. Now start moving toward the sun. Irrespective of the *observers* velocity travelling into the sun, why should the velocity of the light remain the same? This doesn't happen for particles or for wave motion. It is totally unexpected, and not deducible from the relativity postulate. Indeed, it is apparently in direct *contradiction* to the relative motion postulate. It states that there is an *absolute* velocity, i.e. all velocities are not relative.

So, one of the most significant ideas from SR is that *despite* the

*absolute* velocity of light, the relative motion principle can *still* be salvaged.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Ahh... I see what you mean. This was actually a crux for Einstein. He realised that the existing understanding of light meant that an absolute velocity could have been measured, hence violating the relativity principle.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward wrote (in ) about 'Horowitz-Hill: Serious scholarly query', on Fri, 24 Dec 2004:

Neither can viruses. But my point about memes being like viruses was a reference to the way they pass from one person to another in a quite different way from the way genes pass.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

The cruelest and most effective: they will ignore you.

John

If it dies look and smell like doggie doo, why go on to feel and taste it? Why not just step over it?

John

But this is *the* obvious de-facto difference between memes and genes, so hardly needs mentioning. Genes are physical, memes are virtual.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.