The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1 or
0 for the binary code.
Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.
So, suppose a computer could be designed with transistor switches that say
yes, no or maybe. Most of the transistors would be the standard variety that
just say yes or no so the binary code can work in most areas of the computer
the way that it does now.
However, to give the computer free will and imagination, in the calculating
part of the computer certain key positions in the circuits could have these
yes, no or maybe swithces. The computer would excercise free will and
imagination at those points.
The computer would be no longer just a calculator but something beyond that.
How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?
Well, possibilities could be:
If the switch is on, and you send it the signal to go off, then it either
goes off or stays on. Likewise if the switch is off and you send it the
signal to go on, it either goes on or stays off.
Another possibility is that the switch goes into a mode where it switches
back and forth from on to off, repeatedly.
These special maybe switches could also be set up so that they act like
regular on and off switches sometimes, and then sometimes they say maybe.
Perhaps a random signal generator could be used to help with the maybe
switch.
Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.
Now, a computer that thinks for itself, just like humans that think for
themselves, would probably sometimes make mistakes. However, the computer
that thinks for itself, having an imagination, might also see things
correctly in a totally new way, and this could be very beneficial because of
the large amounts of data that computers can handle in a short time.
It may also lead to terrible trouble with a rebellious computer that wants
to take over like Hal on the movie 2001 and collosus on the movie, Collosus
the forbin project.
Any comments:




__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Dear stone:

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
> How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?

+5v, 0v, -5v

....
> Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.

Analog computers exist. Computers use bytes that have 256
different distinct states. 254 of those states could be various
shades of "maybe".

> Any comments:

It won't help. Besides, will we make intelligent slaves?

David A. Smith

Dear stone:

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
> How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?

+5v, 0v, -5v

....
> Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.

Analog computers exist. Computers use bytes that have 256
different distinct states. 254 of those states could be various
shades of "maybe".

> Any comments:

It won't help. Besides, will we make intelligent slaves?

David A. Smith

Dear stone:

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
....
> How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?

+5v, 0v, -5v

....
> Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.

Analog computers exist. Computers use bytes that have 256
different distinct states. 254 of those states could be various
shades of "maybe".

> Any comments:

It won't help. Besides, will we make intelligent slaves?

David A. Smith

Hello

My silly friend said she had invented one and talked about it to a
psychiatrist in a psychiatric gulag this got her certified insane and now
her brains destroyed she just sits and smiles with a puzzled look on her
face and mum is just the same, and I came back from the dead to tell
everyone what is like to have your brain cut off. Never venture anywere
near a psychiatric gulag, you will not venture forth again. Those silly
doctors say invention is impossible well in reality everything we use is
someones inventions (but not mine or yours or even his), you will not find
any inventors because they are all sitting naked staring blankly in those
homes for the demented. And I've been there and seen it!

Did you know my silly friend's invention is earning 2 million pounds a week,
its called a supercomputer, but of course it is not HER invention, like
everything else, it was that Swede over there, I've forgotten his name. They
wanted her money she was expended. Its the vested interests of psychiatry.
"Its my own invention..." Sorry I forgot it.... What was it again?

I think I lost my CI somewhere and replaced it with a B.Sc.. It is only for
28 days and it comes through the post, the CI that is, I still have my
B.Sc.. At least it was there in the draw last time I looked. It might have
well been not earned because of psychiatry? Whats wrong with everybody?
Why has averyone gone like this. I did not know the world had sides!

Chris.

Hello

My silly friend said she had invented one and talked about it to a
psychiatrist in a psychiatric gulag this got her certified insane and now
her brains destroyed she just sits and smiles with a puzzled look on her
face and mum is just the same, and I came back from the dead to tell
everyone what is like to have your brain cut off. Never venture anywere
near a psychiatric gulag, you will not venture forth again. Those silly
doctors say invention is impossible well in reality everything we use is
someones inventions (but not mine or yours or even his), you will not find
any inventors because they are all sitting naked staring blankly in those
homes for the demented. And I've been there and seen it!

Did you know my silly friend's invention is earning 2 million pounds a week,
its called a supercomputer, but of course it is not HER invention, like
everything else, it was that Swede over there, I've forgotten his name. They
wanted her money she was expended. Its the vested interests of psychiatry.
"Its my own invention..." Sorry I forgot it.... What was it again?

I think I lost my CI somewhere and replaced it with a B.Sc.. It is only for
28 days and it comes through the post, the CI that is, I still have my
B.Sc.. At least it was there in the draw last time I looked. It might have
well been not earned because of psychiatry? Whats wrong with everybody?
Why has averyone gone like this. I did not know the world had sides!

Chris.

Hello

My silly friend said she had invented one and talked about it to a
psychiatrist in a psychiatric gulag this got her certified insane and now
her brains destroyed she just sits and smiles with a puzzled look on her
face and mum is just the same, and I came back from the dead to tell
everyone what is like to have your brain cut off. Never venture anywere
near a psychiatric gulag, you will not venture forth again. Those silly
doctors say invention is impossible well in reality everything we use is
someones inventions (but not mine or yours or even his), you will not find
any inventors because they are all sitting naked staring blankly in those
homes for the demented. And I've been there and seen it!

Did you know my silly friend's invention is earning 2 million pounds a week,
its called a supercomputer, but of course it is not HER invention, like
everything else, it was that Swede over there, I've forgotten his name. They
wanted her money she was expended. Its the vested interests of psychiatry.
"Its my own invention..." Sorry I forgot it.... What was it again?

I think I lost my CI somewhere and replaced it with a B.Sc.. It is only for
28 days and it comes through the post, the CI that is, I still have my
B.Sc.. At least it was there in the draw last time I looked. It might have
well been not earned because of psychiatry? Whats wrong with everybody?
Why has averyone gone like this. I did not know the world had sides!

Chris.

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
> positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the

you obviously are too young to have experience with analog computers. these
pre-date digital ones by quite a bit, but i never heard of one having free
will, though the error bar could be pretty big at times. and tri-state
logic is not all that unusual, though limited to special uses. fuzzy logic,
neural networks, and many other computational decision making systems are
not based on binary logic either.

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
> positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the

you obviously are too young to have experience with analog computers. these
pre-date digital ones by quite a bit, but i never heard of one having free
will, though the error bar could be pretty big at times. and tri-state
logic is not all that unusual, though limited to special uses. fuzzy logic,
neural networks, and many other computational decision making systems are
not based on binary logic either.

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
> positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the

you obviously are too young to have experience with analog computers. these
pre-date digital ones by quite a bit, but i never heard of one having free
will, though the error bar could be pretty big at times. and tri-state
logic is not all that unusual, though limited to special uses. fuzzy logic,
neural networks, and many other computational decision making systems are
not based on binary logic either.

More ideas about this at the bottom of the original post:

stone wrote in message <43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com>...
>The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
>positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
>small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
>not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
>transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1
or
>0 for the binary code.
>Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
>to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
>thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.
>So, suppose a computer could be designed with transistor switches that say
>yes, no or maybe. Most of the transistors would be the standard variety
that
>just say yes or no so the binary code can work in most areas of the
computer
>the way that it does now.
>However, to give the computer free will and imagination, in the calculating
>part of the computer certain key positions in the circuits could have these
>yes, no or maybe swithces. The computer would excercise free will and
>imagination at those points.
>The computer would be no longer just a calculator but something beyond
that.
>How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?
>Well, possibilities could be:
>If the switch is on, and you send it the signal to go off, then it either
>goes off or stays on. Likewise if the switch is off and you send it the
>signal to go on, it either goes on or stays off.
>Another possibility is that the switch goes into a mode where it switches
>back and forth from on to off, repeatedly.
>These special maybe switches could also be set up so that they act like
>regular on and off switches sometimes, and then sometimes they say maybe.
>Perhaps a random signal generator could be used to help with the maybe
>switch.
>Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.
>Now, a computer that thinks for itself, just like humans that think for
>themselves, would probably sometimes make mistakes. However, the computer
>that thinks for itself, having an imagination, might also see things
>correctly in a totally new way, and this could be very beneficial because
of
>the large amounts of data that computers can handle in a short time.
>It may also lead to terrible trouble with a rebellious computer that wants
>to take over like Hal on the movie 2001 and collosus on the movie, Collosus
>the forbin project.
>Any comments:

I posted this on other forums and had replies and I responded to them; here
are some more ideas about this:

What I was talking about does not have a null position. It only has two
positions, yes or no. The maybe comes in the way that it switches.
If it is on, and you send it a signal to change to off, it will either stay
on or go off. If it is off, and you send it a signal to change to on, it
will either stay off or go on.
You can design a transistor switch like this by having a stubborn transistor
that is harder to change than the others. It is just stubborn enough that it
can either ignore a signal to change or accept it; finely balanced to go
either way. Stray magnetic or electric fields in the functioning of the
computer could cause it to change in random ways.
The computer itself would be determining whether it stays on or stays off,
or whether it will change to another position. This is like the computer is
having free will or imagination.



Any comments:

Replies:
You might be interested in looking up "Fuzzy Logic", which is a sort of a
'maybe' for computers.


I think this would just result in an unreliable peice of hardware. But I
could be wrong.


First of all... that wouldnt give computers free will.

Second of all, there are ways of making a conventional transistor with 3
states, or a biological transistor with upwards of 40 (47 IIRC) different
states.


I am talking about several or a few transistors in some chips, in key points
on the calculating circuitry. I am talking about random, whether they switch
on or off, when signalled to do so. This causes unexpected calculating or if
you want to see it another way, imagination. The rest of the circuitry uses
the regular transistors, and does regular calculating. [If successful then
increase the number of maybe chips.]
An Example: Looking at something through different colored filters (or in
different wave lengths of light) can illuminate things not noticed before.
Similarly, this imagination in the computer's calculating ability could see
something in a different way. Sometimes making mistakes, like people do, and
sometimes being correct. The times that are correct could be quite
interesting and beneficial because the computer can handle very large
amounts of data in a short time.


If for example you set a transistor switch to be random, that means
probability of 50% of the time it will switch when signalled to do so and
50% of the time it won't switch, then you set it to perform randomly.
Suppose the computer, which has patterns of electric and magnetic fields in
it, will cause the switch to switch when it is signalled 70% of the time. Or
to switch 70% on and 30% off. That would mean that the computer has made a
decision as to how it is going to switch. It would not be random after the
computer used it. You could call that a primitive form of free will or
imagination.
These maybe transistors could be placed in places where they affect whole
branches of circuitry, when they switch or don't switch. This would affect
whole sections of calculating. That could be interesting. They would sort of
act like macros do.

Perhaps macros in the software could provide a feedback process, for
analysis and revision.

A random function would involve, perhaps, thousands of transistors, all
saying yes or no. A random transistor would represent randomness on an
entirely different scale. It would be removed from a random function by a
scale thousands of times different.
comparison example: Sort of like using cosmetic surgery to make someone look
younger, when each individual cell of the body is old.

Macro definition:
1) In Microsoft Word and other programs, a macro is a saved sequence of
commands or keyboard strokes that can be stored and then recalled with a
single command or keyboard stroke.
2) In computers, a macro (for "large"; the opposite of "micro") is any
programming or user interface that, when used, expands into something
larger. The original use for "macro" or "macro definition" was in computer
assembler language before higher-level, easier-to-code languages became more
common. In assembler language, a macro definition defines how to expand a
single language statement or computer instruction into a number of
instructions. The macro statement contains the name of the macro definition
and usually some variable parameter information. Macros were (and are)
useful especially when a sequence of instructions is used a number of times
(and possibly by different programmers working on a project). Some
pre-compilers also use the macro concept. In general, however, in
higher-level languages, any language statement is about as easy to write as
an assembler macro statement.

Assembler macros generate instructions inline with the rest of a program.
More elaborate sequences of instructions that are used frequently by more
than one program or programmer are encoded in subroutines that can be
branched to from or assembled into a program.


Real randomness in a switch must be 50% one way and 50% the other way.
Randomness in a computer program would just be randomness, and could not be
free will. Randomness in a transistor, that is set to either switch or not
switch, could be affected by something as small as a magnetic or electric
field variation hitting it, to determine how it will switch or not switch.
The make up of the computer [or the running of a different program] could
cause the small silicon transistor to switch 70% on and 30% off, in which
case it is no longer random and the computer has decided for itself which
way it is going to switch. - primitive form of free will
Real randomness must maintain 50% one way and 50% the other.
A random computer program, no matter what language you use in the software
will always be random, and could never be influenced by the computer. A
random transistor could be, because it is so small and easily influenced by
small magnetic fields, if it is set to go one way or the other.

A reply to original:
Transistors do not switch by heat, they switch by either current or voltage,
they are either current mode switches or field effect switches.
Transistors used in computers are switched; however, this is but one use of
xsistors. The other use is in linear operating regions, to wit: amplifiers
and such.
Before going into hardware to develop a 'thinking' puter, study some
artificial intelligence and some control systems. In ai, we can approximate
some types of thought or deduction, but if the inputs are not controlled
properly, the thing will go insane. The best way of dealing with this is
with 'fuzzy logic', which is capable of wider ranges of decision making.
A bigger problem is that the human mind receives and processes far more
information than is possible to do with computers of any known type. We
operate in a linear range rather than a digital range. In order for a
digital puter to operate in the linear, there must be converters to make the
analog into a digital number for the puter to crunch. A-D converters consume
time, even with DSP puters, and insert certain inherent inaccuracies, which
must be dealt with, consuming even more time or increasing hardware, which
will also increase time.
All we can do is simulate.
Let's take a for instance: how about the fly that is hovering out of the sun
under your back porch roof. That fly, to hover, must compensate for breezes,
thermals, visual objects moving around it, and so on. Further, since he is
likely hunting for his next meal, he's got to keep his eyes on those things
that might be, as well as the smells and humidity, directional location, and
so on. He also needs to keep his senses alert for danger in his vicinity.
All of these things are handled concurrently, and we have no computers
available to us that would even approach such activity.
Yes, we have concurrent execution; however, that multitasking that is so
highly regarded is still, in fact, multitasking in sequence. A standard
computer cannot do two programs at the same time. Such things as DSPs can do
some concurrent execution, A-D conversion, and so on at the same time (which
makes them fast), and usually have an architecture such that instruction
execution occurs in one or two clock cycles, possibly more, depending on the
instruction. As an example, a good DSP will be able to construct a passable
60 Hz sine wave (as in puter backup power), but only if there are hardware
filters available. If the DSP is given series of faults, it will not cope,
some will get by, or it won't correct all the faults. A fault might be such
as a switched load (turning on a light attached, for instance). But the
compensation will be limited, however acceptable. Just an example of what a
fast dedicated computer will and will not do. Making a fly is very
difficult.
Imagination is simply not possible for a machine whose basis for calculation
is simple binary/trinary operation. Also is virtually impossible for a
linear machine, since the basic input must come from somewhere.
Interesting idea, though. Don't stop thinking.

My reply:
Everything you said in this post may be true for an ordinary computer, with
yes or no transistors. An ordinary computer is just a very complicated
calculator.
Giving a computer transistors that are set to go one way or the other, which
can say maybe, and not just yes and no, gives the computer circuitry itself,
the decision as to what way the switch will change. [Any functioning
computer should have many stray, small magnetic or electric fields that
would determine what way the switch goes, if the switch is set to be
balanced to either go one way or the other.] That would mean the computer is
deciding how the switch will change, to either yes or no; -- this could be a
primitive form of imagination or free will on the computer's part.
There may be many things possible with a computer having yes, no or maybe
transistor switches, which are not possible with ordinary computers having
only yes or no switches.
I agree with you that imagination is not possible for a calculator.
Giving the computer the ability to determine which way switches will go by
its own functioning, means it has become something else (in certain
circuits) different from just a calculator.


Another reply:
Try looking up TTL(transistor-transitor logic), fuzzy logic, "float", etc.
"float" is the third state, like what you're describing, and it's not
exactly an ideal state.


My reply to one post:
What I was talking about does not have a null position. It only has two
positions, yes or no. The maybe comes in the way that it switches.
If it is on, and you send it a signal to change to off, it will either stay
on or go off. If it is off, and you send it a signal to change to on, it
will either stay off or go on.
You can design a transistor switch like this by having a stubborn transistor
that is harder to change than the others. It is just stubborn enough that it
can either ignore a signal to change or accept it; finely balanced to go
either way. Stray magnetic or electric fields in the functioning of the
computer could cause it to change in definite ways.
The computer itself would be determining whether it stays on or stays off,
or whether it will change to another position. This is like the computer is
having a primitive form of free will or imagination.
This maybe transistor is giving the computer the option to close or open the
switch. The free will is in that option.
Ordinary transistor switches act according to how they are programmed and
the computer don't have the option to determine if they open or close.












__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

More ideas about this at the bottom of the original post:

stone wrote in message <43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com>...
>The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
>positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
>small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
>not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
>transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1
or
>0 for the binary code.
>Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
>to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
>thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.
>So, suppose a computer could be designed with transistor switches that say
>yes, no or maybe. Most of the transistors would be the standard variety
that
>just say yes or no so the binary code can work in most areas of the
computer
>the way that it does now.
>However, to give the computer free will and imagination, in the calculating
>part of the computer certain key positions in the circuits could have these
>yes, no or maybe swithces. The computer would excercise free will and
>imagination at those points.
>The computer would be no longer just a calculator but something beyond
that.
>How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?
>Well, possibilities could be:
>If the switch is on, and you send it the signal to go off, then it either
>goes off or stays on. Likewise if the switch is off and you send it the
>signal to go on, it either goes on or stays off.
>Another possibility is that the switch goes into a mode where it switches
>back and forth from on to off, repeatedly.
>These special maybe switches could also be set up so that they act like
>regular on and off switches sometimes, and then sometimes they say maybe.
>Perhaps a random signal generator could be used to help with the maybe
>switch.
>Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.
>Now, a computer that thinks for itself, just like humans that think for
>themselves, would probably sometimes make mistakes. However, the computer
>that thinks for itself, having an imagination, might also see things
>correctly in a totally new way, and this could be very beneficial because
of
>the large amounts of data that computers can handle in a short time.
>It may also lead to terrible trouble with a rebellious computer that wants
>to take over like Hal on the movie 2001 and collosus on the movie, Collosus
>the forbin project.
>Any comments:

I posted this on other forums and had replies and I responded to them; here
are some more ideas about this:

What I was talking about does not have a null position. It only has two
positions, yes or no. The maybe comes in the way that it switches.
If it is on, and you send it a signal to change to off, it will either stay
on or go off. If it is off, and you send it a signal to change to on, it
will either stay off or go on.
You can design a transistor switch like this by having a stubborn transistor
that is harder to change than the others. It is just stubborn enough that it
can either ignore a signal to change or accept it; finely balanced to go
either way. Stray magnetic or electric fields in the functioning of the
computer could cause it to change in random ways.
The computer itself would be determining whether it stays on or stays off,
or whether it will change to another position. This is like the computer is
having free will or imagination.



Any comments:

Replies:
You might be interested in looking up "Fuzzy Logic", which is a sort of a
'maybe' for computers.


I think this would just result in an unreliable peice of hardware. But I
could be wrong.


First of all... that wouldnt give computers free will.

Second of all, there are ways of making a conventional transistor with 3
states, or a biological transistor with upwards of 40 (47 IIRC) different
states.


I am talking about several or a few transistors in some chips, in key points
on the calculating circuitry. I am talking about random, whether they switch
on or off, when signalled to do so. This causes unexpected calculating or if
you want to see it another way, imagination. The rest of the circuitry uses
the regular transistors, and does regular calculating. [If successful then
increase the number of maybe chips.]
An Example: Looking at something through different colored filters (or in
different wave lengths of light) can illuminate things not noticed before.
Similarly, this imagination in the computer's calculating ability could see
something in a different way. Sometimes making mistakes, like people do, and
sometimes being correct. The times that are correct could be quite
interesting and beneficial because the computer can handle very large
amounts of data in a short time.


If for example you set a transistor switch to be random, that means
probability of 50% of the time it will switch when signalled to do so and
50% of the time it won't switch, then you set it to perform randomly.
Suppose the computer, which has patterns of electric and magnetic fields in
it, will cause the switch to switch when it is signalled 70% of the time. Or
to switch 70% on and 30% off. That would mean that the computer has made a
decision as to how it is going to switch. It would not be random after the
computer used it. You could call that a primitive form of free will or
imagination.
These maybe transistors could be placed in places where they affect whole
branches of circuitry, when they switch or don't switch. This would affect
whole sections of calculating. That could be interesting. They would sort of
act like macros do.

Perhaps macros in the software could provide a feedback process, for
analysis and revision.

A random function would involve, perhaps, thousands of transistors, all
saying yes or no. A random transistor would represent randomness on an
entirely different scale. It would be removed from a random function by a
scale thousands of times different.
comparison example: Sort of like using cosmetic surgery to make someone look
younger, when each individual cell of the body is old.

Macro definition:
1) In Microsoft Word and other programs, a macro is a saved sequence of
commands or keyboard strokes that can be stored and then recalled with a
single command or keyboard stroke.
2) In computers, a macro (for "large"; the opposite of "micro") is any
programming or user interface that, when used, expands into something
larger. The original use for "macro" or "macro definition" was in computer
assembler language before higher-level, easier-to-code languages became more
common. In assembler language, a macro definition defines how to expand a
single language statement or computer instruction into a number of
instructions. The macro statement contains the name of the macro definition
and usually some variable parameter information. Macros were (and are)
useful especially when a sequence of instructions is used a number of times
(and possibly by different programmers working on a project). Some
pre-compilers also use the macro concept. In general, however, in
higher-level languages, any language statement is about as easy to write as
an assembler macro statement.

Assembler macros generate instructions inline with the rest of a program.
More elaborate sequences of instructions that are used frequently by more
than one program or programmer are encoded in subroutines that can be
branched to from or assembled into a program.


Real randomness in a switch must be 50% one way and 50% the other way.
Randomness in a computer program would just be randomness, and could not be
free will. Randomness in a transistor, that is set to either switch or not
switch, could be affected by something as small as a magnetic or electric
field variation hitting it, to determine how it will switch or not switch.
The make up of the computer [or the running of a different program] could
cause the small silicon transistor to switch 70% on and 30% off, in which
case it is no longer random and the computer has decided for itself which
way it is going to switch. - primitive form of free will
Real randomness must maintain 50% one way and 50% the other.
A random computer program, no matter what language you use in the software
will always be random, and could never be influenced by the computer. A
random transistor could be, because it is so small and easily influenced by
small magnetic fields, if it is set to go one way or the other.

A reply to original:
Transistors do not switch by heat, they switch by either current or voltage,
they are either current mode switches or field effect switches.
Transistors used in computers are switched; however, this is but one use of
xsistors. The other use is in linear operating regions, to wit: amplifiers
and such.
Before going into hardware to develop a 'thinking' puter, study some
artificial intelligence and some control systems. In ai, we can approximate
some types of thought or deduction, but if the inputs are not controlled
properly, the thing will go insane. The best way of dealing with this is
with 'fuzzy logic', which is capable of wider ranges of decision making.
A bigger problem is that the human mind receives and processes far more
information than is possible to do with computers of any known type. We
operate in a linear range rather than a digital range. In order for a
digital puter to operate in the linear, there must be converters to make the
analog into a digital number for the puter to crunch. A-D converters consume
time, even with DSP puters, and insert certain inherent inaccuracies, which
must be dealt with, consuming even more time or increasing hardware, which
will also increase time.
All we can do is simulate.
Let's take a for instance: how about the fly that is hovering out of the sun
under your back porch roof. That fly, to hover, must compensate for breezes,
thermals, visual objects moving around it, and so on. Further, since he is
likely hunting for his next meal, he's got to keep his eyes on those things
that might be, as well as the smells and humidity, directional location, and
so on. He also needs to keep his senses alert for danger in his vicinity.
All of these things are handled concurrently, and we have no computers
available to us that would even approach such activity.
Yes, we have concurrent execution; however, that multitasking that is so
highly regarded is still, in fact, multitasking in sequence. A standard
computer cannot do two programs at the same time. Such things as DSPs can do
some concurrent execution, A-D conversion, and so on at the same time (which
makes them fast), and usually have an architecture such that instruction
execution occurs in one or two clock cycles, possibly more, depending on the
instruction. As an example, a good DSP will be able to construct a passable
60 Hz sine wave (as in puter backup power), but only if there are hardware
filters available. If the DSP is given series of faults, it will not cope,
some will get by, or it won't correct all the faults. A fault might be such
as a switched load (turning on a light attached, for instance). But the
compensation will be limited, however acceptable. Just an example of what a
fast dedicated computer will and will not do. Making a fly is very
difficult.
Imagination is simply not possible for a machine whose basis for calculation
is simple binary/trinary operation. Also is virtually impossible for a
linear machine, since the basic input must come from somewhere.
Interesting idea, though. Don't stop thinking.

My reply:
Everything you said in this post may be true for an ordinary computer, with
yes or no transistors. An ordinary computer is just a very complicated
calculator.
Giving a computer transistors that are set to go one way or the other, which
can say maybe, and not just yes and no, gives the computer circuitry itself,
the decision as to what way the switch will change. [Any functioning
computer should have many stray, small magnetic or electric fields that
would determine what way the switch goes, if the switch is set to be
balanced to either go one way or the other.] That would mean the computer is
deciding how the switch will change, to either yes or no; -- this could be a
primitive form of imagination or free will on the computer's part.
There may be many things possible with a computer having yes, no or maybe
transistor switches, which are not possible with ordinary computers having
only yes or no switches.
I agree with you that imagination is not possible for a calculator.
Giving the computer the ability to determine which way switches will go by
its own functioning, means it has become something else (in certain
circuits) different from just a calculator.


Another reply:
Try looking up TTL(transistor-transitor logic), fuzzy logic, "float", etc.
"float" is the third state, like what you're describing, and it's not
exactly an ideal state.


My reply to one post:
What I was talking about does not have a null position. It only has two
positions, yes or no. The maybe comes in the way that it switches.
If it is on, and you send it a signal to change to off, it will either stay
on or go off. If it is off, and you send it a signal to change to on, it
will either stay off or go on.
You can design a transistor switch like this by having a stubborn transistor
that is harder to change than the others. It is just stubborn enough that it
can either ignore a signal to change or accept it; finely balanced to go
either way. Stray magnetic or electric fields in the functioning of the
computer could cause it to change in definite ways.
The computer itself would be determining whether it stays on or stays off,
or whether it will change to another position. This is like the computer is
having a primitive form of free will or imagination.
This maybe transistor is giving the computer the option to close or open the
switch. The free will is in that option.
Ordinary transistor switches act according to how they are programmed and
the computer don't have the option to determine if they open or close.












__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

stone wrote:
> The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
> positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
> small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
> not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
> transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1 or
> 0 for the binary code.
> Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
> to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
> thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.

This sounds like the fallacy of composition. Why not simply represent
more states with combinations of multiple bits?


-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com

stone wrote:
> The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
> positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
> small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
> not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
> transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1 or
> 0 for the binary code.
> Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
> to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
> thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.

This sounds like the fallacy of composition. Why not simply represent
more states with combinations of multiple bits?


-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com

More ideas about this at the bottom of the original post:

stone wrote in message <43d44eb2_6@news1.uncensored-news.com>...
>The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
>positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
>small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
>not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
>transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1
or
>0 for the binary code.
>Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
>to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
>thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.
>So, suppose a computer could be designed with transistor switches that say
>yes, no or maybe. Most of the transistors would be the standard variety
that
>just say yes or no so the binary code can work in most areas of the
computer
>the way that it does now.
>However, to give the computer free will and imagination, in the calculating
>part of the computer certain key positions in the circuits could have these
>yes, no or maybe swithces. The computer would excercise free will and
>imagination at those points.
>The computer would be no longer just a calculator but something beyond
that.
>How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?
>Well, possibilities could be:
>If the switch is on, and you send it the signal to go off, then it either
>goes off or stays on. Likewise if the switch is off and you send it the
>signal to go on, it either goes on or stays off.
>Another possibility is that the switch goes into a mode where it switches
>back and forth from on to off, repeatedly.
>These special maybe switches could also be set up so that they act like
>regular on and off switches sometimes, and then sometimes they say maybe.
>Perhaps a random signal generator could be used to help with the maybe
>switch.
>Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.
>Now, a computer that thinks for itself, just like humans that think for
>themselves, would probably sometimes make mistakes. However, the computer
>that thinks for itself, having an imagination, might also see things
>correctly in a totally new way, and this could be very beneficial because
of
>the large amounts of data that computers can handle in a short time.
>It may also lead to terrible trouble with a rebellious computer that wants
>to take over like Hal on the movie 2001 and collosus on the movie, Collosus
>the forbin project.
>Any comments:

I posted this on other forums and had replies and I responded to them; here
are some more ideas about this:

What I was talking about does not have a null position. It only has two
positions, yes or no. The maybe comes in the way that it switches.
If it is on, and you send it a signal to change to off, it will either stay
on or go off. If it is off, and you send it a signal to change to on, it
will either stay off or go on.
You can design a transistor switch like this by having a stubborn transistor
that is harder to change than the others. It is just stubborn enough that it
can either ignore a signal to change or accept it; finely balanced to go
either way. Stray magnetic or electric fields in the functioning of the
computer could cause it to change in random ways.
The computer itself would be determining whether it stays on or stays off,
or whether it will change to another position. This is like the computer is
having free will or imagination.



Any comments:

Replies:
You might be interested in looking up "Fuzzy Logic", which is a sort of a
'maybe' for computers.


I think this would just result in an unreliable peice of hardware. But I
could be wrong.


First of all... that wouldnt give computers free will.

Second of all, there are ways of making a conventional transistor with 3
states, or a biological transistor with upwards of 40 (47 IIRC) different
states.


I am talking about several or a few transistors in some chips, in key points
on the calculating circuitry. I am talking about random, whether they switch
on or off, when signalled to do so. This causes unexpected calculating