Re: yes!

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
>

It's just code.

>
Not any more it isn't.

>
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
>

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.
>

>
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.
>

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

>
Not that you've got much of either.
>

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.
>

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.

>
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.