Group prayer on Skype on behalf of our Christian members

[The Grand Nudger]

I;ve got to get this out before I totally lose my moment......but...I want to build an 8 bit carry look ahead out of terra-cotta tinted pvc and check valves as part of a water feature here in my yard.

I have this long 45 degree hill to work with..and I don;t know why but I think it would be absolutely beautiful to build a simple processor out of all the flow lines, and use it instead of solenoids to manage the water for koi.

If i ever get off my lazy ass and do it, none of you will ever be able to stop me from posting 30 pictures of the thing a fuckin day.

-and now, we return to our regularly scheduled programming

[I_am_not_mafia]

-and now, we return to our regularly scheduled programming

No fuck that I want to get back to what you said earlier ...

I;ve got to get this out before I totally lose my moment......but...I want to build an 8 bit carry look ahead out of terra-cotta tinted pvc and check valves as part of a water feature here in my yard.

I have this long 45 degree hill to work with..and I don;t know why but I think it would be absolutely beautiful to build a simple processor out of all the flow lines, and use it instead of solenoids to manage the water for koi.

If i ever get off my lazy ass and do it, none of you will ever be able to stop me from posting 30 pictures of the thing a fuckin day.

See I want to do something similar with neural networks. I figured out that I could implement my local learning ANN as a garden water feature. Each neuron could be impemented by a water cistern that fills to the point where a gate flips over like the kind of garden features you get in Japanese gardens) with the water flowing through pipes of different widths to other layer of neurons. It would be a self organising system where water pressure corresponded to voltage. The attraction would be that being a physical system something like that could last for an indefinite period of time.

My problem has always been knowing what to use it for. Something like selecting the stream of water which caused the less disturbance. Would you want to minimise / maximise the flow of water for Koi?

So fucking cool we both have similar ideas.

Having now sold our house with a 45 degree overgrown hill for a garden in Germany having only ever lived there for 3 months, I am playing at creating a neural network with Geomags on my living room coffee table as a physical representation of an energy landscape.

[The Grand Nudger]

My problem has always been knowing what to use it for. Something like selecting the stream of water which caused the less disturbance. Would you want to minimise / maximise the flow of water for Koi?

Both..a variable problem!  You need to maximize the overall flow of water into and out of the main containment area to create a minimum exchange rate of a full containment volume of water an hour.  However, the rate of flow has to be split and reduced in order for sumping or baffling clarifiers to separate the solids and reduced further still to allow a liquidized biofilter to handle the ammonia load.  Then it has to be sped up again to offgas and create substantial dissolved oxygen by the time it returns to the containment.

-and that;s just the flow rate issue...the tiniest of all of the issues involved if you want monstrously large fish. None of the best numbers are set, they;re all based on the weight of the fish and the rate of feeding (and whatever effects both of those things have on other components in your system).

Your ann..could be used to seek out and then enforce a maximized water and feed management system while -being- part of the physical system, and changing as the requirements of the fish change. It would be a herculean lift, but you might be able to get it to do the thinking and the work for you, in response to the living elements of the system. If it were me, I;d shuffle off as much of that work as possible on other living elements, but that introduces a bunch of babysitting life in exchange for less work/calculation...and im sure you know how volatile and unpredictable that can be, lol.

(and if you do it, and if it works, and if you ever get the itch to patent anything,. I demand exclusive distributorship over your tech!, I will pay you handsomely, forever.... lol )

---

Now, if the flow gets too low, at any point, or the suspended solids get too high, the whole system goes anaerobic.  If it goes to fast, the fish choke on their own urine.  If the water is too warm then you will have to increase the rate of feeding..increasing the filtration load....but it it goes to cold the fish will cease to grow (and big koi can go months without eating).  This one you can play with for effect.  If there are too many small fish the ammonia will spike relative to their identical weight in large fish, and if there are too many large fish then the small fish will starve on account of not being able to steal grub from moby dick.  

-on and on the list of solvable problems goes......

[Huggy Bear]

Does a calculator solve problems by reasoning?

If you arrange them into interconnected patterns with inputs and outputs and have enough of them then yes.

I mean, there's loads of artificial reasoning programs on wikipedia that can range from mathematical inference and proof theorem solving to logical inference.

And guess what, they're all powered by a computer, which if you check wikipedia does calculations.

And of course what we call a calculator is generally made up of smaller calculating units (check wikipedia about computer architecture).

Not that I know why you are saying reasoning is the another word for doing maths.

Once again...


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reason

reason

2  The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically

Calculators can problem solve NOT reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving

Problem solving consists of using generic or ad hoc methods, in an orderly manner, to find solutions to problems. Some of the problem-solving techniques developed and used in artificial intelligence, computer science, engineering, mathematics, or medicine are related to mental problem-solving techniques studied in psychology.

*emphasis mine*

[Foxaèr]

From my experience, theists are quite like calculators.

[Amarok]

More like robots .

[I_am_not_mafia]

Calculators can problem solve NOT reason.

Well considering that you only seem to be using wikipedia and dictionaries and considering anything appearing in them as correct ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_reasoning

The study of automated reasoning helps produce computer programs that allow computers to reason completely, or nearly completely, automatically. Although automated reasoning is considered a sub-field of artificial intelligence, it also has connections with theoretical computer science, and even philosophy.

The most developed subareas of automated reasoning are automated theorem proving (and the less automated but more pragmatic subfield of interactive theorem proving) and automated proof checking (viewed as guaranteed correct reasoning under fixed assumptions). Extensive work has also been done in reasoning by analogy induction and abduction.

Other important topics include reasoning under uncertainty and non-monotonic reasoning

Oh but look what I found, a wikipedia page not making a distinction between problem solving and reasoning ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-based_reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems

It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science.

[Huggy Bear]

Calculators can problem solve NOT reason.

Well considering that you only seem to be using wikipedia and dictionaries and considering anything appearing in them as correct ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_reasoning

The study of automated reasoning helps produce computer programs that allow computers to reason completely, or nearly completely, automatically. Although automated reasoning is considered a sub-field of artificial intelligence, it also has connections with theoretical computer science, and even philosophy.

The most developed subareas of automated reasoning are automated theorem proving (and the less automated but more pragmatic subfield of interactive theorem proving) and automated proof checking (viewed as guaranteed correct reasoning under fixed assumptions). Extensive work has also been done in reasoning by analogy induction and abduction.

Other important topics include reasoning under uncertainty and non-monotonic reasoning

The simple fact that there is a qualifier in front of the word 'reasoning' should be a clue they aren't the same thing.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qualifier

qualifier
(grammar) A word or phrase, such as an adjective or adverb, that describes or characterizes another word or phrase, such as a noun or verb; a modifier; that adds or subtracts attributes to another.

*emphasis mine*

Therefore the term 'automated reasoning' is not the same as reasoning, or there would be no need for a qualifier.

Also from your wikki link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_reasoning

Automated reasoning has been most commonly used to build automated theorem provers. Oftentimes, however, theorem provers require some human guidance to be effective and so more generally qualify as proof assistants.

Oh but look what I found, a wikipedia page not making a distinction between problem solving and reasoning ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-based_reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems

It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science.

*emphasis mine*

Again with the qualifiers...

Also from your link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-based_reasoning

Critics of CBR (Case-based reasoning) argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle.

Humans have the ability to reason PERIOD. there is no need for a qualifier; if you have to add a qualifier then we aren't talking about the same thing.

If your ability to reason was only case-based then you'd have zero capacity for critical thought, because your conclusions would be formed by the results in other cases, and therefore you wouldn't be able to "think outside the box".

Got it?

[I_am_not_mafia]

OK so because it's automated reasoning then it's not reasoning because it's reasoning that is automated.

And when I post wikipedia links with "It has been argued that" it can be dismissed but when your wikipedia articles start with "normally considered to be" then it's OK.

Yep got it. You are applying different standards here, equivocating between general and specific laymen definitions and quote mining from wikipedia without understanding what it's talking about.

So business as usual for you.

To be honest I expected you to go down the route of arguing that computers are not calculators which would have been even funnier.

[Huggy Bear]

OK so because it's automated reasoning then it's not reasoning because it's reasoning that is automated.

And when I post wikipedia links with "It has been argued that" it can be dismissed but when your wikipedia articles start with "normally considered to be" then it's OK.

Yep got it. You are applying different standards here, equivocating between general and specific laymen definitions and quote mining from wikipedia without understanding what it's talking about.

So business as usual for you.

To be honest I expected you to go down the route of arguing that computers are not calculators which would have been even funnier.

*emphasis mine*

'Automated reasoning' is not the same as 'reasoning' because there is a basically a CAVEAT in front of reasoning... how do you not understand this? Is human reasoning defined as 'automated'?

You claimed that morality is a product of evolution, one cannot be moral without the ability to reason, because morality is the ability to distinguish right from wrong / good from evil; therefore if you claim that morality is a product of evolution, then you'd have to agree the reasoning is a product of evolution.

Would you consider 'automated reasoning' a product of evolution?

As far as "normally considered to be" vs "It has been argued that"

The earth is "normally considered to be" round but "It has been argued that" it is flat.

See the difference?

When it comes to animal morality and reason, you're in the "it has been argued that animals posses both of those qualities" group...