Qbasicnews.com

QBasic => QB Discussion & Programming Help => Topic started by: Ralph on February 11, 2007, 01:01:56 PM



Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 11, 2007, 01:01:56 PM
I think that it was about a year ago that, heeding the consul of Na_th_an from Spain, I started to look for what programs were running in the background, as one of them was strongly suggested was the culprit of my problem in running QuickBASIC programs with graphics (using any SCREEN  other than SCREEN 0, the default).  I was able to see which programs, out of a total of 27 that were shown in a window, had their checkbox checked or not checked, and, by a process of elimination, found that flatbed.exe was the culprit!

Now, I don't remember how I was able to bring that window up! :???:   Can anybody help me regain that knowledge?


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: marinedalek on February 12, 2007, 06:44:05 PM
Ctrl + Alt + Delete? (or right-click on taskbar and select Task Manager)


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 12, 2007, 10:48:04 PM
Please do NOT post any more replies to this thread!  Use the other, identical thread that is now preceded by SOLVED.

Marinedalek:
Thanks for your suggestion, but, no go.  I somehow posted this same thread twice, for which I apologize.  In the other thread, I changed the subject by entering SOLVED in front of it, and explaining that I had now found the answer I was looking for.  It is:
Click on Start, Run, enter msconfig, OK.  There, on the right-most tab, we find the programs that are running in the background, together with their checkboxes.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 12, 2007, 11:35:29 PM
Thank you for asking politely, Ralph. If you were demanding like some people, I would feel more inclined to reply to this thread. However, I will not because you asked nicely.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 12, 2007, 11:54:51 PM
Skyler:

Your reply let me to realize that I should change the Subject of my first post in this thread, which I have now done.  Hopefully, it will steer others to the other thread.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 13, 2007, 12:42:50 PM
Good. Now we can use this thread to discuss artificial intelligence.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 13, 2007, 01:11:59 PM
Hmm... O.K.  What about artificial intelligence?  Isaac Asimov, in his "The robots of Dawn", shows  that rogotic intelligence is based 100% on logic, and, therefore, can never emulate mankind's emotional-based rationality.  He also shows that, unless we can understand our own minds thorougly, we cannot design a "mind" similar to ours.  Many of the famous philosophers have concluded that we can never achieve full knowledge of our own minds, so, in their collective opinion, we cannot.  Of course, that is only their opinion, so, we may still be able to, in some future.  But, for the present, I think that, AI is stuck with logic only, as are all our computer programs.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 13, 2007, 04:13:44 PM
It would be simple to design an AI whose emotional state changed based on his surroundings, and his responses varied according to his emotional state. He could abruptly switch states for no apparent reason, or almost anything else.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 13, 2007, 04:35:32 PM
Yes, but, a human being can react to the same stimulus or stimuli in the same or in different manner, at different times.  If you build in a random factor into your AI, would it produce gibberish?  Humans are rational, logic is not.  In any case, a human can lie and, as time goes by, change, add, decrease, or, even, eliminate the lie.  How would you begin to explain how to do this with AI, such that it would make sense, that is, such that the results would remain rational?  Perhaps you could furnish an example, in words?


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 13, 2007, 07:50:41 PM
Quote from: "Ralph"
Humans are rational, logic is not.

Rationality is based on logic. My dictionary defines rational as follows:
Quote from: "Webster's New World Dictionary"

Rational: Of or based on reasoning.
Reason: To think logically (about); analyze.


As for lying, I wouldn't want an AI that would lie to me. Maybe at some point of its development, it would develop that ability, but I wouldn't program it to do that.

And yes, I want one that can grow and mature, possibly modifying its own programming.

For the AI to be able to recognize and eliminate false information, it would need a database of true information to draw from. Unless it's supposed to have a certain political slant, the database should be objectively compiled- just facts and not theories.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 13, 2007, 11:01:02 PM
Hmm...   I guess that even the Webster has lapses...

My "New Illustrated Webster's Dictionary of the English Language", 1992, with 1150 pages, has this to say:
 
Quote
rational: adj. 1 Possessing the faculty of reasoning.  2 Conformable to reason; judicious (more follow)

Quote
reason n. 1 That which is thought or alleged as the basis or ground for any opinion, determination, or action; something adduced or adapted to influence the mind in determining or acting; proof; argument; motive; principle. (others follow).  

From the second definition, I reach the conclusion that reason is not logic, but, rather, a thought or allegation; a convincing way of presenting an opinion; etc.
Anyway, you can see that arguments or "reasonings" can be swung this way or that.  I understand that Nitcshe (spelling?) wrote a volume, proving the existance of God.  Then, he wrote another volume, proving the non-existance of God.  Such is the way of "reasoning", I believe.

As for lying...  The AI would depend on the "facts" of its data base.  So, if the "facts" used for a given subject happen to be false, then the AI would report an untruth, which is sometimes called a lie.  Who is to say that a given "fact" is true?  The extremists all categorically state that their beliefs are true, even though the truth of two such may be mutually exclusive.  Even today, many "scientific facts" are disputed heatedly (reasoning, not logic, is used here).  Ahhh, "truth", the "facts", "reality", words that are used by rational people to prove opposite views!  Who is to be the judge?

Have fun, and a good day - or night.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 14, 2007, 09:42:10 AM
A lie is intentional misinformation. If the misinformation is not intentional, it's just incorrect. It's not lying.

Reasoning should be based on logic. Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean it has to conform to their standards.

And like I said, the database should have facts- not theories. For example, it would have fossils, but not the theory of evolution. Everybody has seen fossils, but nobody has seen dinosaurs evolving into birds.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 14, 2007, 12:44:36 PM
Quote
Skyler: A lie is intentional misinformation. If the misinformation is not intentional, it's just incorrect. It's not lying."
 My persoal opinion is that "A lie is an untruth that is intended to produce harm in others, or to produce gain to the issuer of the untruth, at the expense of others", which, I dare say, is almost the same as what you state. Except that I add the condition of "intended to produce harm...or gain...".  

However, back to Webster, that guy writes,
"lie: n. 1 An untruth; falsehood.  2 Anything that deceives or creates a false impression. " (others follow).  

So, Webster doesn't condition the untruth to subjective conditions (your "intentional", my "intended"), only to the condition of being true or not (and, who is to be the judge of "true"?).  I guess we both disagree with Mr. Webster, don't we?  As I like to paraphrase, "truth is in the mind of the beholder".
===============================================
Quote
Reasoning should be based on logic. Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean it has to conform to their standards.
Quote
 Well, we disagree, there.  I still hold that logic may be used in reasoning, but, it is not a necessary part of reasoning.  For example, if a person has used a reason to express an opinion, I would call that "reasoning"; but, it may be illogical to others.
===============================================
Quote
And like I said, the database should have facts- not theories. For example, it would have fossils, but not the theory of evolution. Everybody has seen fossils, but nobody has seen dinosaurs evolving into birds.
Ahh..., "facts".  The late Alfred Kosybski said it very well, in his statement, "Whatever one says something is, it is not."  By that statement, he was trying to demonstrate that, no matter how much we talk about something, we will never manage to say everything there is about that thing.  Consider that all our "facts" are called so by humans, that is, by subjective beings.  "Facts" are nothing more than what and how we perceive existence.  As Omar Kayam said (the quote is not accurate), "I have gone in and out of many places, heard many wise men talking about many things, yet no two of them agree totally on any one thing. How, then, can I be expected to know truth?"  Or something like that.  And on, and on, and on.
===============================================
In trying to form a rational explanation for things, I have read that, when two or more theories (read, "explanations") are validly applicable to the "facts", the simplest one is to be preferred.  Also called Occams (spelling?) Razor.  So, our scientific talk on "facts" is nothing more than our reasoned beliefs, of which more than one may be valid, but which we reject, in favor of the simplest.  Why not?

So, to end this search for the "truth", I state that "Every person has his own truth."  

But, my own best striving for peace declares, "Hey, guy, if that's what you believe (or think, or know), that must be the truth!"  

Peace to you, Skyler!


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 14, 2007, 04:09:37 PM
Okay, so I'll just give it information which I judge to be correct.

I wonder how a computer program would perceive its world?


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 14, 2007, 04:45:48 PM
Skyler:

The word "perceive" is reserved for "living" beings; a computer doesn't "perceive" its world, just follows the rules (computer program path, decision branches, loops, etc.), but doesn't feel or think or do any of the things that living beings experiment.  We are talking about two different subjects.  It is as though we would ask ourselves how a silver dime "feels" about being more valuble than a copper penny, while being smaller and thinner.  It's just not pertinent, at least, that's what I think most people would think.  But, then, we really cannot know IF the dime "feels", can we?  Philosopy, or reasoning, can take us to the strangest conclusions (truths?)!


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 14, 2007, 09:25:26 PM
That's the whole point of creating an AI- a program which is "living", or sentient.

After all, isn't everything following a certain set of rules? It's just that different things follow different sets of rules. Our job is to give the computer a set of rules as similar as possible to that followed by the human mind.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 14, 2007, 10:12:35 PM
You know, Skyler, you may be right!  Every body and every thing probably DO follow a "certain set of rules".  Then, when we can know and understand a particular set of rules for a particular item, as for a falling object in a gravitational field, we call those rules, laws, etc., and, when they are not, at least at present, known or understood, as in thinking, we call that sentiencientcy, or thought, etc.  After all, we have come a long way, since the very early days, in which every thing that happened was explained as being produced by a god.  Now, we hardly ever use that explanation any more.  So, I guess we can say that we have been on a true, more and more knowledge curve, so that we may even extrapolate knowing so much, that we can make a computer with a complexity approaching that of the human mind.  For the present, we are just starting on that path, with a computer available to almost anyone only some 25 years or so, just barely distinguisable from time zero!  So, I will join you in prognosticating great advances in AI as time passes and more is understood and done  on the subject.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 15, 2007, 12:06:11 AM
With today's processors, though, one would pretty much need a supercomputer to manage all those rules. I plan to build a Beowulf cluster in my basement, once I'm out of college and have a basement to build one in. That would hopefully be a good starting point, not to mention beneficial to my work with Blender!


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 15, 2007, 02:12:39 AM
Two questions:

1. What is a Beowulf duster?  
2. Who or what is Blender?  Me, I worked with Bechtel Corp., a large engineering firm that plans, designs, builds, manages, runs, and owns large engineering projects.  And that is a reduced explanation of who and what that compny is.  It started by helping to build Boulder Dam, then built the Golden Gate Bridge, and managed the construction of the Chunnel!


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 15, 2007, 08:10:10 AM
A Beowulf cluster is a bunch of computers networked together and programmed to split tasks between the processors to speed up big jobs. Also called parallel computing.

Blender 3d is a 3d modeling/animating program. Particle sims tend to take a while to render on my laptop.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 15, 2007, 12:05:54 PM
Blender 3-D?  Back in the late 80's, early 90's, Bechtel Corp. was developing an in-house 3-D program. It modeled large industrial buildings, allowing one to do a walk-through, as if a person was actually walking through the building.  One could turn the view, as if it were a person turning his head, in any direction, as well as "walk" in any direction.  Zooming-in was also possible.  The program was used to detect any space intrution of the various parts in the design, such as steam, water, air, electric, and other systems' piping, vessels, and trays.  Once, I recall, it was used to great advantage in plotting the movements to carry out in removing a large generator from a very congested building, in such a manner that no "bumps" would occur.  The virtual removal of the generator was recorded, then applied to the real task of removal, with 100% success!  This much I picked up, but I was not involved in any way with any part of that program, nor did I ever used it.  Stll, I remember how impressed I was!  May your program be equally useful and successful, Skyler.  I bet Bechtel could use your talents, too!


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 15, 2007, 12:50:54 PM
Maybe. That program sounds a lot like a video game. Is it available for download?


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 15, 2007, 12:54:49 PM
Available for downloading?  Are you kidding?  That program is a very valuble engineering tool.  It probably is available for lease, at $10,000 or so per year, I imagine, as many super engineering programs are.  Or, if you worked for Bechtel, in the appropriate department, you might just have access to its use, for specific instances.


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Skyler on February 15, 2007, 12:57:10 PM
Hmm... the IT department?


Title: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."
Post by: Ralph on February 15, 2007, 02:20:45 PM
The IT department, or the Project Engineering department would be a good start!