Qbasicnews.com
November 13, 2019, 09:53:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."  (Read 6660 times)
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« 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! :Huh:   Can anybody help me regain that knowledge?
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
marinedalek
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 123


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2007, 06:44:05 PM »

Ctrl + Alt + Delete? (or right-click on taskbar and select Task Manager)
Logged

8% of the teenage population smokes or has smoked pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy and paste this in your signature.
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #2 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.
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #3 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.
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #4 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.
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2007, 12:42:50 PM »

Good. Now we can use this thread to discuss artificial intelligence.
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #6 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.
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #7 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.
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #8 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?
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #9 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.
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #10 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.
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #11 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.
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #12 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!
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Skyler
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 564



« Reply #13 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?
Logged

In the beginning, there is darkness the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Ralph
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 544


« Reply #14 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?)!
Logged

Ralph, using QuickBASIC 4.5 and Windows XP Home Edition and Service Pack 2, with HP LaserJet 4L printer.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!