prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did KSTP switch to a sports radio format?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: KSTP (1500 AM; SKOR North) is a commercial AM radio station licensed to Saint Paul, Minnesota  It is the flagship AM radio station of Hubbard Broadcasting, which also owns several other television and radio stations across the United States   KSTP has a sports radio format and is the ESPN Radio Network affiliate for Minneapolis-St  Paul   The radio studios are  on University Avenue in Minneapolis, shared with sister stations KSTP-FM, KSTP-TV, KTMY, and KSTC-TV  On weekdays, KSTP airs local sports shows from 9 a m  to 9 p m  and carries ESPN programming weekday mornings, late nights and weekends  Some KSTP shows are simulcast on other sports radio stations in the region 

KSTP runs the maximum power for AM stations, 50,000 watts   It shares clear-channel, Class A status on 1500 AM with WFED in Washington, D C   KSTP broadcasts a directional signal at night, using a three-tower array, with its transmitter on U S  Route 61 at Beam Avenue in Maplewood   Programming is also heard on 250 watt FM translator K235BP at 94 9 MHz in Bemidji 

History

WAMD and KFOY
KSTP's start in 1928 was the product of a merger between two pioneering Twin Cities stations: WAMD ("Where All Minneapolis Dances") in Minneapolis, first licensed on February 16, 1925 to Stanley E  Hubbard, and KFOY in St  Paul, first licensed on March 12, 1924 to the Beacon Radio Service in St  Paul 

Following a few test transmissions, WAMD made its formal debut broadcast on February 22, 1925  (In later interviews Stanley Hubbard traced WAMD's start to April 1924 ) It was located at the Marigold Dance Garden, and featured nightly "Midnight Frolics" broadcasts by the ballroom's orchestra  It is claimed that WAMD was the first radio station to be completely supported by running paid advertisements  Effective June 15, 1927, WAMD was assigned to 1330 kHz 

On November 11, 1927 WAMD's transmitter site at Oxboro Heath on Lyndale Avenue South burned down, two weeks after the station had been sold to the National Battery Company  An initial arrangement was made to carry WAMD's programs over WRHM (now WWTC), transmitting on WAMD's 1330 kHz frequency  Beginning on November 24, 1927 the WAMD broadcasts, still on 1330 kHz, were shifted to KFOY's facility in St  Paul  (At this time KFOY was assigned to 1050 kHz)  The next day it was announced that National Battery had purchased KFOY, and as of December 1, 1927 both KFOY and WAMD were reassigned to 1350 kHz  WAMD continued making regular broadcasts until the end of March 1928, while KFOY, although it continued to be licensed for a few more months on a time-sharing basis with WAMD, ceased operations at this point 

National Battery Company
In mid-December 1927, the National Battery Company announced it had received permission from the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to build a new station, with the call letters KSTP, operating from a transmitter site to be constructed three miles south of Wescott  The next month it was reported that the new station, still under construction, had been assigned to 1360 kHz  KSTP made its debut broadcast on March 29, 1928  Although technically it was a separate station from WAMD and KFOY, both of which were formally deleted on April 30, 1928, overall KSTP was treated as the direct successor to a consolidated WAMD and KFOY 

Hubbard became the merged station's general manager, acquiring controlling interest in 1941  A month after the merger, KSTP became an affiliate for the NBC Red Network   It remained with NBC for 46 years  On November 11, 1928, under the provisions of the FRC's General Order 40, KSTP was assigned to a "high-powered regional" frequency of 1460 kHz  The only other station assigned to this frequency was WTFF in Mount Vernon Hills, Virginia (later WJSV, now WFED, Washington, D C )  On February 7, 1933, the FRC authorized KSTP to increase its daytime power to 25 KW  In 1938 and 1939 KSTP also operated a high-fidelity AM "experimental audio broadcasting station" Apex station, W9XUP, originally on 25,950 kHz and later on 26,150 kHz  In 1941, as part of the implementation of the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement, KSTP was assigned to its current "clear channel" frequency of 1500 kHz, with the provision that it and WJSV, as "Class I-B" stations, had to maintain directional antennas at night in order to mutually protect each other from interference  An FM station, KSTP-FM, was founded in 1946 but shut down in 1952 

Hubbard reportedly acquired an RCA TV camera in 1939, and started experimenting with television broadcasts   But World War II put a hold on the development of television   In 1948, with the war over, KSTP-TV became the first television station in Minnesota   With KSTP 1500 already associated with NBC Radio, KSTP-TV became an NBC Television Network affiliate   From 1946 to 1952, KSTP also had an FM counterpart   KSTP-FM 102 1 was only on the air four years   There were few radios equipped to receive FM signals in that era, and management decided to discontinue FM broadcasts 

MOR and Top 40
As network programming moved from radio to television, KSTP programmed a full service Middle of the Road (MOR) radio format, in the shadow of its chief competitor, CBS Radio affiliate 830 WCCO  In 1965, a new FM station, reviving the KSTP-FM call sign, was put on the air, largely simulcasting the AM station   But by the late 1960s, KSTP-FM began a separate format of beautiful music   KSTP was the radio home of the Minnesota Vikings football team from 1970 to 1975  

In 1973, KSTP broke away from its longtime adult MOR sound and became one of four area stations at the time to program a Top 40 format  "15 KSTP, The Music Station" competed with Top 40 AM rivals WDGY, KDWB and later, WYOO  The competition would eventually shake itself out, with outrageous rocker WYOO dropping out after being sold in 1976, and then the staid WDGY switching to country music the following year   As for uptempo hits station 15 KSTP, it went from a tight Top 40 format to leaning adult rock in 1978, to leaning adult contemporary in 1979, to evolving into adult contemporary/talk by 1980   In 1982, it officially shifted to talk   Most Top 40 rock music, by this time, had moved to the FM band 

Past Personalities

Notable hosts who have been on KSTP include John Hines, Jesse Ventura, Larry Carolla, Tom Barnard, Big Al Davis, Don Vogel, John MacDougall, Griff, Mike Edwards, Geoff Charles, Joe Soucheray, James Lileks, Leigh Kamman, Barbara Carlson, Peter Thiele, Tom Mischke, Jason Lewis, Chuck Knapp, Machine Gun Kelly, Charle Bush, Mark O'Connell and Paul Brand  These broadcasters were supported by producers such as Bruce Huff, Rob Pendleton, Alison Brown, Jean Bjorgen, David Elvin (who Vogel dubbed the "Steven Spielberg of Talk Radio"), Mitch Berg and others 

The station has, for the most part, emphasized local hosts over the years   But in 1988, KSTP was one of Rush Limbaugh's first affiliates when his conservative talk show was rolled out for national syndication   (Clear Channel-owned KTLK-FM took over rights to Limbaugh's show in January 2006)  Other syndicated hosts previously heard on KSTP include Sean Hannity, Bruce Williams, Larry King, and Owen Spann 

Sports Radio
KSTP switched to Sports Radio on February 15, 2010   As the station had to wait for ESPN's contract with rival KFAN and its sister station KFXN to expire, it did not become an ESPN Radio affiliate until April 12, the same day that the Minnesota Twins were scheduled to play the first game in their new ball park, Target Field, against the Boston Red Sox   As a result Coast to Coast AM and Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham were retained during this period   One ESPN Radio network program, The Herd with Colin Cowherd, was picked up by KSTP immediately following the format change 

In 2018, the station was approved for an FM translator on 94 1 FM, broadcasting from a transmitter atop the IDS Center in downtown Minneapolis  The two-watt signal threw most of its power to the west, preventing interference to low powered FM stations on the same channel including WFNU-LP in St  Paul  With only two watts of power, however, the signal was limited to the immediate downtown area surrounding the IDS Center   It later acquired a 250 watt translator, K235BP at 94 9 MHz   The original translator was discontinued 

On January 15, 2019, KSTP rebranded as "SKOR North" (a reference to the Vikings team song/chant, "Skol, Vikings"), with local programming between 12 noon and 7 pm  About a year later, in May of 2020, KSTP suspended most of its local programming and laid off nearly all of its local staff  Station management cited the economic toll of the coronavirus for the changes  Sports broadcasting continues, primarily composed of ESPN radio network broadcasts 

Sports Teams

KSTP-AM served as the radio flagship for the Minnesota Vikings football team from 1970 to 1975 

On August 1, 2006, the station announced that it would be the new flagship station for the Minnesota Twins baseball team, effective with the start of the 2007 season  The Twins had been on rival WCCO since arriving in Minnesota in 1961   KSTP served as the flagship for the Twins until the end of the 2012 season, when games moved to 96 3 KTWN-FM (now KMWA)   The Twins have since returned to WCCO 830 

The switch to a fairly weak FM station caused dissent among some listeners, particularly in communities that had trouble picking up KSTP 1500   Although KSTP is the state's second most powerful AM station, it must operate directionally at night, delivering a reduced signal to parts of the market  WCCO, by comparison, offers a signal with a wider coverage area during the day than KSTP does, with WCCO's non-directional 50,000 watt signal  In response, the Twins have expanded the number of affiliates 

On March 9, 2011, KSTP announced it would be the new flagship for the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers men's and women's basketball and men's ice hockey, ending a 68-year run on WCCO  The rights have since moved to KFXN-FM, which already aired Gopher football 

On March 2, 2017, KSTP announced it would be the first radio broadcaster for Minnesota United FC   The move brings live soccer action to 1500 AM 

Previous logos

References

External links
KSTP website

FCC History Cards for KSTP (covering 1928-1980)
Radiotapes com Historic Minneapolis/St  Paul airchecks dating back to 1924 including KSTP and other Twin Cities radio stations 
Rick Burnett's TwinCitiesRadioAirchecks com has additional airchecks of KSTP and other Twin Cities radio stations from the '60s and '70s, including Chuck Knapp's 2nd show on KSTP 

Hubbard Broadcasting
ESPN Radio stations
Peabody Award winners
Radio stations in Minneapolis–Saint Paul
Radio stations established in 1925
1925 establishments in Minnesota
Minnesota Kicks
Sports radio stations in the United States
Clear-channel radio stations
Context 2: \section*{Dynamical Behaviour of $O$ in Lattice Gases}

The dynamical behaviour of the anisotropic order parameter  $m$ [see Eq ~\eqref{eq:def-m} in the Letter] following a quench to the critical point is well described by
the Gaussian theory for all the three lattice gas models studied, $i e ,$ driven lattice gas with either constant (IDLG) or random (RDLG) infinite drive and equilibrium lattice gas (LG)  In other words, in the short-time regime, $m \sim t^{1/2}$ [see Eq  \eqref{eq:mt}] and the Binder cumulant $g$ of the lowest transverse mode [defined in Eq  \eqref{eq:binder}] is zero in this regime  The alternative order parameter $O,$ however, distinguishes between the driven (IDLG, RDLG) and the equilibrium (LG) lattice gases  

In order to understand  this, we first write the phenomenological scaling form for $O$,  analogous to Eq  \eqref{eq:scalingass} in  the Letter,
\begin{eqnarray}
O (t, L_{\parallel} ; S_\Delta) = L_{\parallel}^{-\beta/[\nu(1+\Delta)]} \tilde f_O (t/L_{\parallel}^{z/(1+\Delta)} ; S_\Delta) \quad
\label{eq:Oscalingass}
\end{eqnarray}
We already remarked that, in the LG, this scaling form is not compatible with the prediction $O \sim t^{1/8}  L_{\parallel}^{-1/2}$ of the Gaussian theory   However, following Ref  \cite{AS2002}, it can be argued that, at short times, the only dependence of $O$ on the system size $L_{\parallel}$ is of the form $O \sim L_\parallel^{-1/2}$ which is very well confirmed by numerical simulations  Accordingly,  the generic behaviour of $O$ can be assumed to be
\begin{eqnarray}
O \sim t^{\alpha} L_\parallel^{-1/2}, \label{eq:O}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is a phenomenological exponent to be determined  This, along with Eq  \eqref{eq:Oscalingass}, implies $\tilde f_O(x) \sim x^{\alpha} $ Comparing the finite-size behaviour in Eq ~\eqref{eq:O} with Eq ~\eqref{eq:Oscalingass} one actually infers,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha &=& \frac{1+ \Delta -2 \beta/\nu}{2 \, (4- \eta)}  \label{eq:alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation, together with the hyperscaling relation $\Delta - 2 \beta/\nu= - \eta$ in two spatial dimensions, shows that the prediction $\alpha = 1/8$ of the Gaussian theory [see Eq  \eqref{eq:Ot}] can be obtained only when $\eta=0,$ which is the case for the IDLG (exactly) and the RDLG (approximately) but not for the LG  

On the other hand,  Eq ~\eqref{eq:alpha} predicts $\alpha = 1/10$ upon substituting the values of the critical exponents corresponding to the Ising  universality class (LG)
Context 3: Inner Reality Unveiled
Inner Reality Unveiled
by DragonFly on April 18th, 2018, 10:54 pm
There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
We don't see across a room or any scene but only across the model of the room/scene  We don't look through a microscope at an actual object but only look at a model of that object  You get the idea  A reflective color spectrum is used to make it look like that more distinctive color is a surface property of an object modeled 
The brain doesn't model everything, as a lot of it would be clutter, and for what remains as useful to portray the brain still doesn't have the resources to model everything at high resolution and so thus whatever we focus on gets all the high res detail put into it just in the nick of time when we look/focus  At dawn or dusk this high resolution becomes a bit less on what we focus on so that what's off to the left or right can be better noted in the dim light 
So far, nothing astounding here to us, although maybe to everyday folk that we only ever see the inside of the head/brain—the model 
Of course, the shocks get worse, such as that our intentions cannot be those of first cause, self-made people, but from prior causes that we weren't able to choose and be responsible for  What is left, in short, is the freedom of action for these inbuilt intentions to operate, at least when not prevented by the weather or any other controlling factors, which 'freedom of action' amounts to compatibilism 
Other notes on the above are that while we can never know if everything is deterministic, although we know that a lot is, whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling and our consistency 
Re: Inner Reality Unveiled
by DragonFly on April 20th, 2018, 3:14 pm
To continue, many feel that the model/qualia is very rich, but there's not anything to compare it to  Some creatures have a fourth primary color to work from and some have more smells and better hearing  Our colors (reflective spectrum) go through some averaging because of the various close frequencies about, but they still have a lot of pop to them  The model seems to be super real, where it has the focused detail, meaning better than real, or super real or surreal; surely colors win out over a bunch of waves (if they could be seen), these colors being very distinctive, which high contrast is what the model seems to be about  Away from the center of focus, the model has to be worse than cartoonish 
Other qualia properties are intense, too, such as pain being able to be very painful, to the max, and such 
Qualia are based on initial isomorphic maps, meaning topographical, when representing the territory  For sounds, the map is for tones from the air vibrations, and for smell it is scents from the molecule shapes; for touch it is a body map  The isomorphism may get carried through even three levels of models, whereafter it seems to become more symbolic and less isomorphic, perhaps indicating that the information is ready to turn into qualia, the point at which the 'hard problem' manifests  It is thought that at least four levels of modules are required for the 'magic' of phenomenal transformation to occur; we have the problem surrounded but not yet solved  Perhaps it is enough to have a truth in lieu of its proof—that there is ontological subjectivity, meaning that it exists, although it may not be fundamental or miraculous 
So, in sum so far, direct realism is an illusion, but is a very useful illusion, which we might better call a fine representation by the model, since the word 'illusion' is more about what's wrong as not really showing its object as substantial and really being behind it  Dreams, then, would be better called illusions; further they demonstrate the power of the structure of the model  When we inspects objects in dreams they look just as good as when we see them awake, although backgrounds come and go inconsistently and there are narrative gaps (all of a sudden we are driving a vehicle without ever having gotten into it, plus the controls are a mystery )
Another illusion is the feeling of having all of the information in a qualia scene as instantly available, as well as feeling that it is all happening in real time, plus that one is directing it all right then and there 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 4:33 am
Yes and all those security cameras in the banks and stores must be a joke because anybody watching cannot see us but only see images on a display screen 
by DragonFly on April 21st, 2018, 12:05 pm
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:33 am wrote: Yes and all those security cameras in the banks and stores must be a joke because anybody watching cannot see us but only see images on a display screen 
You forgot that what the brain maps and models is a reliable representation of what's out there and in here 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 12:16 pm
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 11:05 am wrote:
I was being sarcastic in order to point out this very fact  Whether images on a display screen or human consciousness, they are reliable representations and that means they do see what is really out there  The fact that this is indirect is not without logical implications, but not to the extent that you can say we do not apprehend an objective reality 
by TheVat on April 21st, 2018, 12:29 pm
The evolutionary argument is a strong one, also, for the accuracy of our sensory representations of the external world  If you think a tiger's tail is a pretty flower, and try to pluck it, you won't be around long to reproduce 
I invite anyone who thinks that bus hurtling down the street is nothing but a model in the brain to step in front of it 
Your impression of the bus may be indirect, but it has a direct causal chain of connections to the actual bus out there  You are a photon collector, absorbing photons bounced off a bus  That way, it doesn't have to be you that's bounced off the bus 
by DragonFly on April 21st, 2018, 2:19 pm
Mentally healthy responders need not worry about any unreliable representations due to there being no direct realism  As I showed, the representations are even improvements that bring out what is distinctive and important, as well as my indicating of an 'out there'  (The sarcasm thus fell doubly flat, run over by the bus, either because that mode is the nature of the person or this short thread wasn't read well )
The world out there indeed comes to us (we don't reach out and probe it but for such as feeling our way in the dark), via photons for sight, and similarly comes to us in other ways for the other 'distance' senses  That the brain projects the objects back out there where they are, with depth (objects whose radiation came into us) is very useful  This trivia is mentioned here for completeness, for non scientific readers, but all the like herein is not contested 
Back on track now, with derailment attempts ever unwelcome, but actual meaty posts extremely welcome, many neurologists note that awake consciousness doesn't easily get snuffed out, for a people may have many and various brain impairments yet they remain conscious, which, in short, without going through them all, indicates that there probably isn't any one 'Grand Central Station' where consciousness originates but that it may arise from any suitable hierarchy of brain modules 
Consciousness, like life, requires embodiment, and is now thought to have been around in some form since the Cambrian explosion  As evolution proceeds via physical processes it rather follows that consciousness does too  Billions of years of small steps from a stable organism platform can acculuminate into what otherwise seems a miracle, but then again, miracles are instant  When extinction events wipe everything out, the process just starts up again, and probably has, several times over 
Since qualia are structured, such as I described, plus healing the blind spot and more that wasn't put here, this again suggest that qualia have to be constructed from parts the brain has made from interpretations via physical processes 
How the phenomenal transform springs out remains as the central mystery of all  We think that there are larger mysteries, such as if there is any ultimate purpose to Existence, but this one is easy, for it can be shown that there can be no ultimate purpose  (There can be local and proximate purpose ) More an this another time or place 
by mitchellmckain on April 21st, 2018, 4:00 pm
I shall interpret the above as a request for a detailed point by point response to the OP 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
But this is wrong, derived from delusional semantics as if "seeing" meant absorbing the objects themselves into our brain and mind  Of course, "seeing" means no such thing  "Seeing" means gathering data to construct a mental model of an external reality  We don't, in fact, "see" this inner model at all  This "model" is a product of speculation and abstraction in meta-conscious process of self-reflection 
Our inner viewport is thus one of looking out at the outer reality and not one of looking at the model  We do see across a room -- USING a mental model  We do not see the mental model except by speculative imagination  The most we can say is that by using such a process of mental modeling in order to see, there can be deviations due to a variety of neurological and mental processes being involved, including the role of beliefs in our interpretations  Thus our perceptions cannot be fully separated from our beliefs and our access to the world is fundamentally subjective  The objective can only be fully realized by a process of abstraction through communication with others 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: The brain doesn't model everything, as a lot of it would be clutter, and for what remains as useful to portray the brain still doesn't have the resources to model everything at high resolution and so thus whatever we focus on gets all the high res detail put into it just in the nick of time when we look/focus  
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: Of course, the shocks get worse, such as that our intentions cannot be those of first cause, self-made people, but from prior causes that we weren't able to choose and be responsible for  What is left, in short, is the freedom of action for these inbuilt intentions to operate, at least when not prevented by the weather or any other controlling factors, which 'freedom of action' amounts to compatibilism 
Your philosophical conclusions here will not be mistaken for scientific observations  Your interpretations are based on your own presumptions which I reject as incorrect  The process of human intention and action is certainly a complex one but the fact remains that the first causes do exist  People may be capable of simply watching much of their life pass by as an minimally participating observer (with all sorts of fatalistic and compatibilist dodges and delusions of objectivity), but others choose to take ownership of the first causes within them as a fully responsible participants in their own life 
Also as I have mentioned numerous times before, there is nothing absolute or guaranteed about this freedom of will  It can certainly be greatly diminished by a great number of things such as drugs, illness, habits, and even beliefs  This just means that we are ill advised to judge others according to our own perception and choices 
DragonFly » April 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm wrote: Other notes on the above are that while we can never know if everything is deterministic, although we know that a lot is, whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling and our consistency 
We can know that the experimental results show that there are events not determined by any hidden variables within the scientific worldview  People are free to ignore these results and stubbornly cling to presumptions to the contrary but they are being unreasonable if they expect other people to accept the conclusions which they are deriving from such willfulness 
And to head off the typical strawmen, I am not claiming that determinism has been disproven any more than the scientific evidence for evolution disproves divine intelligent design  Science is not a matter of proof, but of accepting that what the evidence and experimental results show us are the basis of what is reasonable to accept until there is evidence to the contrary 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote: But this is wrong, derived from delusional semantics as if "seeing" meant absorbing the objects themselves into our brain and mind  Of course, "seeing" means no such thing  "Seeing" means gathering data to construct a mental model of an external reality  We don't, in fact, "see" this inner model at all  This "model" is a product of speculation and abstraction in meta-conscious process of self-reflection 
Yes, the view point is within the model  We don't literally 'see' across a room  The model gets 'viewed' and navigated and noted and whatnot  The outer reality is not able to be viewed directly but is usefully "looked out at" through a representation  Do you directly see wave frequencies air vibrations, and molecule shapes? I didn't mean 'seeing' in the sense of eye stuff, but I note the word problem 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote:
Yes, I was reading a large road sign with many words and the words at the bottom didn't come into focus until I got down to them  Our computers have many more terabytes than the brain has 
mitchellmckain » April 21st, 2018, 3:00 pm wrote: Your philosophical conclusions here will not be mistaken for scientific observations  Your interpretations are based on your own presumptions which I reject as incorrect  The process of human intention and action is certainly a complex one but the fact remains that the first causes do exist  People may be capable of simply watching much of their life pass by as an minimally participating observer (with all sorts of fatalistic and compatibilist dodges and delusions of objectivity), but others choose to take ownership of the first causes within them as a fully responsible participants in their own life 
Total libertarians do claim that they are first cause, self made people at every instant  How does this work? A theory of conscious intentions happening without any underlying physical processes ('you') behind them is the toughest sell of all proposals on the will, so it's no wonder that this 'being free of the will' can't be shown  Plus, why does one want this? Perhaps a distaste for having a will that wills things in the subconscious dark  These trillions of connections firing are not portrayed in consciousness, thank goodness 
Yes, as I said, some is indeterminate, so there is no ignoring  (You don't seem to read well, even when seeing it again when you quote it ) The more indeterminacy the worse we are able to carry our our ability to operate, which minimal and trivial capability is called 'freedom of action'  So be it  We have learned something  People want more than this, though, and so they will have to show that that's possible while still retaining the self/will  How is responsibility gained at any point when one was never responsible for prior causes toward one's being/self that couldn't be chosen?
So, prison time need not be assigned for retribution only, more compassion can be granted for those who did as they had to, and we come to better understand our place in the universe  Life is great for experiencing and living, and fatalism isn't recommended, for it could work against the enjoyment 
P S  There is no point at which ultimate purpose/intention could have been applied to what is eternal, as well as none to be applied to something springing from nothing (which, though impossible, I include for completeness, for the "springing" capability would still be an eternal 'something' )
It's fine with me if you want a fully formed Being with a system of intelligence to be there First, amid nothing else, but to stick to the template of ID, then a Higher ID had to be behind it, etc , or we could just forget about the one-off usage golden template of ID  The universe looks to be tuned, if it is, for mostly a lot of hydrogen gas in endless sparse spaces  It took ten billion years for us to be able to persist a bit in our rarity amid the waste  [/quote]
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote:
Yes, as I said, some is indeterminate, so there is no ignoring 
Incorrect  You did not say "some is indeterminate " So either you do not write well, cannot understand the logic of your own words, or you make up things as an excuse to attack other people  In fact, this can be identified with a logical fallacy  "Whatever is indeterminate diminishes our modeling" means our modeling is diminished IF there is anything indeterminate  If A then B does not allow you affirm A, so by equating these two you have committed a logical fallacy  Furthermore it is amazing how far out on a limb you go to concoct such an attack  You said, "we cannot know if everything is deterministic," which is utterly inconsistent with a clam that "some is indeterminate," because if some is indeterminate then you would know that it is NOT deterministic 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: Total libertarians do claim that they are first cause, self made people at every instant 
The philosophers who claim that we have free actions are called libertarians  The radical opposition that libertarians pose to the determinist position is their acceptance of free actions  Libertarians accept the incompatibility premise that holds agents morally responsible for free actions  Incompatibilism maintains that determinism is incompatible with human freedom  Libertarians accept that there are free actions, and in doing so, believe that we are morally responsible for some of our actions, namely, the free ones 
The libertarian ONLY claims that we do have free will actions and affirm the incompatibility of determinism with free will  There is no claim here that free will is absolute, inviolable, and applies to every action and thus that people are "self made at every instance "
Thus in the following it is clear you are burning an absurd strawman 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: How does this work? A theory of conscious intentions happening without any underlying physical processes ('you') behind them is the toughest sell of all proposals on the will, so it's no wonder that this 'being free of the will' can't be shown  Plus, why does one want this? Perhaps a distaste for having a will that wills things in the subconscious dark  These trillions of connections firing are not portrayed in consciousness, thank goodness 
Someone only claims the opposition is selling something absurdly silly because they want to make something only slightly less absurd and silly sound reasonable by comparison  But to make sure you understand   
1  Nobody HERE is selling a theory of conscious intention without any underlying physical processes 
2  Nobody HERE is claiming any "being free of the will"
These are indeed nonsense 
1  As a physicalist with regards to the mind-body problem I oppose the idea of conscious intention without any physical processes  Nor would I assert that there are no unconscious processes underlying our conscious intentions  But as I explained in another thread just because there are such processes does not mean we have no responsibility for them or that our intention does not constitute a conscious cause of our action 
2  As a libertarian it is absurd to think free will means freedom from the will  What we reject is the attempt to separate the self from desires and will as if these were some external thing forcing people to do things  This is nothing but pure empty rhetoric on the part of the opposition  Freedom from the will is the OPPOSITE of free will  If you are not acting according to your desire then this is an example of actions without free will 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: The more indeterminacy the worse we are able to carry our our ability to operate, which minimal and trivial capability is called 'freedom of action' 
Incorrect  This is only because you equate freedom with control  It is not the same thing  Besides the indeterminacy in the laws of physics is only with respect to a system of mathematical laws  It doesn't really say that nothing causes the result, but only that there are no variables to make the exact result calculable 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: How is responsibility gained at any point when one was never responsible for prior causes toward one's being/self that couldn't be chosen?
Again it is because free will does not equal control  Free will only means you choose how to respond to the situation  It does require an awareness of alternatives, but it does not require an ability to dictate exactly what will happen in the future 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: So, prison time need not be assigned for retribution only, more compassion can be granted for those who did as they had to, and we come to better understand our place in the universe  Life is great for experiencing and living, and fatalism isn't recommended, for it could work against the enjoyment 
While imprisonment may be an improvement over the old English law, the inadequacies are legion  It was indeed invented as a means of reforming the convicted even if it fails to accomplish this very well



ground_truth: KSTP switched to a sports radio format on February 15, 2010.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the dynamical behavior of the anisotropic order parameter following a quench to the critical point?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2:  This is consistent with the numerical simulation results presented in the main text, see Fig  \ref{fig:ising}(b) therein 

\begin{figure}[th]
\vspace*{0 2 cm}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=10 cm]{ /compare_binder pdf}

\caption{Comparison between the temporal evolution of the Binder cumulants $g$ corresponding to the $12^{th}$ transverse mode, $i e ,$ with $n_\perp =12,$ in the LG (lowest curve), IDLG and RDLG (two upper curves) on a $32 \times 32$ lattice  \label{fig:b}}
 \label{fig:binder}
\end{figure}


The emergence of this new value $1/10$ of the exponent $\alpha$ must be traced back to the non-Gaussian nature of higher fluctuating modes in the LG  In fact, even though the lowest mode behaves identically in all the three models we considered,  characterized by the same behaviour of $m$, higher modes show a significant difference in the non-driven case   


To illustrate this, we measured the Binder cumulants of higher modes which is defined  analogously to Eq ~(11), using transverse modes other than the first, i e , with $\mu=\tilde \sigma(0,2 \pi n_\bot/L_\bot)$ and $n_\bot>1 $  
 Figure \ref{fig:b} compares the same for all the three lattice gases for the mode with $n_\perp =12$ on a $32 \times 32$ lattice  Clearly, the curve corresponding to the LG (lowest, blue) departs from Gaussian behaviour $g=0$ (in practice, $e g ,$ $|g| \lesssim 0 005,$ corresponding to the shaded gray area) much earlier than it does for the IDLG  or RDLG (two upper curves, red and green respectively) 

Accordingly, the different dynamical behaviour of $O$, which involves a sum over all modes, can be attributed to the non-Gaussian nature of the higher modes in the LG  
Such a departure is not entirely surprising  In fact, for higher modes, mesoscopic descriptions such as the ones in Eqs  \eqref{eq:L-DLG} or \eqref{eq:g_evol} are not expected to hold, while the anisotropy at the microscopic level could be the mechanism leading to the Gaussianity of higher modes in the driven models 


Context 3:  To be sure, "retribution" is a lousy basis for a system of justice  But the point of "mercy" isn't just compassion but to acknowledge the fact that mistakes are part of the process by which we learn  Therefore, coming down on people like a load bricks for any mistake is counterproductive  On the other hand, we would be foolish not to consider whether a person in question is showing any ability to learn from their mistakes  If not, a change of environment/circumstances is probably called for, even if today's prisons largely fail to be environment needed 
Observe that this analysis of justice and mercy has nothing whatsoever to do with free will  The government of a free society should be founded upon what can be objectively established and free will is not one of these things  In the above consideration of justice and mercy, the question of whether a person truly has free will is completely irrelevant 
DragonFly » April 21st, 2018, 3:57 pm wrote: It's fine with me if you want a fully formed Being with a system of intelligence to be there First, amid nothing else, but to stick to the template of ID, then a Higher ID had to be behind it, etc , or we could just forget about the one-off usage golden template of ID  The universe looks to be tuned, if it is, for mostly a lot of hydrogen gas in endless sparse spaces  It took ten billion years for us to be able to persist a bit in our rarity amid the waste 
I consider Intelligent Design to be attack upon science -- shoving theology into a place where it clearly does not belong  Nor do I agree with intelligent design even in theology, for I think that evolution is more compatible with a belief in a loving God (because of the philosophical problem of evil)  Frankly, I consider design to be incompatible with the very essence of what life is 
DragonFly liked this post
Great post, Mitch 
I'm referring to "a lot is determinate", leaving room that some is indeterminate since QM finds this, and some brain doings may be at the micro-macro boundary and be affected, this degrading our ability to operate our intentions 
Here's a "libertarian" example/definition that may fit better:
“Hard Determinism and Libertarianism
Probing further into the free will-debate, we meet two different kinds of incompatibilist positions: hard determinism, which holds that determinism is true and that free will is not compatible with determinism, and libertarianism, which holds that we do have free will and that determinism is false  Given that these positions agree about the definition of determinism, we here actually have a genuine disagreement over fundamental ontological matters – a disagreement about whether determinism is true or not  This is a peculiar question to have strong disagreements about, however, since we know the final answer that we will ever get concerning the truth of determinism: that the state of the world is caused to be the way it is by its prior state at least to some degree, but to what degree exactly can never be known 
The libertarian position has often been criticized with the argument that even if determinism is not true, we still do not have free will, since our actions then simply are the product of a combination of deterministic and indeterministic events that we still do not ultimately choose ourselves, a view referred to as hard incompatibilism  Libertarians do not necessarily accept that this argument shows that we do not have free will, and the reason, or at least a big part of it, should not surprise anyone at this point: they simply define free will differently  According to libertarians, such as Robert Nozick and Robert Kane, one has free will if one could have acted otherwise than one did, and if indeterminism is true, then it may be true that we could have “acted” differently than we did under the exact same circumstances, and that we thereby might have free will in this sense  It should be pointed out, though, that critics of libertarianism are“rightly skeptical about the relevance of this kind of free will  First of all, the free will that libertarians endorse is, unlike what many libertarians seem to think, not an ethically relevant kind of freedom, and it does not have anything to do with the freedom of action that we by definition want  Second, the hard incompatibilist is right that no matter what is true about the degree to which the universe is deterministic, our actions are still caused by prior causes ultimately beyond our own control, which few of those who identify themselves as libertarians seem to want to acknowledge  And lastly, the fact that our actions are caused by causes ultimately beyond our own control does, if we truly appreciated, undermine our intuition of retributive justice, an intuition that libertarians generally seem to want to defend intellectually  So, as many have pointed out already, libertarians are simply on a failed mission 
Together with the want to defend retributive blame and punishment, what seems to be the main motivation for people who defend a libertarian notion of free will seems to be a fear of predeterminism, a fear of there being just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe, which would imply that we ultimately cannot do anything to cause a different outcome than the one possible  Libertarians and others with the same fear have artfully tried to make various models to help them overcome this fear, for instance so-called two-stage models that propose that our choices consist of an indeterministic stage of generation of possible actions, and then our non-random choice of one of them  (It should be noted, in relation to such models, that even if this is how our choices are made, our choice to choose one of these “alternative possibilities” will still be caused by prior causes that are ultimately completely beyond our own control  Nothing changes this fact, again because decision-making is the product of complex physical processes; it is not an uncaused event ) It is generally unclear what the purpose of such models is  Are they a hypotheses we should test? They do not seem to be  Generally, these models most of all seem like an attempt to make the world fit our preconceived intuitions, which most of all resembles pseudoscience 
Fortunately, there is plenty of relief available to the libertarians and other people who have this fear, and it does not involve any unscientific models – neither two-stage, three-stage, nor any other number of stages  The source of this relief is the simple earlier-mentioned fact that we can never know whether there is just one or infinitely many possible outcomes from the present state of the universe  This simple fact gives us all the relief we could ask for, because it reveals that there is no reason to be sure that there is just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe  And, to repeat an important point, we are then left with the conclusion that the only reasonable thing to do is to try to make the best impact we can in the world, which is true no matter whether there is just one possible outcome from the present state of the universe or not, since our actions still have consequences and therefore still matter even in a fully deterministic universe 
Some, especially libertarians, might want to object to the claim that we can never know whether determinism is true or not, and even claim that we in fact now know, or at least have good reasons to believe, that indeterminism is true  Here is neuroscientist Peter Tse expressing something along those lines: “Henceforth, I will accept the weight of evidence from modern physics, and assume ontological indeterminism to be the case ” (Tse, 2013, p  244)  Making this assumption is, however, to take a position on an unanswerable question  Again, rather than making strong claims about this question, we should stick to what we in fact know, namely that we do not know ”
Excerpt From: Magnus Vinding  “Free Will: An Examination of Human Freedom ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/free-w     3363?mt=11
To extend the OP's implications of physical processes/causes dominating…
There are still real values in an existence with no ultimate purpose, this 'value' meaning good and bad valences and actions  It would be of great value to lessen suffering and improve well-being in humans and in all species  (Fixed wills are dynamic, simply meaning that they can learn and thus change to a better fixed will )
As for our model of reality, this is consciousness and it is ever our only view point inside the head in a brain, being what it is like to experience the world from the inside out 
by RJG on April 22nd, 2018, 1:07 am
Direct realism is not possible  We humans can only experience 'experiences' (sensations; sense data), not the 'real' things or objects themselves  Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if these experiences represent 'real' objects, or are just simply products of illusion; hallucination, delusion, dream, mirage, etc 
For this reason, solipsism is a possibility (i e  it is just as plausible as it is not), and true self-awareness is not possible (i e  we don't experience objects, including those called 'self')
DragonFly wrote: There is no direct (literal) view of the actual reality 'out there'  Our inner viewport is ever only that of the model (qualia) of inner and outer reality built by the brain  We see/sense nothing but this model made inside the brain 
Braininvat wrote: I invite anyone who thinks that bus hurtling down the street is nothing but a model in the brain to step in front of it 
Isn't it possible to dream or hallucinate stepping out in front of a bus hurtling down the street? This does not mean that the bus (in the dream/hallucination) is actually 'real' 
One does not normally step out in front of a bus (even in dreams) because they think it is not real, - it is the 'fear' (that it might be real, and) being smashed by it, that compels one not to step in front of it 
Braininvat wrote: Your impression of the bus may be indirect, but it has a direct causal chain of connections to the actual bus out there 
Not necessarily  You are assuming there is an "actual" bus out there (instead of a possible "hallucinated" bus)  We have no way of knowing the cause of our mental impressions 
by wolfhnd on April 22nd, 2018, 3:31 am
A bus that we do not step in front of is an extremely low resolution concept of what a bus is  Only the people who design and maintain the bus really know what a bus is at a relatively high resolution  Even then the designer doesn't really know the bus on the street because a bus is not just a collection of parts but takes it's meaning from an even more complex social and physical environment 
If you're a realist you assume that the bus can in theory be defined down to it's subatomic particles and a high resolution image of what it is can be created  The problem is that human perspective such an approach strips meaning from the image 
The other problem is that the kind of truth that a purely scientific approach provides tends to confuse the thing itself with it's mathematical model  The kind of absolutism that math provides is always subjective first because the parameters are always finite but the environment from our perspective is practically infinite and second because the model is an approximation even if 2+2 is always 4  A reductionist approach is a practical necessity that doesn't satisfy the evolutionary imperative for meaning 
The old view that everything can be reduced to cause and effect is itself challenged by the accepted view that determinism itself breaks down at tiny scales  Myself I'm not bothered by the indeterminate because I'm a pragmatist and close enough seems to satisfy practical solutions, scientific issues and philosophical questions  The philosophers goal is to determine what constitutes close enough to preserve life and meaning 
mitchellmckain wrote: If you are not acting according to your desire then this is an example of actions without free will 
If you act according to your desires, then you are it's slave  There is no free-will in slavery 
We don't control our desires  Our desires control us 
by DragonFly on April 22nd, 2018, 10:40 am
“This distinction between subject and object is not just an interesting oddity  It begins at the level of physics in the distinction between the probability inherent in symbolic measurements and the certainty of material laws  The distinction is later exemplified in the difference between a genotype, the sequence of nucleotide symbols that make up an organism’s DNA, and phenotype, its actual physical structure that those symbols prescribe  It travels with us up the evolutionary layers to the distinction between the mind and the brain ”
“These concepts will help us see how neural circuits are structures with a double life: they carry symbolic information, which is subject to arbitrary rules, yet they possess a material structure that is subject to the laws of physics ”
Excerpt From: Michael S  Gazzaniga  “The Consciousness Instinct ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/the-co     3607?mt=11
by Neri on April 22nd, 2018, 11:13 am
On this topic, I should like to associate myself with the views of Mitch and BIV and will only add s few additional comments 
The question is not whether our experience is equivalent in every way to what lies outside of us, for such a thing is impossible 
[A perception cannot be exactly the same as a material object, for the former depends upon a sentient being for its existence, whereas the latter does not  Further, it is impossible to know everything that may be predicated of any material object by merely perceiving it ]
The real question is: Do sense impressions correspond to material objects in such a way that they are effective in preserving us from dangers that lie outside of us?
This question veritably answers itself  Only a madman would deny the evidence of his own senses 
It is essential to understand that the correspondence of which I speak depends on the reality of motion [from which we derive the ideas of time and space] 
To keep ourselves safe, it is necessary that we have the ability to know when a material object is moving closer or further from us and to be able to recognize an object as a danger  This, the senses give us, for perceptions like all other experiences are memories [are preserved over time] 
An object is recognized as a danger through prior sensory experiences preserved as long-term memories 
In order to be recognized and remembered as a danger, a material object must have the power to produce a particular human experience of it 
That power is part of the nature of the object and is thus truly reflected in the perception of it—even though there may be more to the object than its power to yield a human perception 
To the reasonable mind, the above comments may properly be seen as statements of the obvious  The curious fact, however, is that a whole school of western philosophy has labored mightily to deny the obvious 
I agree; I'm only delving into the inner experience to see how it works and what may become of that 
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 11:57 am
RJG, this tablet ate the quoted part of your post and somehow hid the submit button, so sorry about the missing comment    
No, I was not assuming the in-the-moment knowledge, but rather that facts about buses are physically verifiable when science is applied  It is not difficult to verify that I was neither dreaming nor hallucinating  We are saved from solipsism by the multiplicity of observers and their reports  We can open a book and read complex prose (something that can't be done in dreams) that reveals areas of knowledge utterly unknown to us and beyond our previous experiences  We have senses enhanced by instruments that can show us photons leaving the photosphere of the sun and bouncing off solid objects like buses in particular and regular patterns, etc  Inner phenomenal reality and external reality are seamlessly connected and interacting - it is only big cranium apes like us who erect a wall of demarcation between them  Or drugs or pathological conditions that disrupt the causal connections 
To say that sensory data is incomplete is not equivalent to saying that it is deceptive  We are deceived only if we imagine that our impressions are complete  Our brains are engineered to find relevant data, not complete data  ("engineered" probably needs quotes)
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 12:00 pm
Had to use Quick Reply window to post the above  Anyone else losing the submit button after Full Editor has been open for a couple minutes?? I will try to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone 
by DragonFly on April 22nd, 2018, 1:58 pm
What else, for now:
“Finally, affective consciousness—emotionally positive and negative feelings—has its own brain circuits, it does not require isomorphic mapping, and it may be experienced as mental states rather than mental images (figure 2 5B; chapters 7 and 8)  Thus, isomorphic maps are only one part of the creation and evolution of subjectivity and “something it is like to be”; many other special and general features (table 2 1) are required to create sensory consciousness and ontological subjectivity ”
“Consciousness-associated attention has several subtypes, including bottom-up (exogenous) versus top-down (endogenous) attention 48 Bottom-up attention is driven by the importance of the incoming stimuli and leads to the animal orienting to things that happen suddenly in the environment  Top-down attention, on the other hand, involves proactive anticipation, maintaining attention by concentration and focusing on goals 
Excerpt From: Todd E  Feinberg  “The Ancient Origins of Consciousness ” iBooks  https://itunes apple com/us/book/the-an     6953?mt=11
by RJG on April 22nd, 2018, 2:58 pm
Neri wrote: The real question is: Do sense impressions correspond to material objects in such a way that they are effective in preserving us from dangers that lie outside of us?
Firstly, we are not consciously aware of the actual causers (the supposed 'real' objects themselves) of these "sense impressions"  We are only consciously aware of the actual "sense impressions" (i e  the actual physical bodily reactions; experiences) themselves,    and of course this is only after they occur (after they impact our body) 
Secondly, we all assume that these "sense impressions" are the result of something 'real' out-there  Whether from a misfiring (hallucinating) brain, or from sensory signals emanating from a real object itself, it is still nonetheless 'real'  We all assume these "sense impressions" are the automatic reaction/response from some 'real' stimuli 
Thirdly, what "preserves us from danger" is NOT the conscious awareness of our sense impressions, but instead, it is the body's automatic RESPONSE to this danger (STIMULI) that "preserves us from danger",    and not the conscious awareness of said response 
Fourthly, if the body auto-responds in a particular way then the likelihood of survivability is enhanced, and if the response is otherwise then it may be diminished 
Neri wrote: To keep ourselves safe, it is necessary that we have the ability to know when a material object is moving closer or further from us and to be able to recognize an object as a danger 
Not so  It is NOT the "knowing" or "recognizing" of the dangerous moving object that "keep ourselves safe"  It is the body's automatic reaction/response to this moving object (stimuli) that "keep ourselves safe" 
Remember, we can only be conscious of (i e  know or recognize) actual bodily reactions/events, and not of other 'external' events



ground_truth: It is well described by the Gaussian theory.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What happens to the high resolution of what we focus on at dawn or dusk?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  We don't consciously know/recognize how we responded until 'after' we (our body) responds  Our consciousness (knowing/recognizing) is wholly dependent upon our bodily reactions/responses,    NOT the other way around 
Without something (e g  sense impressions; bodily reactions) to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness (   no knowing or recognizing!) 
Braininvat wrote: No, I was not assuming the in-the-moment knowledge, but rather that facts about buses are physically verifiable when science is applied 
Can't one hallucinate they are doing verifiable science?
Braininvat wrote: It is not difficult to verify that I was neither dreaming nor hallucinating   
   We can open a book and read complex prose (something that can't be done in dreams) that reveals areas of knowledge utterly unknown to us and beyond our previous experiences 
I'm not so confident/convinced of this  Have you seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?    or have had family members with mental issues?
Braininvat wrote: We are saved from solipsism by the multiplicity of observers and their reports   
   We have senses enhanced by instruments that can show us photons leaving the photosphere of the sun and bouncing off solid objects like buses in particular and regular patterns, etc  Inner phenomenal reality and external reality are seamlessly connected and interacting - it is only big cranium apes like us who erect a wall of demarcation between them 
Isn't it possible to hallucinate these "multiple observers and their reports",    and their "instrumentation" results?
Other than by 'blind faith', how can one really know that their perceptions are the 'true' representations of reality?    I think it is not possible,    I think we can only 'hope' that our personal view is of reality itself 
We can't perceive beyond our current ("suspect") perceptions 
How about that the 'knowing' is done by the brain that built the qualia showing the danger, for the brain thus already has the information available, in whatever form it uses to 'know' 
by TheVat on April 22nd, 2018, 4:50 pm
Isnt it possible to hallucinate these "multiple observers and their reports",    and their "instrumentation" results?
- RJG
For me, that level of arch-skepticism is an epistemic doldrums zone  As David Hume famously observed about a conference on epistemology on Europe, "on finishing their discussion, the participants all departed by means of the doors  " (or similar; don't have exact quote handy ATM)
Whenever I write numbers in dreams they change as I write them and when I read it often fills up with garbage 
I've been lucidly inspecting my dreams  Some flaws are that bugs appear as triangles  Yesterday, I was going to eat in a cafeteria but you had to bring your own plates from home, so I already suspected something  I did find a pile of plates and took one, but I was soon somehow holding the whole pile, which then happened again and again, so, as in these stuck cases, I clench my whole body and that wakes me up  Other times, for lesser problems or to be sure of the dream state, I am able to open one eye and see the window and then go back to the dream  And sometimes the dream perfectly shows an entire scene in fabulous detail, such as a mid summer dusk, with even those whirly things floating through the air 
by mitchellmckain on April 23rd, 2018, 4:00 am
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: The model seems to be super real,
To me, that seems like a completely nonsensical thing to say to  "Seems real" compared to what? By the only standard we have, it is real, for it is the only standard which we have for making such a measurement  What you say is practically Platonic in the implied imagination of some greater reality somewhere else 
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: So, in sum so far, direct realism is an illusion, but is a very useful illusion, which we might better call a fine representation by the model, since the word 'illusion' is more about what's wrong as not really showing its object as substantial and really being behind it 
In philosophy of mind, naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are  Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them [1] They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly 
In contrast, some forms of idealism claim that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas, and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses  Naïve realism is known as direct as against indirect or representative realism when its arguments are developed to counter the latter position, also known as epistemological dualism;[2] that our conscious experience is not of the real world but of an internal representation of the world 
There is nothing of illusion in direct realism  There is only the foolish rhetoric implying that "direct" in "direct realism" means absorbing the actual object rather than data from those objects  The data IS from actual objects and does provide awareness of actual objects obeying the laws of physics  The implication that anyone is confusing the awareness of an object with the object itself is just ridiculous  Instead you can say that the process of perception is what makes illusions possible  Because we are interpreting data, then it is entirely possible for similar data to suggest something other than what is the case, such as the impression of water from a mirage -- at least until we learn the distinctions 
When you consider the philosophical alternative, plastering the word "illusion" on direct realism implies that idealism is the reality beneath it  And that is an implication I would refute most heatedly  As for indirect realism, as I explained above, I think it is carrying things too far to say that we are experiencing the model instead of reality  Instead I would limits the validity only to the idea that we use a model in the process of perception  In that sense you could say my position is in-between that of direct realism and indirect realism 
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: Dreams, then, would be better called illusions; further they demonstrate the power of the structure of the model  When we inspects objects in dreams they look just as good as when we see them awake, although backgrounds come and go inconsistently and there are narrative gaps (all of a sudden we are driving a vehicle without ever having gotten into it, plus the controls are a mystery )
I think it is unwise to make generalizations about dreams in such a manner  That is not my experience of dreams at all  My impression is that dreams consist of a mental (linguistic) narrative using memory to fill in the details  The only uniqueness in such experiences are the irrational combinations and discontinuities  Because of this, I have no sense this is anywhere near as good as when we see things awake, when we are interpreting fresh new sensory data  For me, this imparts a considerably dim character to the dream experience 
For me dreams are rather comparable to when I envision scenarios for my books  I see them in my mind's eye but not in a manner that is remotely comparable to my experience of reality through the senses  I am not suggesting that everyone experiences dreams this way  On the contrary, the phenomenon of schizophrenia suggests to me that some people can see things in their minds eye with the same vividness of the senses, for otherwise, how can they not know the difference?
DragonFly » April 20th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote: Another illusion is the feeling of having all of the information in a qualia scene as instantly available, as well as feeling that it is all happening in real time, plus that one is directing it all right then and there 
Calling this illusion is a gross exaggeration  At most it is simply approximation 
by DragonFly on April 23rd, 2018, 11:37 am
'Imagination' (say, of things to happen in a book,) uses the model, too, but the scenes are about 90% transparent, probably so they don't get in the way of the real scenes about 
by DragonFly on April 23rd, 2018, 2:51 pm
Boggling idea of the Subject/Object Cut…
“The Schnitt and the Origins of Life
Physicists refer to the inescapable separation of a subject (the measurer) from an object (the measured) as die Schnitt  (What a great word!) Pattee calls “this unavoidable conceptual separation of the knower and the known, or the symbolic record of an event and the event itself, the epistemic cut 
There is a world of actions that exists on the side of the observer with the observer’s record of an event  There is also a separate world of actions on the side of the event itself  This sounds confusing, but think of the explanatory gap between your subjective experience of an event (I had so much fun body-surfing) and the event itself (A person went swimming in the ocean)  Alternately, you can think of the explanatory gap between the same subjective experience (This is fun) and the goings-on within the brain (Some neurons fired while a person was swimming in the ocean)  These are all just versions of the subject/object complementarity seen in physics  Here is the really wild part: Who’s measuring the events? To examine the difference between a person’s subjective experience and objective reality, do we need a scientist? Who’s measuring the scientist?
Pattee points out that neither classical nor quantum theory formally defines the subject, that is, the agent or observer that determines what is measured  Physics, therefore, does not say where to make the epistemic cut 4 Quantum measurement does not need a physicist-observer, however  Pattee argues that other things can perform quantum measurements  For example, enzymes (such as DNA polymerases) can act as measurement agents, performing quantum measurement during a cell’s replication process  No human observer is needed 
For Schrödinger, the joke was on us  He was trying to point out that there is something missing in our understanding  Pattee got it (in high school) and buckled down to attack the problem  Where should we put the cut, the gap, die Schnitt? With his consuming interest in the origins of life, he came to realize that human consciousness was way too high a layer in the architecture of all living organisms to put the epistemic cut between the observer and the observed, between the subjective experience and the event itself  There are umpteen layers between subatomic particles and human brains  There are plenty of layers between subatomic particles and brains in general (cat or mouse or fly or worm)  Putting the major epistemic cut that high led to the nonsense of Schrödinger’s cat existing as a quantum system  There was no pussyfooting around for Pattee: “I have taken the point of view that the question of what constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics must arise long before we reach the complexity of the brain  In fact, I propose … that the gap between quantum and classical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter 
There you have it  Pattee proposes that the gap resulted from a process equivalent to quantum measurement that began with self-replication at the origin of life with the cell as the simplest agent  The epistemic cut, the subject/object cut, the mind/matter cut, all are rooted to that original cut at the origin of life  The gap between subjective feeling and objective neural firings didn’t come about with the appearance of brains  It was already there when the first cell started living  Two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origin of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself  That is a mind-boggling idea ”
by mitchellmckain on April 24th, 2018, 1:06 pm
The "like" on the above post is not to be construed as complete agreement with conclusions, but rather more with an abundant approval of the questions and issues raised 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: Boggling idea of the Subject/Object Cut…
Absolute agreement here! I have always considered quantum interpretations linking quantum decoherence with human consciousness to be absurd -- with one exception  The one interpretation which makes this link and is not absurd is the Everett Interpretation  THOUGH, I would not count this in its favor! Furthermore, it isn't actually necessary to the Everett Interpretation, for it is quite possible to shift the locus of the decoherence in this interpetation to agree with other interpretations 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: For Schrödinger, the joke was on us  He was trying to point out that there is something missing in our understanding 
Agreed! That is how I have always understood the Schrödinger cat thought experiment  It was not to seriously propose the existence of dead-alive cats but to highlight the absurdities which come from the way that quantum physics was usually being presented 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: Pattee got it (in high school) and buckled down to attack the problem  Where should we put the cut, the gap, die Schnitt? With his consuming interest in the origins of life, he came to realize that human consciousness was way too high a layer in the architecture of all living organisms to put the epistemic cut between the observer and the observed, between the subjective experience and the event itself  There are umpteen layers between subatomic particles and human brains  There are plenty of layers between subatomic particles and brains in general (cat or mouse or fly or worm)  Putting the major epistemic cut that high led to the nonsense of Schrödinger’s cat existing as a quantum system  There was no pussyfooting around for Pattee: “I have taken the point of view that the question of what constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics must arise long before we reach the complexity of the brain  In fact, I propose … that the gap between quantum and classical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter 
And here is where we have a disagreement  While I totally appreciate pushing many things such as consciousness, learning, and creativity down to the lowest levels of the divide between the living and nonliving, I personally do not believe that this has anything whatsoever to do with the quantum measurement problem 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: There you have it  Pattee proposes that the gap resulted from a process equivalent to quantum measurement that began with self-replication at the origin of life with the cell as the simplest agent 
Furthermore, I think this focus on self-replication as the divide between the living and non-living may be a little behind the times  Metabolism first theories of abiogenesis and the study of prebiotic evolution strongly suggest that key features of the life process are located way before the development of self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA  On the other hand, perhaps this idea of self-replication can be extended to processes in prebiotic evolution in which there is a catalysis of chemical reactions which replenish the chemical components  After all, self-maintenance is a definitive feature of the life process and would suggest that any life process must include the regeneration of its components 
DragonFly » April 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm wrote: The epistemic cut, the subject/object cut, the mind/matter cut, all are rooted to that original cut at the origin of life  The gap between subjective feeling and objective neural firings didn’t come about with the appearance of brains  It was already there when the first cell started living  Two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origin of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself  That is a mind-boggling idea ”
This would only work if you can make a logical connection with this definitive feature of life in a process of self maintenance  I have already suggested a connection between this and consciousness by pointing out that self maintenance requires some kind of awareness of self, both as it is and as it "should be " Without some sort of "should be" in some form there can be no self-maintenance  It should be noted that there are numerous quantitative features to this, such as the clarity with which this goal of self as it "should be" is represented, the determination/flexibility with which it is adhered to (or in other words the range of circumstances which can be handled in holding to this goal) 
by TheVat on April 24th, 2018, 1:52 pm
It seems likely a paramecium does no representing to a self, and is pretty much a cellular machine lacking sentience 
A paramecium is not full of Schnitt  It is not measuring or having goals or anything else  It is an automaton  To think otherwise would be to invite some sort of Bergsonian "elan vital" or other dualistic essence 
The problem with the term "observation" is that it's prejudicial in common parlance  It implies some sort of sentient observer  It implies a subjective aspect  So a more neutral term would be needed when a microbe registers a chance in its environment and contracts or expands or fires up the cilia or dumps the vacuoles or whatever  Or when a Bose Einstein condensate loses its coherence in a wet noisy puddle 
Braininvat » April 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm wrote: It seems likely a paramecium does no representing to a self, and is pretty much a cellular machine lacking sentience 
But it is not a machine for the simple reason that it is not a product of design  The only reasons for which it does things are its own reasons  It is a product of self organization, and the learning process which is evolution 
I certainly agree with the term "biological machinery," which is to say that there is no reason to distinguish things simply on the basis that one uses the interactions of organic chemistry  Thus I think the locus of difference between the living organism and the machine has to do with origins whether it is by design or by learning, evolution, and self-organization 
Braininvat » April 24th, 2018, 12:52 pm wrote: The problem with the term "observation" is that it's prejudicial in common parlance  It implies some sort of sentient observer  It implies a subjective aspect  So a more neutral term would be needed when a microbe registers a chance in its environment and contracts or expands or fires up the cilia or dumps the vacuoles or whatever 
But the problem with this is that the prejudice in language goes both ways with the presumption of an uncrossable divide between the sentient and the non-sentient, when all the evidence points to a continuum going all the way from the non-living to the living to the sentient  And this is not a linear continuum but a rapidly branching tree with many capabilities somewhat arbitrarily (or rather anthropomorphically) lumped into this term "sentience "



ground_truth: It becomes a bit less so that what's off to the left or right can be better noted.