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: Is there any evidence of heaven and hell?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: LOL Anonymous I'm here! & I did answer you back there 
kl el kotb el qadema (tawrat + enjel + 9o7f ibrahem) 7orfat w t'3ayarat   law ma 9ar hal shy chan ma 6ala3 ktab yded ye;3y elly gablah l7ad ma 6ala3 lna el quraan b norah elly allah 7f'6ah don ta7ref w tabdel ela yom el dein    shlon tyeeb Joan shy ma5ooth 5erah?!
1- Imagine you have two individuals  One truly believes in God but he is a bad husband and father who cheats on his wife and neglects his children  The other man is a nonbeliever; he accepts religion in theory and doctrine but simply does not have faith no matter how hard he tried  He is a good father and a good husband as well  When they stand before God at the Day of Judgment, would the nonbeliever be condemned to eternal hell only for that one flaw in him? Don't the other good traits in that person matter at all? Does being a nonbeliever equal being evil?
2-God knows everything  However, why would He have created when He knows exactly what each person is going to do and where they will end up? For example, let us suppose that tomorrow I will murder someone  God knows that I will do that  And He knows that I will suffer in hell when the time comes  So why does He purposely inflict that pain on me? To teach me a lesson? He knows the outcome of everything and everyone He has created 
3-Since you brought up science in the previous comments section, I am seriously curious (I am not trying to be glib) about dinosaurs and prehistoric humans  We have seen the evolution of humans and we have fossils and hard evidence of it  The science world has traced back "Eve" to Africa  The concept of Adam and Eve seems too mythological to be 100% factual  It has the same tone of Greek and Ancient Egyptian legends 
-Note: I am not trying to corner you here, I just want to know your response to my queries and thoughts  Thanks 
_ ولماذا نصلى ولمن نصلى    انى لا ارى لصلاتكم هذه اى حكمه ولماذا كل تلك الحركات اما كان يكفى الخشوع  
اعتقد ان المشكلة ليست كما ذكرت  فما ذكرته يعني ان هناك العديد من المسائل الفقهية المتصلة بالعصر الجديد دون حل  على العكس, فالحلال بين والحرام بين  اعتقد المشكلة تكمن بالمسلمين الذين اصابهم الوهن 
You'll be answerd personaly only if; you comment with your blogger's name/nick 
I answered you before & there was no response from your behalf  Why would you think you're worth an answer from me since you can seek answers from good books?
Your questions are very simple, with clean cut answers  Don't use the word corner; it indicates things you don't have the first alphabet for!
Religion was established to calm our fears from the unknown  Freud did write about it in the father figure argument  Try to read it 
I deleted my last comment because in the end of it I inserted some thing that may offend some people (if you read it, I gauss you know what I mean)  Abraham did not believe in God until he saw the birds come to life  So, all what I want is a single prove similar to Abraham 
I indeed busy doing my homework; I have to solve the energy equation and the continuity equation to come with another, hopefully, exact solution to the problem 
Do you work? I mean do you have a job, it seems that you are always on line!!!???? It is amazing how some one would stick to the internet  Try to go out more often, play sport or find any other hobby  If you could not disattach yourself from the internet try and seek a professional help… :-)  Honestly, I’m not making fun of you it is just an advice… sincere advice 
I measure prosperity of a nation by the degree of its civilization in comparison to others of its time  Islamic civilization was at the peak during the Umayyad and Abbasid reigns, at the time when Moslems conquered other nations and dying civilizations, and mixed with them, and the new comers in Islam started researching for the truth  In their quest they translated Greek philosophy books and dug into ancient ones  Their search for truth led them to the emergence of chemistry, Algebra and other sciences And their findings excelled them in innovative inventions  The maps and astrolabes that Columbus used to sail on his quest to discover the West years later were taken from the Arabs  And in contrary to the scribbles of their holy book, Arabic books were the first that brought the roundedness of earth to world attention  Arabic language romanticized the rigid Latin, poetry and verse advanced  At one time, civilization was dubbed as Arabization in Andalusia and that was evident in Andalusia’s Christian and Jewish ancient books  Islamic Architecture and their aggregation systems portrayed marvels of their time  Islamic libraries were huge and rich for the European knowledge seekers 
And history tells us that those were the times when Moslems were the furthest from the dogma of their religion, there societies were open to controlled prostitution in the name of dancimng Jawari, and alcohol was openly consumed  We also notice in these periods that struggle for power among them mounted, yet they were the most tolerant to other nations and beliefs  There was nothing Islamic about them at that time, only a name  After that time, the Islamic civilization collapsed and kept deteriorating as people clung more to the their religious beliefs that were diverted through different interpretations 
And based on that; I believe that it’s not only Moslems who missread their religion, the problem stemmed from the core of the religion (Quran and tradition) for being vague and subject to different interpretations  If Quran was the true word of God, then it should have contained the miracle of not being subject to different interpretations, at least to keep Moslems united, and then, one would believe that Islam is suitable for every location and time 
Nothing can give a solid proof of the existence of heaven and hell, yet, nothing can disprove it either  Same goes to God  So the chance remain fifty-fifty  You either believe in it for the sake of taking a lesser risk if you don’t believe in blind faith, or discard it all together  Yet, the possibility is there until proved or disproved  As for now; these cases can only be understood through logic  So let’s reiterate your question and narrow it down to make it closer to something that can be measured 
Is there any mention of the stories of prophets outside the holy books? Are there any archeological evidences of each prophet’s reign (and I stress prophet’s)? Are there any mention of each prophet in history books outside its holy book, or the books that were based on it’s holy books? Ok, that was too general, let’s narrow it down a bit since your knowledge of your religion, mashallah, especially in reciting Quran is superb 
Is there any mention of the prophet Mohammad reign in non-Moslem history books other than those referenced to Moslem books? And if there were; did those stories mach? Did archeology of Mohammad’s time match those stories? Did ancient books of other nations confirm those stories? After all Mecca was an open, mid trade center for traders of the South and the North, and supposedly was exposed and open to other nations, and an emergence of a new religion would not have gone unnoticed in the ancient books of those nations 
That's why faith is called "FAITH" to believe in the unseen, you see 
keep in mind that every major religion has gone through various phases from emergence to growth to stagnation to depression and reformation  these are cycles that play out across centuries and i suspect islam is not immune to them 
islam is unique in that it is truly the last 'great' religion and it is here to stay  the future should be one of consilience and consolidation between religions and peoples 
at the end of the day - tolerance of thought will be the salvation of mankind 
I've been asking your first question for as long as I can remember and nobody has given me a convincing answer yet  I also asked the second question verbatim when I was in my high school's Tarbiya Islamiya class, and the teacher had no answer  I kept hounding him until the students yelled at me to shut up and then he kicked me out!
We're all adults here, so why can't you answer Anon's query? I still find it amazing that you named yourself after Saint Joan  A Christian (gasp!) who will burn in hell according to some of the comments here 
All men are my brothers  I would have liked to have said it then, and I would like to say it now: all men are my brothers  But all men are not my brothers  Why? Because all women are my sisters  And the brother who denies the rights of his sister: that brother is not my brother  At the very best, he is my half-brother - by definition  Osama is not my brother 
Religion is sensitive ground, as well it might be  Here we walk on eggshells  Because religion is itself an eggshell  Today, in the West, there are no good excuses for religious belief - unless we think that ignorance, reaction and sentimentality are good excuses  This is of course not so in the East, where, we acknowledge, almost every living citizen in many huge and populous countries is intimately defined by religious belief  The excuses, here, are very persuasive; and we duly accept that 'faith' - recently and almost endearingly defined as 'the desire for the approval of supernatural beings' - is a world-historical force and a world-historical actor  All religions, unsurprisingly, have their terrorists, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even Buddhist  But we are not hearing from those religions  We are hearing from Islam 
Let us make the position clear  We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad - a unique and luminous historical being  Judged by the continuities he was able to set in motion, he remains a titanic figure, and, for Muslims, all-answering: a revolutionary, a warrior, and a sovereign, a Christ and a Caesar, 'with a Koran in one hand', as Bagehot imagined him, 'and a sword in the other'  Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived  And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god  Naturally we respect Muhammad  But we do not respect Muhammad Atta 
Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam  That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam  Well, the civil war appears to be over  And Islamism won it  The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible  We are not hearing from moderate Islam  Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is 
So, to repeat, we respect Islam - the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and the possessor of a thrilling history  But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination  More, we regard the Great Leap Backwards as a tragic development in Islam's story, and now in ours  Naturally we respect Islam  But we do not respect Islamism, just as we respect Muhammad and do not respect Muhammad Atta 
المؤامرات على الأديان وجميع الانقلابات المخربة والثورات على القيم والمبادئ خرجت من هذا التراث    وان كل معول هدم كان وراءه توجيه يهودي 
•تذكروا أن الشعب الذي لا يهلك غيره يهلك نفسه 
•يجب ان نخلق الجيل الذي لا يخجل من كشف عورته (ألا تفسر لنا هذه الجملة موجة العرى في الافلام والموضات التى تسود العالم الآن) 
 علينا ان نشعل حربا بين الشعوب ونضرب الدول بعضها ببعض فبهذا يصبح جميع المتحاربين في حاجة الى أموالنا فنفرض عليهم شروطنا 
•الجماهير عمياء فاشتروها بالمال وسوقوها كالبهائم الى أهدافكم 
•سيطروا على الانتخابات ووسائل الاعلام والصحافة (وهم قد سيطروا عليها بالمال والجنس والمرأة في الغرب الرأسمالي وبالحزب والسلطة في العالم الاشتراكي) 
•ادفعوا الجماهير العمياء الى الثورة وسلموهم مقاليد الحكم ليحكموا في غوغائية وغباء (وقد فعلوا هذه في الثورة الفرنسية) وحينئذ نأتي نحن ونعدمهم فنكون منقذين للعالم (وقد اعدموهم جميعاً من روبسبير الى ميرابوا) 
•ارفعوا شعار الحرية واهدموا بها الاخلاق والاسرة والقومية والوطنية 
 ارفعوا شعار العلم واهدموا به الدين    وهذا ما فعله كمال أتاتورك (حفيد مزاراحي) حينما اقام الدولة العلمانية في تركيا ووقف يخطب في البرلمان التركي عام 1923 ساخراً من القرآن 
نحن الآن في القرن العشرين لا نستطيع ان نسير وراء كتاب تشريع يبحث عن التين والزيتون 
•الذي يعرقل مؤامراتكم اوقعوه في فضائح ثم هددوه بكشفها (وقد فعلوها في ووترجيت) او في مآزق مالية ثم تقدموا لانقاذه (وقد فعلها دزرائيلي مع الخديو واستولى على القنال)   وإذ تعذر الامر سارعوا الى اغتياله (وقد فعلوها بكنيدي) ثم اقتلوا قاتله لتدفنوا اسرارنا معه الى الأبد (وقد فعلوها بقاتل كنيدي) 
•اقتلوا القوميات والوطنيات بالدعوة الى الاممية والمواطنة العالمية وقد فعلها ماركس في الشيوعية 
•كل ما عدا اليهود حيوانات ناطقة سخرها الله في خدمة اليهود 
واليهودية ترى ان الله واحد ولكنها تحتكره لنفسها فلا عمل لله الا الحفاظ على اسرائيل وتسخير جميع الشعوب لخدمتها 
واللاهوت اليهودي لا يؤمن بآخرة، وقد شطبوا كل ما جاء عن الآخرة في التوراة    والقيامة عندهم هي قيامة دولتهم في فلسطين والبعث بعثها والنشر نشرها    ويوم الحساب هو اليوم الذي يحاسبون فيه كل الأمم يوم يعود المسيح ويباركهم ويختارهم نواباً له في حكم العالم وإقامة ملكوت الله على الأرض    والعجيب انهم كفروا بالمسيح حينما جاء ثم أعلنوا إيمانهم بعودته وشرطوا هذه العودة بانها رجعة من المسيح ليختارهم رؤساء وحكاماً للعالم الى الأبد 
والفكر اليهودي يلقى غلالة من الأسرار والطلاسم والكتمان والغموض على كل شئ    والكبالا والسحر وعلم الأعداد والحروف وتسخير الشياطين من علومهم التى شغفوا بها وروجوها ونشروها 
وكانت وسيلتهم الى هدم الكتب السماوية هى تفسيرها بالتأويل وذلك برفض المعاني الظاهرة واختراع معان باطنة تهدم الغرض الديني وتفسد هدفه 
ونستطيع ان نرى اثر التوجيه الهودي في الفلسفات العبثية والدمية والمادية والفوضية والإباحية    واحيانا نلمح اسماء يهودية خلفها مثل : سارتر – فرويد – ماركس – ماركوز 
واذا فتحنا ملف الديانة البهائية فإننا نجد اثر التوجيه اليهودي واضحا في كتبها 
عبد الهاء تأليف سليم قبعين القاهرة مطبعة العمران 1922 
مفواضات عبد البهاء الطبعة الاولى 1928م  موعود كل الامم 
جورج تاوزنه مطبوع بإذن من المحفل الروحاني لمصر والسودان 
•اكثر فلاسفة اليونان تعلموا الحكمة من بنى اسرائيل 
•رسالة عبد البهاء هي توحيد المسلمين والنصارى واليهود وجمعهم على أصل نواميس موسى 
•عمل موسى لا يس
Context 3: \section{Introduction}

Despite the rise of graphene and other 2D materials, semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNT) are still regarded as strong candidates for the next generation of high-performance ultrascaled transistors~\cite{Cao_IBM_2015,IBM_2017,3D_CNT_FET} as well as for opto-electronic devices~\cite{Review_Avouris,CNT_photonics} such as chip-scale electronic-photonic platforms~\cite{Pernice_2016} or low-threshold near-infrared tunable micro-lasers~\cite{Graf_2017}  
Engineering a quantum dot (QD) along a (suspended) semiconducting SWNT foreshadows promising opportunities in the field of quantum information processing and sensing through recently proposed schemes such as detection and manipulation of single spins via coupling to vibrational motion~\cite{Palyi_2012}, optomechanical cooling~\cite{Wilson_Rae_2012} as well as all optical manipulation of electron spins~\cite{Galland_all_optical_2008}  Furthermore, the quasi one-dimensional geometry of SWNTs allows for defining tunable p-n junctions induced by electrostatic doping through local gates~\cite{Buchs_JAP,tunable_pn_2011}  Combining a well-defined QD within such a p-n junction structure could constitute a crucial building-block for the realization of highly desirable electrically driven, on-demand single photon emitters operating at telecom wavelength, based $e g $ on a turnstile device architecture~\cite{turnstile_1994,turnstile_1999} 
In practice, QDs in carbon nanotubes have been reported predominantly for two different confinement structures: i) Engineered tunneling barriers at metal-nanotube contacts~\cite{Pablo04nat} and/or by gate electrodes, used \emph{e g } to manipulate single electron spins~\cite{Laird:2015}, ii) Unintentional localization potentials stemming from environmental disorder~\cite{Hofmann_2016}, allowing for single-photon emission mediated by localization of band-edge excitons to QD states~\cite{CNT_photonics,Hoegele_2008,Walden_Newman_2012,Hofmann_2013,Pernice_2016_2}  Both types of structures are usually operated at cryogenic temperature due to small energy scales ranging from a few to few tens of millielectronvolts 
\\
\indent Another technique for achieving confinement in SWNTs makes use of artificial defects such as covalently bound oxygen or aryl functionalization groups on the side walls of semiconducting SWNTs, inducing deep exciton trap states allowing for single-photon emission at room temperature~\cite{Htoon_2015,tunable_QD_defects}  Also, carrier confinement between defect pairs acting as strong scattering centers has been reported for mechanically induced defects~\cite{Postma_SET} as well as for ion-induced defects with reported level spacings up to 200 meV in metallic SWNTs~\cite{Buchs_PRL}  The latter technique, combined with recent progress in controlling defects structure and localization~\cite{Robertson_2012,Yoon_2016,Laser_writing_2017} offers a high potential for engineering a broad set of SWNT-based quantum devices operating at room temperature  
\\
\indent Here, we demonstrate confinement of electrons and holes in sub-10 nm QD structures defined by ion-induced defect pairs along the axis of semiconducting SWNTs  Using low temperature scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy (STM/STS), bound states with level spacings of the order of 100 meV and larger are resolved in energy and space  By solving the one-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation over a piecewise constant potential model, the effects of asymmetric defect scattering strength as well as the influence of the Au(111) substrate such as terrace edges on the bound states structure are remarkably well reproduced  By means of ab-initio calculations based on density functional theory and Green's functions, we find that single (SV) and double vacancies (DV) as well as chemisorbed nitrogen ad-atoms are good candidates to produce QDs with the experimentally observed features  These simulations also allow to study the scattering profile as a function of energy for different defect combinations 

\section{Experimental section}

The experiments have been performed in a commercial (Omicron) low temperature STM setup operating at $\sim5$~K in ultra high vacuum  Topography images have been recorded in constant current mode with a grounded sample, using mechanically cut Pt/Ir tips  Differential conductance $dI/dV$ spectra, proportional in first approximation to the local density of states (LDOS)~\cite{Tersoff85} have been recorded using a lock-in amplifier technique  The LDOS spatial evolution along a nanotube axis is obtained by $dI/dV(x,V)$ maps built by a series of equidistant $dI/dV$ spectra  Spatial extent mismatches between topography images and consecutive $dI/dV(x,V)$ maps have been systematically corrected~\cite{Buchs_Ar}, and the metallic nature of the tip has been systematically checked on the gold substrate to prevent any tip artefacts before recording STM or/and STS data sets  
\\
\indent Nanotube samples were made of extremely pure high-pressure CO conversion (HiPCo) SWNTs~\cite{Smalley01} with a diameter distribution centered around 1 nm, FWHM $\sim$ 0 3 nm~\cite{Buchs_conf}  The measured intrinsic defect density was below one defect every 200 nm  SWNTs were deposited on atomically flat Au(111) surfaces from a 1,2-dichloroethane suspension, followed by an in-situ annealing process~\cite{Buchs_APL_07,Buchs_Ar} 
\\
\indent Local defects in SWNTs have been created in-situ by exposure to: (i) Medium energy $\sim$ 200 eV argon ions (Ar$^{+}$) produced by an ion gun \cite{Buchs_Ar,Buchs_PRL}, (ii) Low energy (few eV's) nitrogen ions (N$^{+}$) produced by a 2 45 GHz ECR plasma source~\cite{Buchs_APL_07,Buchs_NJP_07}  In both cases, the exposure parameters have been calibrated to reach an average defect separation along the SWNTs of about 10 nm~\cite{Buchs_Ar,Buchs_APL_07} 

\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Experimental LDOS patterns}
\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figure_1 pdf}
  \caption{\label{exp_data_1} (a)-(b) 3D topography images (processed with WSXM~\cite{WSXM}) of SWNT I with Ar$^{+}$ ions-induced defects, with sample-tip bias voltage ($V_\mathrm{S}$) 1 V and tunneling current $I_\mathrm{S}$ 0 1 nA  (c) Corresponding $dI/dV(x,V)$ map recorded along the horizontal dashed lines in (b), with $V_\mathrm{S}=1$ V, $I_\mathrm{S}=0 2$ nA  Spatial resolution $\sim$ 0 3 nm  (d) 3D topography image of SWNT II with N$^{+}$ ions-induced defects, with $V_\mathrm{S}=1$ V, $I_\mathrm{S}=128$ pA  (e) Corresponding $dI/dV(x,V)$ map recorded along the horizontal dashed lines in (d), with $V_\mathrm{S}=1 5$ V, $I_\mathrm{S}=0 3$ nA  Spatial resolution $\sim$ 0 2 nm }
\end{figure}
In Fig ~\ref{exp_data_1} (a) and (b), we show 3D STM images of the same semiconducting SWNT (referred as SWNT I in the following) with Ar$^{+}$ ions-induced defect sites labeled $d1-d5$   Panel (d) shows a 3D STM image of a second semiconducting SWNT (referred as SWNT II) with N$^{+}$ ions-induced defect sites labeled $d6-d7$  In both cases, defect sites typically appear as hillock-like protrusions with an apparent height ranging from 0 5~{\AA} to 4~{\AA} and an apparent lateral extension varying between 5~{\AA} and 30~{\AA}~\cite{Buchs_NJP_07,Buchs_Ar,Thesis_Buchs}  
\\
\indent The resulting $dI/dV(x,V)$ maps recorded along the horizontal dashed line drawn in the STM images (b) and (d) are displayed in panels (c) and (e) in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_1}, respectively  Defect signatures in the LDOS in both cases are characterized by deep in-gap states at the defects positions  This is consistent with the expected defect structures, $i e $ mainly SVs, DVs and combinations thereof for collisions with Ar$^{+}$ ions~\cite{Buchs_Ar} and bridgelike N ad-atom for collisions with N$^{+}$ ions~\cite{Thesis_Buchs,Nitrogen_prb_07}  Note that gap states at energy levels $\sim$~0 2 eV and $\sim$~0 05 eV in panels (c) and (e), respectively, are shifted to the right from $d3$ by about 1 nm and to the right from $d6$ by about 2 nm  This indicates the presence of intrinsic or ion-induced defects on the lateral or bottom side wall of the SWNTs~\cite{Kra01prb}, not visible in the topographic images  These defects are labelled $d3'$ and $d6'$, respectively   
\\
\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure_2 pdf}
  \caption{\label{exp_data_Ar} (a)-(b) QD I detailed $dI/dV(x,V)$ maps in conduction and valence bands  Lower subpanels contain QD states linecut profiles and stationary wave-like fits in left and right QD parts  Right subpanels contain experimental energy dispersion relation data sets $k_\mathrm{n}(E_\mathrm{n})$ and tight-binding calculations  (c)-(d) Resulting LDOS calculated from a one-dimensional piecewise constant potential model featuring potential barriers and a potential step (gray area), with position of the potential step: 5 09 nm from the right barrier's center, potential step heigth: $U_\mathrm{C}=V_\mathrm{L}-V_\mathrm{R}=60$ meV, barrier heights: $V_\mathrm{d3'}=1$ eV, $V_\mathrm{d4}=0 85$ eV, barrier widths: $a_\mathrm{d3'}=a_\mathrm{d4}=3 4$ nm   Valence band: $V_\mathrm{d3'}=-0 4$ eV, $a_\mathrm{d3'}=a_\mathrm{d4}=2 5$ nm, $V_\mathrm{d4}=-0 4$ eV  $E_\mathrm{g}$ stands for bandgap energy }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure_3 pdf}
  \caption{\label{exp_data_N} (a) QD II detailed $dI/dV(x,V)$ map  Lower subpanels contain QD states linecut profiles and stationary wave-like fits in the left and right QD parts  Right subpanel contains experimental energy dispersion relation data sets $k_\mathrm{n}(E_\mathrm{n})$ and tight-binding calculations  (b) Resulting LDOS calculated from a one-dimensional piecewise constant potential model featuring potential barriers and a potential step (gray area) with position of the potential step: 4 7 nm from the right barrier's center, potential step heigth: $U_\mathrm{C}=V_\mathrm{L}-V_\mathrm{R}=60$ meV, barrier heights: $V_\mathrm{d6'}=0 6$ eV, $V_\mathrm{d7}=0 6$ eV, barrier widths: $a_\mathrm{d6'}=1 5$ nm, $a_\mathrm{d7}=2 6$ nm }
\end{figure}
\indent Remarkably, the $dI/dV(x,V)$ maps in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_1} exhibit several broad discrete states in the conduction bands of SWNT I, II (white dashed boxes in panel (c) and (e), respectively) and in the valence band of SWNT I (white dashed box in panel (c)), characterized by a modulation of the $dI/dV$ signals in the spatial direction between pairs of consecutive defect sites $d3'-d4$ and $d6'-d7$  Enlarged plots of these boxed regions are displayed in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a)-(b) and Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a) for SWNTs I and II, respectively  In the conduction bands, cross-sectional curves recorded along the black horizontal dashed lines labelled m1--m3 in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a) and m1--m4 in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a) are plotted below the LDOS panels  These clearly reveal one to three and respectively one to four spatially equidistant maxima  The number of maxima increases for increasing $\left|V_\mathrm{bias}\right|$ and the measured level spacings between consecutive discrete states is of the order of 100 meV and larger for both cases  This indicates that defect sites $d3'-d4$ and $d6'-d7$, respectively separated by 12 1 nm and 11 2 nm, act as strong scattering centers able to confine carriers in semiconducting SWNTs~\cite{Buchs_PRL,Bercioux_prb_2011}  Such intrananotube QD structures will be referred as QD I (in SWNT I) and QD II (in SWNT II) in the following  We estimated the level spacings in the conduction band of QD I to 98 meV (m1-m2) and 116 meV (m2-m3)  For QD II, we measured 122 meV (m1-m2), 185 meV (m2-m3) and 210 meV (m3-m4) 
\\
\indent In the valence band of SWNT I, discrete states with level spacings of the order of 80-90 meV, with one clear maximum at the level m-1, can also be distinguished between defect sites $d3'-d4$ in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(b)  The discretization of the states indicates that this QD structure also confines holes  Discrete states starting from m-2 and lower show less well defined structures compared to the conduction band states  In the case of SWNT II, no clear discrete states are observed in the valence band (see supplementary information)  These observations are most probably the result of an energy dependent scattering strength of the defects, respectively $d3'$-$d4$ and $d6'$-$d7$, leading here to a weaker confinement in the valence band  Such energy dependence is well known for metallic SWNTs~\cite{Chico96,vac_2007,mayrhofer:2011,Bockrath_Science01} and is corroborated by our ab-initio calculations  Note that mixing effects with defect states and substrate-induced effects~\cite{substrate_effects} cannot be ruled out 
\\
\indent Another remarkable feature in the LDOS is the strong spatial asymmetry of the lowest energy states m1 and m-1 in QD I and m1 in QD II  In QD I, m1 is shifted to the right side of the dot while m-1 is shifted to the left side  Higher states m2 and m3 show more symmetry in terms of position of the maxima relative to the center of the QD  In QD II, m1 is shifted to the right side of the QD  We attribute the observed lowest energy states asymmetry (for electrons as well as for holes) in part to their strong sensitivity to weak potential modulations within the QD structure (as we will show in section \ref{1D})  For QD I, this assertion is supported by the observation of a 0 25 nm high Au(111) terrace edge located around the center of the QD, leading to a supported-suspended interface (see white dashed lines in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_1}(b) and more topographic details in Fig ~S2(a)-(d) in supplementary information)  Such configurations have been reported to induce a rigid shift in the SWNT bands~\cite{Clair_2011}, for instance here a down-shift in the right side of QD I corresponding to the "suspended" portion between two terraces  In QD II, we attribute the spatial shift of m1 to a potential modulation induced by a layer of disordered impurities, most probably residua from the 1,2-dichloroethane suspension, lying between the gold substrate and the SWNT (see Fig ~\ref{exp_data_1}(d) and Fig ~S2(e)-(h) in supplementary information)  
\\
\indent Also, the LDOS in QD I and II (Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a) and Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a), respectively) reveals asymmetric patterns with curved stripes oriented from top left to bottom right for QD I and from bottom left to top right for QD II  These are characteristic signatures for defect pairs with different scattering strengths~\cite{Bercioux_prb_2011,Buchs_PRL}  For instance here, the left defect in QD I ($d3'$) has a larger scattering strength than the right one ($d4$), while the right defect in QD II ($d7$) has a larger scattering strength than the left one ($d6'$)



ground_truth: Unknown.

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 2: 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  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  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 "
Context 3:  
\\
\indent The exact atomic structure of the defects could in principle be determined from a comparison of $dI/dV$ spectra with simulated first-principle LDOS signatures of expected defect types  In reality, this is hampered by the large number of possible geometries to simulate, including complex multiple defect structures~\cite{Buchs_Ar}, together with the large unit cells of the semiconducting chiral SWNTs studied here 
\\
\subsection{1D piecewise constant potential model}
\label{1D}
To better understand the physical origins of the non-trivial signatures of the quantized states, we model the experimental $dI/dV$ maps by solving the time independent one-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation over a piecewise constant potential model of QD I and QD II  The scattering centers are approximated by semi-transparent rectangular tunneling barriers leading to a square confinement potential~\cite{Laird:2015}  This is supported by previous results on defect-induced confinement in metallic SWNTs using the same experimental conditions~\cite{Buchs_PRL} and is consistent with ab-initio simulations presented later in this work  The potential modulation within the QD is approximated by a potential step  The resulting potential geometries are illustrated with gray shaded areas in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar} (c) and (d) and Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(b)  Dispersion relations $E(k)$ can be extracted experimentally from the quantized states wavefunctions by measuring the energy and corresponding momenta in the left and right sides of the QDs  The wavevectors $k$ are determined using stationary wave-like fitting functions~\cite{Buchs_PRL} displayed with dashed red curves in Figs ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a)-(b) and ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a))  From this procedure, the potential step height and position can be estimated (see supplementary information)  The experimental data sets $E(k)$ are plotted in the right panels of Figs ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a) and \ref{exp_data_N}(a) together with dispersion relations from a third-nearest neighbor tight-binding calculation closely approximating ab-initio results~\cite{Reich_TB_2002}  These chirality-dependent tight-binding dispersion relations, calculated within an extended Brillouin zone resulting from the defect-induced breaking of the translation invariance~\cite{Bercioux_prb_2011}, are used in the Hamiltonian of our one-dimensional model  Taking into account the measured chiral angle, diameter distribution~\cite{Buchs_conf} and measured bandgaps, we find the best match with chiralities $(7,6)$ for QD I and $(11,1)$ for QD II (see supplementary information)  
\\
\indent Once chiralities together with potential step heights and positions are optimized, one can fit the height and width of the rectangular tunneling barriers in order to reproduce the experimental level spacings and general LDOS patterns  On a qualitative ground, a symmetric double barrier system results in the formation of spatially symmetric discrete bound states  Increasing both barrier heights simultaneously shifts the bound state energy levels and level spacings up  This leads to sharper bound states as the confinement in the QD is made stronger thus increasing the lifetime of the confined electrons  Increasing the barrier thickness with constant inner edge separation does not affect much the level spacings but further sharpens the bound states  Any asymmetry introduced by a change in the width or height of one single barrier leads to broader bound states  The presence of a potential step modifies the LDOS in lifting the levels of the bound states, with a more pronounced effect on the lower states  In QD I and II, the center of each barrier is aligned with the center of the gap states ($d3'$-$d4$ for QD I and $d6'$-$d7$ in QD II) and the width ratio is kept proportional to the ratio of the spatial extent of the gap states  Thus, by increasing the width of the barriers, we decrease the length of the QD leading to higher level spacings, and vice versa  The experimental level spacings can then be approximated by tuning both barrier widths in the same ratio and the heights individually, knowing that the scattering strength of $d3'$ ($d7$) is larger than $d4$ ($d6'$) according to the observed asymmetry in the LDOS described above \footnote{The transmission probability through a rectangular tunneling barrier is given by $T=\left( 1+\frac{V^{2}\sinh^{2}\left( a \cdot \sqrt{2m^{*}(V-E)}/\hbar \right)}{4E(V-E)} \right)^{-1}$, where $V$ and $a$ are respectively the barrier height and width  For the argument in the $\sinh$ sufficiently small such that $\sinh(x)\simeq x$, it can be shown that $a$ and $V$ can be coupled such that the transmission probability becomes a function of the area under the barrier $A=a\cdot V$, with $T=\left( 1+ \frac{m^{*}A^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}E} \right)^{-1}$  In our case, this condition is not satisfied and thus the barrier geometries are tuned empirically to fit the experimental level spacings }  
\\
\indent For QD I, we find a good match in the conduction band for the barrier heights $V_\mathrm{d3'}=1$ eV and $V_\mathrm{d4}=0 85$ eV, widths $a_\mathrm{d3'}=a_\mathrm{d4}=$ 3 4 nm,  and potential step $V_\mathrm{L}-V_\mathrm{R}=60$ meV  With these parameters, the spatial profile of the obtained quantized states (see lower subpanels in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a) and (c)) reproduces the experimental modulation features remarkably well  Also, the simulated LDOS displays a pattern with curved stripes oriented from top left to bottom right, as observed experimentally, due to a left barrier with a larger scattering strength  In the valence band, although modes m-2 and lower do not show a well defined structure in the spatial direction, thinner barriers with dimensions $a_\mathrm{d3'/d4}=2 5$ nm, $V_\mathrm{d3'/d4}=-0 4$ eV, leading to a slightly longer QD length (9 6 nm compared to 8 7 nm in the conduction band) can reproduce the measured level spacings very well  
\\
\indent For QD II, we observed that the measured energy levels are overestimated by a factor $\alpha\sim1 29$, presumably due to a voltage division effect induced by the impurity layer mentioned above (see details in supplementary information)  We find a good agreement with the experimental LDOS with the parameters: $V_{d3'}=V_{d4}\simeq$ 0 47 eV, $a_\mathrm{d6'}=1 5$ nm, $a_\mathrm{d7}=2 6$ nm and $U_\mathrm{C}=V_\mathrm{L}-V_\mathrm{R}\simeq 47$ meV  Note that in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(b) the barrier and potential heights are multiplied by $\alpha$ to allow a direct comparison with the experimental LDOS  The simulated LDOS shows a pattern with curved stripes oriented from bottom left to top right, as observed experimentally, due to a right barrier exhibiting a larger scattering strength  Also, the spatial profile of the obtained bound states (see lower subpanels in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a) and (b)) reproduces the experimental features quite well  Note also that one can distinguish an isolated state in the experimental LDOS at an energy level between m1 and m2, about in the middle of the QD  This state that prevented an accurate fit of the state m2 in the right QD part is attributed to a spatial feature visible in the STM topography image in Fig ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(d) (see also supplementary information, Fig S2(f)), probably a physisorbed impurity which does not affect the LDOS significantly 
\\
\subsection{Ab-initio calculations}
\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figure_4 pdf}
  \caption{\label{num_data} (a)-(c) LDOS ab-initio simulations of a semiconducting $(16,0)$ SWNT with combinations of vacancies defects separated by 11 1 nm  Subpanels display QD state linecut profiles  (d) Tight-binding (black curve) and ab-initio dispersion relations (green circles) for a pristine $(16,0)$ SWNT with $E_\mathrm{n}(k_\mathrm{n})$ data sets extracted from (a)-(c)  (e)-(g) LDOS ab-initio simulations of a semiconducting $(17,0)$ SWNT with combinations of N ad-atoms and vacancies defects separated by 10 7 nm  (h) Tight-binding (black curve) and ab-initio dispersion relations (green circles) for a pristine $(17,0)$ SWNT with $E_\mathrm{n}(k_\mathrm{n})$ data sets extracted from (e)-(g) }
\end{figure}
In order to elucidate the physical nature of the electron/hole confining scattering centers, we performed ab-initio simulations based on a combination of density functional theory~\cite{pbe,paw,vasp_paw,VASP2}, maximally localized Wannier orbitals~\cite{transportwannier90} and Green's functions (see supplementary information)  Without loss of generality, we have simulated short unit cell semiconducting zigzag SWNTs with different combinations of the most probable defect structures  Results for vacancy defects likely being induced by 200 eV Ar$^{+}$ ions, separated by about 11 nm in a $(16,0)$ SWNT are shown in Fig ~\ref{num_data}(a)-(c) with DV-DV, DV-SV and SV-SV pairs, respectively  The LDOS displays midgap states at the defect positions as expected as well as defect states in the valence band~\cite{Buchs_Ar}  Most importantly, clear quantized states with a number of maxima increasing with energy are observed between the defects in the conduction band, emphasizing the ability of SVs and DVs to confine carriers  For the asymmetric configuration DV-SV, one can distinguish faint curved stripe patterns oriented from top left to bottom right, indicating a larger scattering strength for DVs compared to SVs  This is consistent with observations in transport experiments~\cite{Gomez05nm}  On the other hand, the patterns in the valence band strongly depend on the defect types  Discrete states can be distinguished for the DV-DV case, with m-2 being mixed with defect states  For the DV-SV case, clear curved stripe patterns oriented from bottom left to top right indicate again a stronger scattering strength for DV  Also, broader states are observed, indicating that the scattering strength of DVs and SVs is weaker in the valence band compared to the conduction band 
\\
\indent More insight on the energy dependent scattering strength for each defect pair configuration can be obtained by extracting the wavevector $k_\mathrm{n}(E_\mathrm{n})$ for each resonant state  This data set is plotted in Fig ~\ref{num_data}(d) for the conduction and valence bands together with the $(16,0)$ dispersion relations calculated from the third-nearest neighbor TB model and from the ab-initio calculation for the pristine nanotube  A first observation is the excellent agreement between TB and ab-initio results, further validating the method used in Figs ~\ref{exp_data_Ar}(a)-(b) and ~\ref{exp_data_N}(a)  The vertical dashed lines indicate the limiting $k_\mathrm{n,\infty}=\frac{\pi \cdot n}{L}$ values corresponding to the closed system (infinite hard walls potential) with $L=11 1$ nm being the defect-defect distance  In the conduction band, we find that $k_\mathrm{n}(E_\mathrm{n})=\frac{\pi \cdot n}{L_\mathrm{eff}(n)} < k_\mathrm{n,\infty}$, indicating that the effective lengths $L_\mathrm{eff}(n)$ of the QD are larger than $L$ ($i e $ the resonant states wavefunctions are characterized by penetrating evanescent modes inside the defect scattering potential), as expected for an open system  The shortest $L_\mathrm{eff}(n)$ are obtained for the DV-DV configuration with 12 1 nm (m1), 13 1 nm (m2) and 12 9 nm (m3), which we attribute to wider scattering potential profiles for DVs compared to SVs  In the valence band, we find that $k_\mathrm{n}(E_\mathrm{n})=\frac{\pi \cdot n}{L_\mathrm{eff}(n)} > k_\mathrm{n,\infty}$, with $L_\mathrm{eff}(n)$ values between 7 9 nm (DV-DV, m-1) and 9 66 nm (DV-SV, m-2)  We attribute this pronounced QD shortening to wider scattering potential profiles of both DVs and SVs in the valence band, probably due to mixing with wide spread defect states in the valence band 
\\
\indent Ab-initio calculations for different defect pairs combinations containing at least one N ad-atom, $i e $ N-DV, N-SV and N-N, are presented in Fig ~\ref{num_data}(e)-(h) for a $(17,0)$ SWNT, along with details on the defects geometries  Remarkably, clear QD states are generated for all three configurations, underlining the potential of N ad-atoms to confine carriers in semiconducting SWNTs and thus to generate intrananotube QDs  
\\
\indent In order to demonstrate the scattering strengths of the different defects, we calculated the energy dependent conductance in addition to the LDOS for the different combinations of the QD defining scattering defects on the $(16,0)$ and $(17,0)$ SWNTs, see supplementary information  Generally we can observe strong conductance modulation of the order of 30-40\% with regard to the pristine CNT for all three tested defects (double vacancies DV, single vacancies SV and chemisorbed C-N) with the DVs having the largest scattering strength in the CB and VB   
\\
\indent Note that the choice of the zigzag SWNT chiralities in the two different ab-initio scenarios is motivated by the different effective masses of both chiralities ($m^{*}_{(17,0)}>m^{*}_{(16,0)}$) which is typical for chirality families $(3n-1,0)$ and $(3n-2,0)$~\cite{ZZ_families}  Taking advantage of recent reports on SWNT chirality control~\cite{chirality_control_EMPA,chirality_control_chinese,chirality_chemistry}, this property could be used in practice to design QDs with different level spacings for the same QD length  From an application point of view, however, QDs generated by DVs will have far superior stability at room temperature due to their high migration barrier above 5 eV ($\sim$~1 eV for single vacancy)~\cite{Kra06vm}  This value drops down by at least 2 eV for N ad-atoms depending on their chemisorption configuration~\cite{Nitrogen_prb_07,Yma05nitr} 
\\
\indent Our ab-initio simulations do not take into account any substrate effect  In the experimental case, the carriers can decay through the substrate, thus limiting their lifetime  This leads to state broadening, measured between about 60 meV up to 120 meV in QD I and II, while the quantized states widths in ab-initio simulations vary between about 5 meV and 45 meV  This suggests that a better contrast of the experimental quantized states, especially in the valence band, could be achieved by lowering the nanotubes-substrate interaction through $e g $ the insertion of atomically thin insulating NaCl films~\cite{Ruffieux_Nature_2016}  This would allow to gain more insight on the electronic structure of the QDs as well as in the associated scattering physics at the confining defects~\cite{Buchs_PRL}  

\section{Conclusions and outlook}
In summary, using low-temperature STM/STS measurements supported by an analytical model and ab-initio simulations, we have demonstrated that intrananotube quantum dots with confined electron and hole states characterized by energy level spacings well above thermal broadening at room temperature can be generated in semiconducting SWNTs by structural defects such as vacancies and di-vacancies, as well as nitrogen ad-atoms  These results, combined with recent progresses in type and spatial control in the formation of defects~\cite{Robertson_2012,Yoon_2016,Laser_writing_2017} as well as chirality control~\cite{tunable_QD_defects}, hold a high potential for applications in the design of SWNT based quantum devices  These include $e g $ electrically driven single-photon emitters operating at room temperature and telecom wavelength  In this context, the observation of quantum confinement effects in the emitted light of cut, sub-10 nm, semiconducting SWNTs~\cite{Dai_2008} shall be seen as an additional motivation for investigating the optical properties of our "QD with leads" building-blocks  These would include $e g $ studying optical transitions selection rules for different types and configurations of defect pairs~\cite{sel_rules_2006} associated with experimental studies such as photoluminescence~\cite{Lefebvre06} combined to $g^{(2)}$ correlation measurements~\cite{Hofmann_2013} in suspended SWNT devices as well as photocurrent imaging~\cite{Buchs_Nat_comm} and spectroscopy~\cite{Gabor_2009} 

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Ethan Minot, Lee Aspitarte, Jhon Gonzalez, Andres Ayuela, Omjoti Dutta and Arkady Krasheninnikov for fruitful discussions 
The work of DB is supported by Spanish Ministerio de Econom\'ia y Competitividad (MINECO) through the project  FIS2014-55987-P and by the (LTC) QuantumChemPhys  LM acknowledges support from the BMBF-project WireControl (FKZ16ES0294) and computing time for the supercomputers JUROPA and JURECA at the J\"ulich Supercomputer Centre (JSC) 


\clearpage

\section*{References}






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

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 experimental techniques were used to study the quantum dot structures in this research?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 4:  The systematic error includes the unknown phase between the
two resonances  Work is in progress on extracting the two Breit-Wigner
amplitudes 


\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-2mm}
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=0 28\textheight,width=8 3cm]  {B08F02 eps}

\vspace*{-1cm}
\caption{Mass difference $\Delta M = M(B\pi)-M(B)$ for exclusive $B$ decays 
The background-subtracted signal is a sum of 
$B^*_1 \rightarrow B^* \pi$, $B^* \rightarrow B \gamma $ (open area)
and $B^*_2 \rightarrow B^*\pi$ $B^*\rightarrow B \gamma$ (lower peak in the shaded area)
and $B^*_2 \rightarrow B \pi$ (upper peak in the shaded area)  
(D\O) }
\label{fig:d0_bexc}
\end{figure}


\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[height=0 25\textheight,width=7 5cm]  {B05F03 eps}

\vspace*{-1cm}
\caption{The invariant mass distribution of
$(D^*,\pi)$ pairs, opposite sign (points) and same-sign (solid histogram) }
\label{fig:d0_dstst}
\end{figure}






\subsection{Lifetimes}


CDF and D\O\ have measured  lifetimes of $b$ hadrons through the exclusively
reconstructed decays $B^+ \rightarrow J/\psi K^+$, $B^0 \rightarrow J/\psi K^{*0}$,
$B_s \rightarrow J/\psi \phi$, 
and $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi \Lambda$
(Fig  \ref{fig:d0_lbctau}) 
The latest results are:  \\



 $\tau(B^+)$=1 65 $\pm$ 0 08 $^{+0 096}_{-0 123}$  ps ~(D\O\ 2003),

 $\tau(B^+)$=1 662 $\pm$ 0 033  $\pm$ 0 008  ps ~(CDF),

 $\tau(B^0_d)$=1 473  $^{+0 052}_{-0 050}$ $\pm$ 0 023    ps ~(D\O) 

 $\tau(B^0_d)$=1 539 $\pm$ 0 051  $\pm$ 0 008  ps ~(CDF),

 $\tau(B^0_s)$=1 444   $^{+0 098}_{-0 090}$ $\pm$ 0 020   ps ~(D\O),

 $\tau(B^0_s)$=1 369 $\pm$ 0 100 $\pm$ $^{+0 008}_{0 010}$  ps ~(CDF),


 $\tau(\Lambda_b)$=1 221 $^{+0 217}_{-0 179}$ $\pm$ 0 043  ps ~(D\O),


 $\tau(\Lambda_b)$=1 25 $\pm$ 0 26 $\pm$ 0 10  ps ~(CDF 2003) \\



The measured lifetimes correspond to the following lifetime ratios:\\

$\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)$   =  1 080$\pm$0 042     ~(CDF),
 
$\tau(B^0_s)/\tau(B^0_d)$ =  0 890$\pm$0 072    ~(CDF),

$\tau(B^0_s)/\tau(B^0_d)$ = 0 980$ ^{+0 075}_{-0 070}   \pm$0 003    ~(D\O),

$\tau(\Lambda_b)/\tau(B^0_d)$ =  0 874$ ^{+0 169}_{-0 142}   \pm$0 028    ~(D\O) \\



\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[height=0 3\textheight,width=8 2cm]  {d0_lbctau_B11F02 eps}
\vspace*{-1cm}

\caption{ Fit projection on  $c\tau$ for the $\Lambda_b$ candidates   (D\O)}
\label{fig:d0_lbctau}
\end{figure}


The $B_s$ lifetime measurements listed above are results of
a single-lifetime fit to data, integrated over the decay angles 
Because  of the presence of  final
states  common to ${B_s^0}$\ and its charge conjugate ${\overline{B}_s^0}$,
the two meson states   are expected
to mix in such a way that the two CP  eigenstates may have a relatively
large lifetime difference 
It is possible to
separate the two CP components of ${B_s^0 \rightarrow J/\psi \phi}$\ and thus to measure the
lifetime difference by studying the time evolution of the
polarization states of the vector mesons in the final state 
CDF has carried out a combined analysis of $B_s$ lifetimes 
and polarization amplitudes  The results for the lifetimes of the
low mass (CP even) and high mass (CP odd) eigenstates, and the relative 
width difference are:\\

 $\tau_L = 1 05 ^{+0 16}_{-0 13} \pm 0 02$ ~ps,
 
 $\tau_H = 2 07 ^{+0 58}_{-0 46} \pm 0 03$ ~ps,

 $\Delta \Gamma /\overline \Gamma   = 0 65 ^{+0 25}_{-0 33} \pm 0 01$ \\

Figure \ref{fig:cdf_dg} shows  the scan of the likelihood function 
for $\Delta \Gamma /\overline \Gamma$ 
Pseudoexperiments tossed with $\Delta \Gamma /\overline \Gamma =0$
yield the betting odds for observing the above results at
1/315  For $\Delta \Gamma /\overline \Gamma = 0 12$ (SM prediction,
which has recently been updated to 0 14$\pm$0 05~\cite{dg_un}) the betting odds are
1/84 

\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-1mm}
\includegraphics[height=0 3\textheight,width=8 2cm]  {cdf_scan-dg-un eps}

\vspace*{-1cm}
\caption{Scan of the likelihood function 
for $\Delta \Gamma /\overline \Gamma$ (CDF) 
}
\label{fig:cdf_dg}
\end{figure}




D\O\ has used a novel technique to  measure the lifetime ratio
of the charged and neutral $B$ mesons, exploiting the large
semileptonic sample  $B$ hadrons were reconstructed in the channels
$B\rightarrow \mu^+ \nu D^*(2010)^-X$, which are dominated by $B^0$ decays, 
and  $B\rightarrow \mu^+ \nu D^0X$, which are dominated by $B^+$ decays 
The lifetime ratio was
obtained from the variation of the ratio of the number of events in these two
processes at different decay lengths 
The result is \\


$\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)$   =  1 093$\pm$0 021$\pm$0 022       ~(D\O)




\subsection{Towards $B_s$ mixing}

Measurement of the $B_s$ oscillation frequency via ${B_s^0}$ -${\overline{B}_s^0}$ ~mixing
will provide an important constraint on the CKM matrix  The oscillation
frequency is proportional to the mass difference between the mass eigenstates,
$\Delta m_s$, and is related to the CKM matrix through 
$\Delta m_s \propto |V_{tb}V_{ts}|$  When combined with the
$B_d$ mass difference, $\Delta m_d$ it helps in extraction of $|V_{td}|$,
and thereby the CP violating phase  

As a benchmark for future $B_s$ oscillation measurement, both groups
study  $B_d$ mixing, gaining an understanding of the different components
of a $B$ mixing analysis (sample composition, flavor tagging, vertexing,
asymmetry fitting)  For a sample of partially reconstructed decays
$B\rightarrow D^*(2010)^+\mu^-X$, D\O\ obtains 
$\Delta m_d = 0 506 \pm 0 055 (stat) \pm  0 049 (syst))$ ps$^{-1}$ and
$\Delta m_d = 0 488 \pm 0 066 (stat) \pm  0 044 (syst))$ ps$^{-1}$
when employing  opposite side muon tagging and the same side tagging,
respectively 

The CDF result for semileptonic channels is
$\Delta m_d = 0 536 \pm 0 037 (stat) \pm  0 009 (s c ) \pm 0 015 (syst)$ ps$^{-1}$ 
CDF also reports a result on $B$ oscillations using fully reconstructed
decays:
$\Delta m_d = 0 526 \pm 0 056 (stat) \pm  0 005 (syst))$ ps$^{-1}$ 

Reconstructing $B_s$ decays into different final states is another
important
 step in the ${B_s^0}$ -${\overline{B}_s^0}$ ~mixing analysis 
Thanks to the  large muon and tracking coverage,   D\O\ is accumulating
a  high statistics sample of semileptonic $B_s$ decays 
D\O\ reconstructs the $B_s \rightarrow D^+_s \mu^- X$ decays, with
$D^+_s \rightarrow \phi \pi^+ $ and
$D^+_s \rightarrow K^* K^+ $,
at a rate of $\approx$ 40(25) events per pb$^{-1}$,  respectively 
Figure \ref{fig:d0_bsdsphipi} shows the mass distribution of the
$D^+_s \rightarrow \phi \pi$ candidates 


\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-5mm}
\includegraphics[height=0 3\textheight,width=8 0cm]  {blds-250 eps}
\vspace*{-1 2cm}
\caption{  $D^+_s \rightarrow \phi \pi^+$  signal  (D\O)}
\label{fig:d0_bsdsphipi}
\end{figure}


\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace*{-10mm}
\hspace*{-4mm}
\includegraphics[height=0 35\textheight,width=7 9cm]  {cdf_Bs-DsPi-PhiPi eps}

\vspace*{-1 0cm}
\caption{ $B_s \rightarrow D_s \pi$, $D_s \rightarrow \phi \pi$  signal   (CDF)}
\label{fig:cdf_bsdsphipi}
\end{figure}


CDF has clean signals for fully hadronic, flavor-specific  $B_s$ decays,
providing the best sensitivity to $B_s$ oscillations at high
$\Delta m_s$  Figure \ref{fig:cdf_bsdsphipi} shows the signal for
the best channel, $B_s \rightarrow D_s \pi$, $D_s \rightarrow \phi \pi$ 

\clearpage


\subsection{Rare decays}

The purely leptonic decays $B_{d,s}^0 \rightarrow \mu^+
\mu^-$ are flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) processes 
In the standard model, these decays are forbidden at the tree level and
proceed at a very low rate through higher-order diagrams 
The latest SM prediction~\cite{sm_ref3}
is ${\cal B}(B^0_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)=(3 42\pm 0 54)\times
10^{-9}$, where the error is dominated by non-perturbative uncertainties  The
leptonic branching fraction of the $B_d^0$ decay is suppressed by CKM matrix elements $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2$
leading to a predicted SM branching fraction of $(1 00\pm0 14)\times 10^{-10}$ 
The best published experimental bound (Fig ~\ref{fig:cdf_bsmumu})
 for the branching fraction
of $B^0_s$ $(B^0_d)$ is presently
${\cal B}(B^0_s \, (B^0_d) \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)<7 5\times 10^{-7}\, 
(1 9\times 10^{-7})$ at the 95\% C L ~\cite{cdfII} 
The decay amplitude of $B^0_{d,s} \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ can be
significantly enhanced in some extensions of the SM  

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[height=8 3cm,width=7 9cm]  {cdfbsmumu_results_prl eps}

\vspace*{-1cm}
\caption{Invariant mass for the events passing all requirements  (CDF)}
\label{fig:cdf_bsmumu}
\end{figure}


Assuming no contributions 
from the decay $B^0_d\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ in the signal region,
D\O\  finds the conservative upper limit on the branching fraction 
to be ${\cal B}(B^0_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) \leq 4 6\times 10^{-7}$ 
at the 95\% C L  (Fig ~\ref{fig:d0_bsmumu}) 






\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[height=5 0cm,width=8 0cm]  {B06F03 eps}
\vspace*{-1cm}
\caption{Invariant mass for the events  passing all requirements  (D\O)}
\label{fig:d0_bsmumu}
\end{figure}





ground_truth: Low temperature scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy (STM/STS).