Very interesting indeed! Unfortunately I was not able to catch up with the jargon before the flux rope with a stable positive Bz component arrived, so I am not yet quite sure what that means, but I hope it turns southwards 😛
Going through charts, I see that a lot have very short time cut-offs. At most I see data from 2 days back, so I don't know if the numbers I see in the charts are special or not... Do you know if there is a way to see historical data plots of these values?
Wow! Major solar fireworks today. Charge your camera batteries and put on your finest jacket for tomorrow night as strong (G3) or perhaps even severe (G4) geomagnetic storm conditions are possible tomorrow evening (1 June) into 2 June.
I learn about an astronomical event BEFORE it happens?! Pretty exciting, I often learn about space events after they already happened 😆 Now I even get a few hours to prepare.
Is there some sensor that I can use to detect this? Will it produce some characteristic radio signal or X-ray pattern? How do I tune in?
Correct!
Wow, a really nice shot of a really nice frog!
Happy you find it useful! I added the images that went into the stack for reference just now.
Here, I’m assuming “it” is a conscious perception. But now I’m confused again because I don’t think any theory of mind would deny this.
Yes, the example of such a theory that is common is epiphenomalism. What I am contrasting in my answers is the epiphenomalist/hard-determinist framework with the physicalist/compatibilist one.
stimuli -> CPM ⊆ brain -> consciousness update CPM -?> black box -?> mind -?> brain -> nervous system -> response to stimuli
I can try to explain with such a diagram:
stimuli -> nerves -> brain input ports -> brain filtering and distribution -> Conscious brain processing via causal predictive modelling -> brain output ports -> nerves -> conscious action
|
-- > Unconscious processing -> brain output ports -> nerves -> unconscious action
So, the CPM is a process within the brain. The idea is that the brain is a computer that makes predictions by building cause-and-effect models. What is interesting about the mathematics of causal models is that the underlying engine is the counterfactual. The claim being made here is that mind itself is this counterfactual engine doing its work. The computational space that deals with the counterfactuals or "fantasies" is the essence of the mind.
This is not in any way a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Rather, it is one of many frameworks compatible with physicalism, and it is the one I personally subscribe to. In this framework, it is a postulate that conscious experience corresponds to the brain’s counterfactual simulations within a generative model used for predicting and guiding action. This postulate does not prove or mechanistically explain consciousness. No physical theory currently does.
I’m going to stick with the meat of your point. To summarize, ...
That is not quite how I see it. The linear diagram "brain -> black box -> mind" represents a common mode of thinking about the mind as a by-product of complex brain activity. Modern theories are a lot more integrative. Conscious perception is not just a byproduct of the form brain -> black box -> mind, but instead it is an essential active element in the thought process.
Ascribing predictions, fantasies, and hypotheses to the brain or calling it a statistical organ sidesteps the hard problem and collapses it into a physicalist view. They don’t posit a mind-body relationship, they speak about body and never acknowledge the mind. I find this frustrating.
That text was probably written by a materialist / physicalist, and this view is consistent within this framework. It is OK that you find this frustrating, and it is also alright if you don't accept the materialist / physicalist viewpoint. I am not making an argument about materialism being the ultimate truth, or about materialism having all of the answers - especially not answers relating to the hard problem! I am specifically describing how different frameworks held by people who already hold a materialist view can lead to different ways of understanding free will.
Scientists often do sidestep the hard problem in the sense that they acknowledge it to be "hard" and keep moving without dwelling on it. There are many philosophers (David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Stuart R. Hameroff), that do like getting into the nitty-gritty about the hard problem, so there is plenty of material about it, but the general consensus is that the answers to the hard problem cannot be find using the materialist's toolkit.
Materialists have is a mechanism for building consensus via the scientific method. This consensus mechanism has allowed us to understand a lot about the world. I share your frustration in that this class of methods does not seem to be capable of solving the hard problem.
We may never discover a mechanism to build consensus on the hard problem, and unfortunately this means that answers to many very important questions will remain subjective. As an example, if we eventually implement active inference into a computer, and the computer claims to be conscious, we may have no consensus mechanism to determine whether they "really" are conscious or not, just as we cannot ascertain today whether the people around us are conscious. In my opinion, yes, it is physically possible to build conscious systems, and at some point it will get tricky because it will remain a matter of opinion. It will be an extremely polarizing topic.
Oh, wow! I didn't know about this microscopic difference between monocots and dicots. So cool!
As far as I can tell, this is the legal document associated with the lawsuit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.642027/gov.uscourts.nysd.642027.1.0.pdf
The most significant component of this claim is not the lawsuit itself (examples of frivolous lawsuits are common), but that BlackRock is the one suing. BlackRock doing this is the important and remarkable claim here.
I see no obvious connection between Roberto Faller and BlackRock. To me this looks like a frivolous lawsuit issued by a random inconsequential individual. So, then, framing it as BlackRock suing is blatant misinformation.
I could be missing something here, perhaps there is indeed a BlackRock connection that I was unable to identify. But that Medium article is certainly not explaining the connection. The CBS article does not mention BlackRock.
If there is no connection to BlackRock, then adding "BlackRock" to the title is not click-bait! It is a blatant lie.
You are a radical vegan
that was a bit confusing at first (where is the crop factor!), i have never really messed with by-x lenses
Haha, I think I have a good idea of why.... When thinking about general photography, common scenes involve many different types of objects of varying sizes and distances. In this context it makes sense to define the "field of view" of a lens in terms of the visual angle, and to think about differences between equipment in terms of a "reference" - that's where the 'crop factor' comes in, when comparing to a 35 mm film as a standard to measure relative to. It is a bit silly to ask a question such as "how many cats can fit into the image that gets projected into the camera sensor?"
When one gets into macro photography things start changing. The distances between the camera and the subjects are defined more narrowly and the size of the subjects one tries to capture is closer in size to the camera sensor's size. In macro-photography you hear about things like a "1:1" lens, meaning that the image of an object placed at a specific distance will be replicated 1:1 at the camera sensor's position. It becomes then meaningful to think about the camera sensor size in absolute sense, because a sensor will capture a scene of its own size (for 1:1). You can still think in relative terms using the crop factor, but it is not as useful to make relative comparisons anymore because the absolute scale is already giving us information that we can work with directly.
For microscopy this trend continues - the distance to the subject is well-defined and we can think in absolute terms about the magnification of the image that gets projected into camera sensor.
Then i got sidetracked on how microscope rulers are being made.
I have not looked into this! I am not sure.... I will look it up.
I reckon you have your setup calibrated.
I do have a ruler but I misplaced it and I have not used it in a while. So, not really, I wouldn't say it is "calibrated". I did take some photos of the ruler that I can use to get a good rough estimate if I can find them.
Thanks a lot! I can understand some of what I am looking at now.
I would like to find out if there are associated phenomena that I might be able to notice using software-defined radio. Maybe some time I can chase after an aurora, but this time I am unprepared.