[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[Krimel]

> Krimel had said:
> I don't think the cogito moves us anywhere near a subject or objects.
> I just used "subject" because the statement contains some "I"s. All it
> says is that I know that I exist in virtue of my thoughts. I cannot
> seriously doubt that I am having thoughts but that says buttkiss about
> what thoughts are, where they come from, what my relationship to them
> is or anything whatever about the "I" that is having them. Most of the
> "problems" associated with Descartes come from his own elaborations of
> the cogito and from the elaborations of his commentators.

dmb commented:
> Well, there is some truth to the idea that subsequent commentators
> gave shape to Descartes ideas. But it's also true that Descartes is
> the father of SOM. In fact the subjective side of SOM is what we'd
> call the Cartesian self. For Renee the mind was an unextented
> substance and matter was extended substance and the connection between
> these two categories is THEE problem of Modern epistemology. Before
> Descartes the word "mind" was not used as a noun, was not concieved as
> a thing. It was just a verb, as in "mind your manners". William
> James's ESSAYS ON RADICAL EMPIRICISM begins with the essay titled
> "Does Consciousness Exist?". He answers in the negative. He says that
> consciousness is not a thing but rather a function, a verb. 

[Krimel]
I am not talking here about the whole of Cartesian philosophy, only this one
statement. In arriving at this statement Descartes was attempting to
reconstruct his understanding of the world through a bottom-up process. He
sought to do away with all of his preconception and begin at the very
bottom, at some point upon which there could be no further doubting not by
him or anyone else. Now it is definitely true that having arrived at this
one simple statement he proceeds to reinvent God and the rest of 17th
century culture and to recast the problem of the real versus the ideal in
terms of mind and body. But in that simple foundational cogito it is really
a stretch to claim there are subjects and objects.

BTW, did you ever locate the sentence Pirsig cites from James: 'There must
always be a discrepancy between CONCEPTS and reality, because the former are
STATIC and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' 

As I said I can't find it.