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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 19 Jul 2010 at 14:02, Krimel wrote:

> [Krimel]
> Reason is the late arrival even in evolutionary terms. Man seems to be the
> only living thing we know to possess it. It also seems that the function of
> reason is inhibitory. It serves to override the emotions and stop us from
> acting on the immediate emotional "value" of the present. It helps us
> subordinate what feels good to what makes sense.
> 
> Ron:
> Right, this statement defines a whole new context of value.
> 
> To compare  what feels good, to what makes good sense.
> 
> An arguement for the harmonizing of the two, what makes good sense
> can also feel good, is the driving force of quality, just as you state
> an expansion of reason ought to be an expansion of quality among
> all four levels.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Both reason and emotion always play in role in our evaluations of what makes
> sense. As Jung would have it, which domain we count as most important may be
> a matter of personality. Emotions were not taken into account all that much
> in the first half of the last century. Partly because of the enlightenment
> push for the supremacy of reason. But that emphasis on reason was in part a
> move away from the dominance of emotion in human affairs prior to the
> enlightenment. Some here would like to claim that emotions have been ignored
> or discounted for some nefarious purpose but any review of the history of
> greed, lust, anger and fear in human affairs can hardly claim that they have
> been forced to take a back seat.
> 
> Science for example does take emotions seriously and a great deal of work
> has been done in the study of emotions but emotions rightly have no place
> within most experimental studies. The point of such studies is to eliminate
> or minimize the effect of extraneous variables, that is, things that have
> nothing to do with what is being studied. If I am conducting studies on the
> rate at which objects fall, it makes no difference if I love my wife or if I
> desire heavy things to fall faster than light things.
> 
> What I choose to study and how I chose to study them may in fact depend
> entirely on emotional factors like, I love my wife and she wants me to study
> falling bodies. But that is irrelevant to my scientific efforts. She may
> want heavy things to fall faster and in my devotion to please her, I may
> study just that but when I find that weight plays no role in how fast
> something falls I will have to resolve my passions to my intellect. 
> 
> Whether one uses empirical or rational methods any honest inquiry carries
> with it the possibility of conclusions that we may find emotionally
> upsetting. In fact I would suggest that whenever we arrive at a "truth" that
> causes us no discomfort we ought to be suspicious. 

Hey Krimel,

Despite our many disagreements I like what you say here about reason and 
emotion, especially the part about emotions having no place in experimental 
studies. Perhaps you can further explain the difference as you see it between 
"empirical and rational methods" and a offer bit more definition of "honest 
inquiry." 

Thanks,
Platt