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

[Krimel]

[Platt]
As if scientists and teachers aren't biased like everyone else and don't
seek to denigrate other points of view, mostly disproved behind closed 
doors but out there for all to see in the dispute about global warming. 
As for Fox News, liberals are deathly afraid of its fair and balanced 
approach.

[Krimel]
The fact the people of any persuasion argue in favor of what they believe is
hardly an indictment. But FOX News? Please they don't even pretend to be
"fair and balanced."

[Platt]
Maybe they should instead of, let's say, the sacrifices needed to become a
military commander able to rescue countries like France from authoritarian
occupation.

[Krimel]
This comment makes no sense whatever. Not even in the context I snipped.
WTF?

> [Platt]
> You mean science is skeptical of and constantly questions their
assumptions
> of determinism, reductionism, materialism, and emergentism? I'd love to
see
> some evidence.
>
> [Krimel]
> Pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" or any such journal.

[Platt]
Can't produce any evidence, eh? OK, I understand.

[Krimel]
No Barnes and Noble or Borders near you. Got a library in your neighborhood.
I mean I get they you are comfortable ensconced in your fantasy world of
misconception but why are you even bothering with this?

> [Krimel]
> The ways that people characterize this process are legion. Subject/object
> is just one of them. Some in say the theology department might hold for
> example that thoughts are reflections of the mind of God.

[Platt]
The source of SOM is not the issue. I guess you would claim the source is
the brain.
Whatever the source, the process is the same -- subjects observing objects,
a.k.a., I think, therefore I am.

[Krimel]
That doesn't even make sense in Cartesian terms. The cogito does not produce
the mind body problem that is derived from Descartes elaborations on the one
toehold of certainty he could find. How you can equate a supernatural
theistic world view with SOM is entirely a mystery.

[Platt]
An example of a corporation that pursues knowledge "for its own sake" is
Bell Labs whose "pursuit" has been rewarded with seven Nobel Prizes in 
Physics. I certainly don't knock the contributions of the academy in the 
physical sciences. But in the liberal arts they have little to contribute 
of value.

[Krimel]
Bell Labs and Xerox PARC are two good examples of research conducted in the
private sector but they were hardly pure research the work there was
targeted at specific problems. That's fine because just as pure research can
have practical consequences, practical research can contribute to higher
understandings. Shannon and Mandelbrot, working out of Bell and IBM labs
actually did produce ideas that have transformed the world beyond SOM in
ways that you are totally clueless about.

> [Krimel]
> Actually I suspect that if the government insisted on retaining the right
> to income from the discoveries it has financed, taxation would be a thing
of
> the past. Satellite communication is an example, it is simply would not
> exist at all without government funding for research and development. I
> remember with the original Telstar satellite was launched and the money it
> was suppose to generate was to be put back into funding public
> broadcasting.
> But the technology was instead turned over to private enterprise for free.
> Like the discoveries of basic medical research this is nothing but
> corporate welfare.
>

[Platt]
Paid for by corporate and other taxpayer dollars. The government doesn't
finance anything. We do.

[Krimel]
I hate to have to continue to remind you of this but we ARE the government. 

[Platt]
That's a cold-blooded SOM scientist talking. The same logic applies when the
elderly are denied medical care because the money would be better used to
care for the more numerous young.

[Krimel]
You are the one who consistently measure political virtue in terms of body
counts. Your second sentence is simply inintelligible.

> [Krimel]
> I'm with Don Henley on this one:
> "They call it paradise. I don't know why.
> You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye."
>
> Paradise is right here right now. If you aren't happy right here right now
> it seem unlikely to me that you are going to be transformed into a happy
> person in some other time in some other place. It has nothing to do with
> technology or the lack of it.
>
> [Platt}
You disagree with Pirsig's observation? I assume you do.

[Krimel]
I am not talking to Pirsig. He doesn't take my calls. But I do disagree with
you.

[Platt]
You also disagree with with Pirsig's support of capitalism? I assume you
do.

[Krimel]
I do not agree that Pirsig is the brain dead conservative you paint his to
be. 

[Platt]
Without profits there would be no technology. Humanity would still be in
caves.

[Krimel]
For the vast majority of its history mankind thrived without profits.
Profits and interest were considered immoral in the middle ages because they
disrupted the equilibrium of population to food supply. The Inca in the late
1400's commanded the third largest empire in human history and did so
without writing or money.