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

[Krimel]

> [Platt]
> I think (subject), therefore I am (objective state of being). Get it? The
> real mystery is how you think I equated a supernatural theistic world view
> with SOM.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think (subject), therefore I am (subjective state of being). Get it
there
> is not objective there are at all. Descartes moves on from here to derive
> objectives but at this point it is just solipsism.

[Magnus]
Just had to chime in here. The MoQ's stance here is actually:

I think (I (subject), experience the ideas (object) in my brain)
therefore I exist in the same stack in which my physical brain resides. 
Because ideas are intellectual patterns and all patterns are dependent 
on lower level patterns.

[Krimel]
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.