The evolutionary function of love is to create a strong bond between the partners with reproduction in view. In order to achieve this goal, humans use various sexual/reproductive strategies, which have evolved due to specific reproductive benefits. The use of particular strategies depends on many factors but one of the most important is early childhood experiences, on which life history theory focuses. John Lee identified 6 basic love styles: eros, ludus, storge, pragma, agape, and mania. Our goal was to check (...) whether love styles may be treated as sexual/reproductive strategies in the context of LHT - slow or fast strategy. In our study we found that people who prefer the slow reproductive strategy are inclined to show passionate, pragmatic and friendly love, and those who prefer the fast strategy, treated love as a game. A low level of environmental stress in childhood results in preferring eros, storge and agape love styles, belonging to the slow strategy, and a high one results in preferring ludus, which belongs to the fast strategy. People representing eros, storge or pragma styles have restricted sociosexual orientation so they prefer long-term relationships, whereas those with the ludus style are people with unrestricted orientation, preferring short-term relationships. Besides, storge, agape and pragma seem to determine preferring qualities connected with parental effort in one’s partner, mania - with mating effort, and eros - with both kinds of effort. No correlation was found between the love style and the number of children. (shrink)

Atomism is the programme explaining all changes in terms of invariant units. The development of physics during the 20th century may be treated as a spectacular triumph of atomism. However, paradoxically, changes and conceptual difficulties brought about by quantum mechanics lead to the conclusion that the ontological model provided by classical atomism has become inadequate. Atoms (and elementary particles) are not atomos—indivisible, perfectly solid, unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible (eternal), and the void is not simply an empty space. According to quantum (...) mechanics and quantum field theory, there is no unchanging substance at all. If we want to understand contemporary notions of matter and develop an ontological model of the world, consistent with contemporary natural sciences, we should probably go beyond the conceptual framework of atomic philosophy. (shrink)

Mechanika kwantowa wprowadziła nowy zestaw rewolucyjnych idei, takich jak dualizm korpuskularno-falowy, superpozycja stanów, nieoznaczoność, komplementarność, splątanie i całkowicie nowe podejście do prawdopodobieństwa. Mechanika kwantowa została stworzona w celu wyjaśnienia paradoksalnych odkryć, całkowicie niemożliwych do wyjaśnienia w ramach fizyki klasycznej. Współcześnie podobną sytuację możemy znaleźć w naukach o poznaniu i teoriach decyzji – wiele odkryć wydaje się paradoksalnych z punktu widzenia klasycznej teorii prawdopodobieństwa. Na przykład w pewnych warunkach ludzie szacują prawdopodobieństwo koniunkcji zdarzeń A i B jako większe niż prawdopodobieństwo z (...) członów koniunkcji, co jest nazywane błędem koniunkcji, w innych okolicznościach oceniają prawdopodobieństwo sumy zdarzeń A lub B jako mniejsze niż prawdopodobieństwo jednego ze zdarzeń, co jest nazywane błędem dysjunkcji.Celem niniejszego artykułu jest omówienie podstawowych idei programu badawczego Quantum Cognition, który jest zastosowaniem abstrakcyjnego formalizmu mechaniki kwantowej do modelowania czynności poznawczych i procesów decyzyjnych. Kwantowa teoria prawdopodobieństwa, pierwotnie stworzona w celu opisania pomiaru w mechanice kwantowej, wydaje się skutecznym narzędziem w modelowaniu czynności poznawczych i procesów decyzyjnych. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics implies many paradoxes (e.g. Schrödinger's cat, double-slit experiment, non-locality) which are in contradiction to our ordinary experience. To comprehend quantum theory we must revise our understanding of such matters as the objective nature of reality, the nature of causality, and the nature of a complex system and its relation to its components. Finally, common sense seems to be an epistemo-logical obstacle in our understanding of the quantum picture of the world.

It is commonly held that the rise and development of quantum mechanics forces us to reject the idea of objective knowledge and the notion of truth in science. In the article I critically analyse arguments against possibility of objective knowledge in quantum mechanics, which were formulated by philosophizing physicists (Bhor, Heisenberg, Weizsacker). I point out that the term „objectivity” used by those physicists, in ambiguous. They do not distinguish epistemological and ontological notions of „objectivity”, different meanings of the ontic objectivity (...) itself, and they do not separate the objectivity of cognitive acts from the objectivity of cognitive results. (shrink)

The article shows the inadequacy of understanding micro-objects in terms of the ontologies of substantial individual beings and the irreducible metaphorically of such concepts as “particle”, “wave” or “individual object”. An attempt was made to construct the concept of a quantum object as a conceptual blend, using the blending theory.