He just can't ignore the consequences of QM while feynman did..The main point could be that we as human are managed by mind..he was not satisfied so his mind couldn't stop ticking while others may do..so don't worry if you like it or not every one has their own view to please their mind you don't necessarily have to adapt just because some one is scientist..I would say think yourself then come to conclusion which will be just for yourself..life is perfect
I find it shameful for our society that a video this interesting and posted over 2 years ago finds only 11 thousand viewers, where as a video of a donkey farting on a rat (or anything equally pathetic) gets millions of views in weeks! When will we wake up from this nightmare... this awareness slumber?
@cloudincloudout it's always baffling to contemplate what events grab the collective imagination. I can empathize with the frustration you express....the good news is that you value what you find when you listen to Bohm and probably other ignored brilliant men and women....
It's not only humans that are confused, you see. Reality is confused too, you see. It's nice to find someone that had the same ideas that I have today, but if we share confusion between humans and reality we get 50/50 = 1 that's a nice number.
Physics has always been my weak subject - though I am interested in Quantum Theory in a layman's sort of way. I was struck in this interview by David Bohm's almost apologetic manner as he put forward his views - not sure why - maybe because he knew they would be threatening to people with closed minds. Fascinating man.
You know he is absolutely correct! But to me, what really seems to be happening is that we are circling back to our common sense nature. People in the west have lost touch with that. So in one sense, its like what determinism did to wipe out lesser cultures. We thought we had all the answers then found out all the Indians may have had more useful insights if we listened. But too late now. They are gone all for an idea? That we made up? Because of a fragmented analysis view. To me its one view.
When Bohm begins to refer to a kind of "communication w/out denying wholeness","not trying to tell U what I think","trying to discover how we're going to think together", listening while giving attention to resistance or opposition ,"we are participating together","what I am is effected by what U are doing" , he is describing some of the ideas that are essential to the Dialogue experiment that he formulated.There are presently Dialogues happening for those interested in this exploration.
I think Bohm is avery profound scientist who is trying to direct our minds to the brotherhood and interconnectedness of everything rather than seperation and fragmentation.Just imagining such thoughts is amazing.we need such thoughts badly these days
I agree with what you say... but change will come when politics do not rule. This is almost impossible but probable. People must act. As bohm says we re not willing to listen to others without some kind of resistance or reticence . One must be free of orthodox thinking and begin to question....I think that is when change starts , when you let your mind start questioning really as is. Politics,laws, science, Ideas, Religion, History ,etc
Ironic how a man so emotionally fragile and sensitive, would be the man to go against his fellow peers to the point of being alienated. Then on the other hand, you have a robust guy like Feynman, who took a less controversial, mainstream route, and was much more celebrated.
Mainstream is a safer place. Staying there makes workers in the field feel safer, protecting their careers, defending the status quo. So let us celebrate that we were and are right.
I strongly believe that the "fragile" and "kind" and "soft" way of putting the conversation is an inherent aspect. It is like in religion if you impose your convinction than it is not religious anymore.
Well if a man was playing poker, and managed to clean up due to a new approach: he might be quite sensitive to the suspicions of the other players that he might be cheating. He might get a reputation and be unable to play all the casino's around. That said, one would be foolish not to use a winning approach. The other players maybe beaten hands down, but they might not wish to accept it, because of their deterministic perceptions of how the poker game works.
Fragile? Dr. Bohm didn't rat out his friends and at great risk told the House Unamerican Activities committee to go to hell. That took guts! Ironically, it has to do with (mis)perception, precisely the subject of this video. Is the redneck driving around in his 4x4, angrily learing at you at the red light really a "tough guy?" Or is he a fragile, frightened ego putting on a show? The man who stands up to tyrannical government authority and puts himself at rish, that's real courage and strength.
I love his point towards the end here about how in the Middle Ages what didn't fit was glossed over by saying 'God knows even if we don't' while now Science goes 'Don't worry, we'll find it out eventually'. Its exactly the same: 'We know everything and if we don't don't you worry because I'm a Priest/Scientist (delete as appropriate) and know more than you'.
His point was that one adopts a worldview one considers to be consistent and to offer all truth potentially if not actually. He certainly wasn't accusing either the priests or the scientists of arrogance.
I know he wasn't, but he was pointing out that we shouldn't be so complacent about the gaps in our knowledge. So many modern scientists do condescend to the past. Bohm was very wary of anyone claiming they had found the ultimate truth. To me he is suggesting everyone needs to be a little more humble. The Church and Science claim(ed) absolute truth but neither has either...
At any rate, I just watched the video over and the question he is responding to is whether anyone is forced to adopt a worldview. His answer is we choose a worldview we find consistent and the way these worldviews deal what what they don't know. You think he has more of a barb with this answer than I do, I guess. Maybe you're right.
Very much so. A real treasure. Many thanks. I wasn't really suggesting a barb was there, just that Bohm is pointing out the fallacy of believing in the infallibility of a world view. We tend to condescend to the past, but in fact no world view is complete and we tend to brush ambiguities under the carpet whether one is a Medieval Priest or a modern Scientist. Bohm is suggesting we need to reexamine things more. Later he suggests the Middle Ages view of Wholeness is closer to the truth than now.
@PegasusWhiteRose - The churches really do arrogantly claim to have the absolute truth in their dogmas. Science is totally different! It is strong because it moves forward confronting different opinions until a more coherent picture of reality comes about. Also, as it has happened many times over history, science will review it´s position in the face of new facts or experiments. Individual scientists can be utterly stubborn or arrogant but science as a whole is not!
I don't think he's quite being as generous as you suggest. He's showing how both institututions resolved ambiguities and gaps by saying God or Science would get there in the end. And yet neither admitted they didn't know everything.
The fascinating thing about Bohm is that, like Jung in his field, he was dismissed as a crank by his fellow scientists. And yet like the other man, he sought to prioritise Wholeness and the importance of Consciousness in the Universe. Both Jung and Bohm were accused of being 'too mystical' by their peers and were much more embraced by people outside their specialist subjects eg artists, philosophers, mystics, thinkers etc etc. Bohm's point here is proven by his rejection in a sense.
At around 6:30 the interviewer asks a question about dialogueand which requires "stepping out of the whole" The question itself shows the difficulty in getting people to understand what Bohm was saying. You can't step out of the whole, it makes no sense with Bohms theory. Its not about the communicator, its about the act of communication.
Bohm had these ideas before meeting Krishnamurti. It was because of the similarity of their ideas that Bohm became interested in K. He doubtless profited from their meeting, but the ideas are his own.
I know what you mean, by saying "ideas are his own." But unfortunately this shows the limitations in our use of language. "His" ideas are undoubtedly influenced by the "whole". Who knows in what way, but nevertheless its hard to assign possession (his, hers, mine, yours) to ideas. Anyway, Love this video. Immense thanks for posting it.
This is a very important video. It tells us how we have mistakenly thought that we may derive an understanding of the whole, by looking at a part. But the whole reason why it is a part, is because it was 'part' of a whole in the first place and does not contain all the complexity of the whole.
he turned socialist at the end there
zieben64 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:31 amen to that
zieben64 1 month ago
Comment removed
zieben64 1 month ago
Comment removed
zieben64 1 month ago
Good 'PART' go to 6:30
jamzenjamaica 1 month ago
Parts vs. fragments.... VERY helpful!
L00kng 3 months ago
other we are both here
0Adamska 11 months ago
He just can't ignore the consequences of QM while feynman did..The main point could be that we as human are managed by mind..he was not satisfied so his mind couldn't stop ticking while others may do..so don't worry if you like it or not every one has their own view to please their mind you don't necessarily have to adapt just because some one is scientist..I would say think yourself then come to conclusion which will be just for yourself..life is perfect
Nashsync 1 year ago
I love you Bohm
rosencrown 1 year ago
What he is saying is taking place already. 2012?
selfscienz 1 year ago
@selfscienz wat
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 3 months ago
I bet he was an anti zionist
Sugamari 1 year ago
Tou can easily see Jiddu krishinamurtis effect on him...
vegnagunL 1 year ago
I find it shameful for our society that a video this interesting and posted over 2 years ago finds only 11 thousand viewers, where as a video of a donkey farting on a rat (or anything equally pathetic) gets millions of views in weeks! When will we wake up from this nightmare... this awareness slumber?
cloudincloudout 1 year ago
@cloudincloudout it's always baffling to contemplate what events grab the collective imagination. I can empathize with the frustration you express....the good news is that you value what you find when you listen to Bohm and probably other ignored brilliant men and women....
jondeeca 1 year ago
It's not only humans that are confused, you see. Reality is confused too, you see. It's nice to find someone that had the same ideas that I have today, but if we share confusion between humans and reality we get 50/50 = 1 that's a nice number.
bvssvni 1 year ago
My respect in front of this man is growing.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
Physics has always been my weak subject - though I am interested in Quantum Theory in a layman's sort of way. I was struck in this interview by David Bohm's almost apologetic manner as he put forward his views - not sure why - maybe because he knew they would be threatening to people with closed minds. Fascinating man.
zthetha 1 year ago
You know he is absolutely correct! But to me, what really seems to be happening is that we are circling back to our common sense nature. People in the west have lost touch with that. So in one sense, its like what determinism did to wipe out lesser cultures. We thought we had all the answers then found out all the Indians may have had more useful insights if we listened. But too late now. They are gone all for an idea? That we made up? Because of a fragmented analysis view. To me its one view.
EddieGoregor 1 year ago
we are all one maybe when ppl realise thier similarities rather than thier differences we will all get on a bit better.
apologies for my simplicity in this comment i am a layman not an intellectual
fivedinners 2 years ago
When Bohm begins to refer to a kind of "communication w/out denying wholeness","not trying to tell U what I think","trying to discover how we're going to think together", listening while giving attention to resistance or opposition ,"we are participating together","what I am is effected by what U are doing" , he is describing some of the ideas that are essential to the Dialogue experiment that he formulated.There are presently Dialogues happening for those interested in this exploration.
godhelpme2009 2 years ago
I think Bohm is avery profound scientist who is trying to direct our minds to the brotherhood and interconnectedness of everything rather than seperation and fragmentation.Just imagining such thoughts is amazing.we need such thoughts badly these days
Monotarkan 2 years ago 10
I agree with what you say... but change will come when politics do not rule. This is almost impossible but probable. People must act. As bohm says we re not willing to listen to others without some kind of resistance or reticence . One must be free of orthodox thinking and begin to question....I think that is when change starts , when you let your mind start questioning really as is. Politics,laws, science, Ideas, Religion, History ,etc
sonicolabs 2 years ago
Ironic how a man so emotionally fragile and sensitive, would be the man to go against his fellow peers to the point of being alienated. Then on the other hand, you have a robust guy like Feynman, who took a less controversial, mainstream route, and was much more celebrated.
coryduchesne 2 years ago 11
Mainstream is a safer place. Staying there makes workers in the field feel safer, protecting their careers, defending the status quo. So let us celebrate that we were and are right.
rslavelle 2 years ago
I strongly believe that the "fragile" and "kind" and "soft" way of putting the conversation is an inherent aspect. It is like in religion if you impose your convinction than it is not religious anymore.
biostrarius 2 years ago
Well if a man was playing poker, and managed to clean up due to a new approach: he might be quite sensitive to the suspicions of the other players that he might be cheating. He might get a reputation and be unable to play all the casino's around. That said, one would be foolish not to use a winning approach. The other players maybe beaten hands down, but they might not wish to accept it, because of their deterministic perceptions of how the poker game works.
dougmarkham 2 years ago
Fragile? Dr. Bohm didn't rat out his friends and at great risk told the House Unamerican Activities committee to go to hell. That took guts! Ironically, it has to do with (mis)perception, precisely the subject of this video. Is the redneck driving around in his 4x4, angrily learing at you at the red light really a "tough guy?" Or is he a fragile, frightened ego putting on a show? The man who stands up to tyrannical government authority and puts himself at rish, that's real courage and strength.
GoldenBoughTrader 2 years ago 2
I love his point towards the end here about how in the Middle Ages what didn't fit was glossed over by saying 'God knows even if we don't' while now Science goes 'Don't worry, we'll find it out eventually'. Its exactly the same: 'We know everything and if we don't don't you worry because I'm a Priest/Scientist (delete as appropriate) and know more than you'.
PegasusWhiteRose 3 years ago
His point was that one adopts a worldview one considers to be consistent and to offer all truth potentially if not actually. He certainly wasn't accusing either the priests or the scientists of arrogance.
Roubiere 3 years ago
I know he wasn't, but he was pointing out that we shouldn't be so complacent about the gaps in our knowledge. So many modern scientists do condescend to the past. Bohm was very wary of anyone claiming they had found the ultimate truth. To me he is suggesting everyone needs to be a little more humble. The Church and Science claim(ed) absolute truth but neither has either...
PegasusWhiteRose 3 years ago
I see.
At any rate, I just watched the video over and the question he is responding to is whether anyone is forced to adopt a worldview. His answer is we choose a worldview we find consistent and the way these worldviews deal what what they don't know. You think he has more of a barb with this answer than I do, I guess. Maybe you're right.
Glad you're enjoying the videos.
Roubiere 3 years ago
Very much so. A real treasure. Many thanks. I wasn't really suggesting a barb was there, just that Bohm is pointing out the fallacy of believing in the infallibility of a world view. We tend to condescend to the past, but in fact no world view is complete and we tend to brush ambiguities under the carpet whether one is a Medieval Priest or a modern Scientist. Bohm is suggesting we need to reexamine things more. Later he suggests the Middle Ages view of Wholeness is closer to the truth than now.
PegasusWhiteRose 3 years ago
@PegasusWhiteRose - The churches really do arrogantly claim to have the absolute truth in their dogmas. Science is totally different! It is strong because it moves forward confronting different opinions until a more coherent picture of reality comes about. Also, as it has happened many times over history, science will review it´s position in the face of new facts or experiments. Individual scientists can be utterly stubborn or arrogant but science as a whole is not!
actsnfacts 11 months ago
I don't think he's quite being as generous as you suggest. He's showing how both institututions resolved ambiguities and gaps by saying God or Science would get there in the end. And yet neither admitted they didn't know everything.
PegasusWhiteRose 3 years ago
The fascinating thing about Bohm is that, like Jung in his field, he was dismissed as a crank by his fellow scientists. And yet like the other man, he sought to prioritise Wholeness and the importance of Consciousness in the Universe. Both Jung and Bohm were accused of being 'too mystical' by their peers and were much more embraced by people outside their specialist subjects eg artists, philosophers, mystics, thinkers etc etc. Bohm's point here is proven by his rejection in a sense.
PegasusWhiteRose 3 years ago
At around 6:30 the interviewer asks a question about dialogueand which requires "stepping out of the whole" The question itself shows the difficulty in getting people to understand what Bohm was saying. You can't step out of the whole, it makes no sense with Bohms theory. Its not about the communicator, its about the act of communication.
qigong1001 3 years ago
i think bohm had his perception catalyzed by krishnamurti, many of his statements allign him with those teachings.
the truth of it is evident in that the theory alligns with the evidence (physics)
iaeruo 3 years ago
Bohm had these ideas before meeting Krishnamurti. It was because of the similarity of their ideas that Bohm became interested in K. He doubtless profited from their meeting, but the ideas are his own.
Roubiere 3 years ago
yes, well perhaps that shows the unique intelligence of both individuals.
iaeruo 3 years ago
I know what you mean, by saying "ideas are his own." But unfortunately this shows the limitations in our use of language. "His" ideas are undoubtedly influenced by the "whole". Who knows in what way, but nevertheless its hard to assign possession (his, hers, mine, yours) to ideas. Anyway, Love this video. Immense thanks for posting it.
qigong1001 3 years ago
This is a very important video. It tells us how we have mistakenly thought that we may derive an understanding of the whole, by looking at a part. But the whole reason why it is a part, is because it was 'part' of a whole in the first place and does not contain all the complexity of the whole.
We cannot treat a part, as an indepent whole.
quantuminfo 3 years ago