Topic: David Bohm on reality

[Nick]

I would argue that I have never actually walked any kind of spiritual path. I did have some interest in the spiritual, the metaphysical, but it was due to some cleverly worded books that now I feel had very little substance.

You've read Castaneda? And if I recall correctly Gurdjieff? You are saying these are just cleverly worded books?

Do you meditate, or have you meditated? If so how much, and how often?

[Nick]

“That night Koch... tacked Chalmers down at a cocktail party for the conferencees and chastised him for his speech. It is precisely because philisophical approaches to consciousness have all failed that scientists must focue on the brain, Koch declared in his rapid-fire German-accented voice, his rubberneckers gathered. Chalmers's information-based theory of consciousness, Koch continued, liek all philosophical ideas, was untestable and therefore useless. "Why don't you just say that when you have a brain the Holy Ghost comes down and makes you conscious!" Koch exlaimed. Such a theory was unnecissarily complicated, Chalmers responded drily, and it would not accord with his own subjective experience. "But how do I know that your subjective experience is the same as mine?" Koch sputtered. "How do I even know you're conscious?”
― John Horgan

[Muffin]

I was typing up a point by point critique of the superficial in this experiment, then my browser crashed, and I lost it. Oh, well.

You are right it isn't much. I would also say they have likely discovered something of great value, just would bet it isn't what they think it is.

The reason why science is much better suited at discovering how the world works is not because things are what "we think".
Scientists make discoveries, they make a hypothesis based on said discovery, then they actually go and try to disprove it as hard as they can. If the additional evidence contradicts the initial theory, they adjust it and start over from there. It us a process where we follow the evidence to a conclusion, through analysis and trial and error.

I'm sure you know this.

Faith based "sciences" however take a theory and try to make the evidence fit their theory. They say "this is what consciousness is", then they set out to prove it, using a process of manipulating, discarding or simply ignoring evidence.

[Muffin]

What brought you here was just words in a cleverly written book? How unfortunate.

I can test all the ideas in the sacred books of the world, others can repeat those experiments. When it comes to my personal experience of reality...
and Rudi this is an essential point, I hope I can convey it adequately to you...
it doesn't matter one iota whether anyone else can have the same experience of reality as me. It isn't even a little important to me. My experience is MINE, and I want it to be as uniquely my world as possible.

Doesn't matter an iota? I think it does more than you think. Every time you sit in the car, or take a plane to fly somewhere or go to the doctor you are hoping that their reality matches yours.

When you go to the doctor, you actually do it because you know, with a reasonable confidence, that he experiences reality (about the human body) like you. It matters to you, otherwise you would go to a spiritual healer.

Having poetry in heart does not require faith, and understanding how things work do not eliminate the poetry of it. A rainbow is not less beautiful once you understand that it's caused by the light refracting on the water molecules. So a thunder is not a sign of the wrath of God, it is just electric particles discharging in the air. If anything, knowing this makes it just more awesome.

The world is full of awesome phenomae, we don't need to invent stories to make it beautiful.

[Muffin]

I can test all the ideas in the sacred books of the world, others can repeat those experiments.

Do you know who else told me the EXACT same thing?
Two Mormons tying to convince me that God exists and that the Bible, theirs, is factually true. And only if I would open my heart and listen, I would see the revelation.

So. I have two people claiming two contradictory truths about reality. How do I go about deciding which one is more reasonable?
 I could set out to find the answer myself, open my heart, meditate, do some experiments, bla bla bla.
Now we have THREE contradictory descriptions of reality.

If we didn't care about trying to find models of the physical reality consistent between each other's "reality", we wouldn't be here as a species.

We know from experience that some mushrooms are poisonous, because we have plenty of prior evidence for it. When you walk in the forest and come upon one, you don't say "you know what? I don't care what others experienced, my reality is mine, and I want to find out if this mushroom is poisous".
You'll go extinct very fast.

[Nick]

When it comes to my personal experience of reality...

Quoting myself to make sure you remember my exact wording.

it doesn't matter one iota whether anyone else can have the same experience of reality as me.

There are realities, plural. Not reality, singular.

This is not a story, I came to know this, not just with my head, but through my essence, at a very early age. Before I had ever read a single spiritual book, before I was even interested in reading period. What brought me to this path was not clever words, but a deep inquisitiveness I was born with. An inquisitiveness that led me to question every single thing. When I had torn every conception I was in possession of, every belief, every story, every idea to shreds with doubt. Then I saw through my identity, saw past the event horizon of self. I was not me, I was something more, something deeper, and more expansive.
 

One of the many realities human beings are capable of experiencing is the current predominant fixation. This fixation is mostly about physical survival. As you said, as a species we owe quite a bit to this "reality", and to our ability as a species to have a shared understanding of it. Science is brilliant and has done a ridiculously good job of improving our ability to survive. I look forward to science one day extending human life span indefinitely. Science is good, this discussion is not science vs. mysticism.

To choose one reality, at the exclusion of all others is like choosing to live only in your closet. Or choosing to look only at a single blade of grass and deny the existence of the amazing ecosystem of your entire lawn. Like denying the existence of Chinese people, because all the people you know have never met one, and you have never seen one yourself.

Just because the vast majority of people are only aware of "the world of form" doesn't mean a formless world doesn't exist. Or any number of other ways of experiencing reality.

Let me clarify my original point, which I quoted above.

I am very interested in the realities other people experience. Whether those realities are our common, normal, survival based subjective material world, or some other possible world.

What I personally have no interest in, is arranging my personal experience of reality to match every other person's humdrum experience to the exclusion of the inner freedom to explore other experiences.

Think of the different realities we can assemble as different ways of thinking about life. Would you go to a medical doctor to learn meteorology?

I experience the knowledge that comes from the world of form, but to limit myself to that knowledge alone...it's like asking a child to never learn to read, or walk.

Have you seen the many studies on the effects of meditation?

Different effects of meditation:
http://restlesssoma.com.au/soma/index.php?topic=12117.msg86108#msg86108

[Muffin]

This is not a story, I came to know this, not just with my head, but through my essence, at a very early age. Before I had ever read a single spiritual book, before I was even interested in reading period. What brought me to this path was not clever words, but a deep inquisitiveness I was born with. An inquisitiveness that led me to question every single thing. When I had torn every conception I was in possession of, every belief, every story, every idea to shreds with doubt. Then I saw through my identity, saw past the event horizon of self. I was not me, I was something more, something deeper, and more expansive.

Sounds like blind faith to me. Replace the word "path" with "God" and it's the exact same things religious people say.
You are also making a dangerously paradoxical universal statement: you had torn every idea to shreds with doubt. Except the idea that you torn every idea to shreds. It is a blanket statement that falsifies itself, thus leading us in vicious circle. Absolute thruths lead us nowhere.

To choose one reality, at the exclusion of all others is like choosing to live only in your closet. Or choosing to look only at a single blade of grass and deny the existence of the amazing ecosystem of your entire lawn. Like denying the existence of Chinese people, because all the people you know have never met one, and you have never seen one yourself.

I'm not denying the possibility of the existence of anything. All I am saying is that before I can claim with reasonable confidence that something exists I must have proof. I don't have, and I don't have to.
An important point here is that, you are trying to shift the burden of proof on me.  When you claim that there are other realities (Chinese people) it is your task to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

Until now your only arguments are philosophical and metaphorical, which though logically sound (arguably), they don't match my observations and the vast majority of the others'.

Have you seen the many studies on the effects of meditation?

Different effects of meditation:
http://restlesssoma.com.au/soma/index.php?topic=12117.msg86108#msg86108

Just what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. You can't just take the findings of modern science and apply it to fit your preconceptions about meditation. Notice how all the articles talk about the effects of meditation on the human emotions, creativity, perception of pain - the BRAIN. They don't talk about soul, double, energetic body.

I wonder if you have the strength to watch through this video with straight face. By your account, his "reality" should be just as valid and worthy of consideration as yours. His knowledge comes from the same absolute conviction as yours.

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lSDb7iBTg70/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lSDb7iBTg70"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70</a>

[Michael]

I recall a time when Muffin had the most incredibly mystical dreams of anyone here in Soma. In one dream he made his way to the 'airport' in the mountains, from which, those who know realise, the flight of spirit begins. He didn't know what to do with these mystical dreams, nor whether he would find a country to live in. But that was all long ago now. He stabilised his life, ditched the woman who helped him secure his 'country', then set off to find the world. That journey took him further from his mystical soul till he felt so alienated from his own spirit that he became desperate to find something with meaning.

He travelled across the vast world of Europe, then even further to the land of a completely opposite culture to his original: Brazil. Once there he didn't mix with the Brazilians, but did find himself in the semi-jungle area. Unfortunately he remained asleep, expecting the world and spirit should come to him, such that when the critical moment happened, he missed it, because he expected 'they would fetch him', like one of the Murdock kids. No one fetched him, because in this life it is always our responsibility to sit at the front row of the class, and to be absolutely sure when the boat leaves, we are the first on board.

Now he would like to think that there never was anything in that mystical part of his soul. Alas, that approach still doesn't bring any satisfaction, only bitterness that he has lost contact with something he once cherished.

What he doesn't know, is that his mystical side has never left him, and even now sits beside him, except he can't see it. But that won't last long, because the dam will burst, and the world will collapse in such a dramatic way he will be swept into the chasm. Then he will struggle to recall all the navigational advice he read on this forum. The only question, is when?

Personally, I think he knows how to bring this event about himself, but he is too much a coward to take that step. So he has to wait until his double strikes. Whatever... the result is not in question, only the timing. Which methinks is brewing fast in the bowels of the castle.

[Muffin]

Amazing knowledge Michael. How do you know?

You missed my trip to Iran and Estonia. How do they fit in your narrative?

[Muffin]

Personally, I think he knows how to bring this event about himself, but he is too much a coward to take that step. So he has to wait until his double strikes. Whatever... the result is not in question, only the timing. Which methinks is brewing fast in the bowels of the castle.

All I hear is: something something something sometimes somewhere will happen. Vague like like all prophecies. Not real knowledge.

You are a smart man Michael, you know that there must be a reason why I returned after such a long absence. You also probably suspect that I am not merely here to discuss the merits of reason vs. Mysticism.

Do you know what I am up to? No.

[Muffin]

, ditched the woman who helped him secure his 'country', then set off to find the world.

Technically she ditched me, but I'm sure you have an explanation on how she leaving me was actually me leaving her.
You got some other facts wrong too, just by the virtue that you could have never known because I never told to anyone. You are just making educated guesses.

[Nick]

Just what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. You can't just take the findings of modern science and apply it to fit your preconceptions about meditation. Notice how all the articles talk about the effects of meditation on the human emotions, creativity, perception of pain - the BRAIN. They don't talk about soul, double, energetic body.

I wonder if you have the strength to watch through this video with straight face. By your account, his "reality" should be just as valid and worthy of consideration as yours. His knowledge comes from the same absolute conviction as yours.

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lSDb7iBTg70/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lSDb7iBTg70"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://youtu.be/lSDb7iBTg70</a>

Rudi, your mistake is that you are interpreting what I am saying by comparing me to various faith based perspectives. You are also recycling stail arguments I have heard a million times.

You are absolutely right about those studies. I don't post them to try and make a point about the existence of any metaphysical concept. You obviously think that is why I posted that, but there is nothing in my actual wording to say that is why I posted it. I shared that only to show that meditation has a possitive effect. That it's effect is one that literally alters physiology, and if you read through enough studies you might even notice that the effect meditation has on physiology doesn't seem to have anything to do with what a person believes.

The foundation of why I walk my path is not based in the ideas, but in the experiences I have had. Call me a psychonaut if that helps you understand. The difference is that faith based people's feel compelled to argue their point with one another, that they have to justify their position. I do not need this, that isn't why I am discussing this with you. They might say, my faith enables me to experience this or that. They might say I have this experience and that is why I believe what I do. I neither need belief, or faith to give me the experiences I have had, nor do I need to explain my experiences with various beliefs. I may describe my experience with certain words, I might ponder certain potential explanations, but make no mistake I do not believe those words, descriptions, or explainations. They are just tools I utilize.

When you get down to the nity gritty, I don't care if there is any actual spiritual plane of existence, any "energy body". That doesn't matter, what matters is that I explore something immensely uplifting to me personally. That was the essential point I tried to make, that I don't give a flying flower what anyone else's reality is. I will seek the 'spirit' or whatever one might call it, whether it has 'verifiable existence or not'.

You say his reality has the same absolute conviction. The only thing I expressed absolute conviction in, is my desire to seek my own path, whatever it is. I have no conviction about whether or not it fits anyone else's defintion of what is real. I could very well be fooling myself and not know it. I do not believe I am right, I don't need to believe I am right.

You may call this faith, and in a sense you are right, and wrong. Faith is an absolute conviction in something. You can not say I have absolute conviction, as I do no believe I am right. Do I act as if I have absolute conviction? Yes! I act it so well, there are times I forget that I am acting, and this allows me to push past limitations. Yet I always come back to my basic skepticism, a skepticism so strong I don't even know for certain the computer I am typing on right now exists, and that is the way I like it. I regularly reaffirm this fundamental skepticism, doing so aids me in changing the contents of my mind. It's a multi-pronged approach. I can engage in it, because I do not accept any one position as more right than another. Only thing that matters is that I choose the position I want to be in.

Perhaps later I'll say more, but I'm leaving for a trip soon.

[Nick]

No time now, but I found this for you:

"'Two very important practical conclusions follow from this [character of the historical process],' writes Lenin,5 continuing the passage from which I have just quoted. 'First, that in order to fulfil its task, the revolutionary class [i.e. the class of those who want to change either a part of society such as science, or society as a whole] must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception [it must be able to understand, and to apply, not only one particular methodology, but any methodology, and any variation thereof it can imagine] . . .; second [it] must be ready to pass from one to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.' 'The external conditions', writes Einstein,6 'which are set for [the scientist] by the facts of experience do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted, in the construction of his conceptual world, by the adherence to an epistemological system. He, therefore, must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist. . . .'

Now it is, of course, possible to simplifY the medium in which a scientist works by simplifYing its main actors. The history of science, after all, does not just consist of facts and conclusions drawn from facts. It also contains ideas, interpretations offacts, problems created by conflicting interpretations, mistakes, and so on. On closer analysis we even find that science knows no 'bare facts' at all but that the 'facts' that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in tum will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those who invented them. Conversely, a little brainwashing will go a long way in making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchangeable rules.
Scientific education as we know it today has precisely this aim. It simplifies 'science' by simplifYing its participants: first, a domain of research is defined. The domain is separated from the rest of history (physics, for example, is separated from metaphysics and from theology) and given a 'logic' of its own. A thorough training in such a 'logic' then conditions those working in the domain; it makes their actions more uniform and it freezes large parts of the historicalprocess as well. Stable 'facts' arise and persevere despite the vicissitudes of history. An essential part of the training that makes such facts appear consists in the attempt to inhibit intuitions that might lead to a blurring of boundaries. A person's religion, for example, or his metaphysics, or his sense of humour (his natural sense of humour and not the inbred and always rather nasty kind of jocularity one finds in specialized professions) must not have the slightest connection with his scientific activity. His imagination is restrained, and even his language ceases to be his own. This is again reflected in the nature of scientific 'facts' which are experienced as being independent of opinion, belief, and cultural background.
It is thus possible to create a tradition that is held together by strict rules, and that is also successful to some extent. But is it desirable to support such a tradition to the exclusion of everything else? Should we transfer to it the sole rights for dealing in knowledge, so that any result that has been obtained by other methods is at once ruled out of court? And did scientists ever remain within the boundaries of the �raditions they defined in this narrow way? These are the questions I Intend to ask in the present essay. And to these questions my answer will be a firm and resounding NO."

http://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf

[Jahn]

The reason why science is much better suited at discovering how the world works is not because things are what "we think".
Scientists make discoveries, they make a hypothesis based on said discovery, then they actually go and try to disprove it as hard as they can. If the additional evidence contradicts the initial theory, they adjust it and start over from there. It us a process where we follow the evidence to a conclusion, through analysis and trial and error.

I'm sure you know this.

Ok, I am what you call a scientist. And I am about to celebrate 100 citations of one of my papers. In a small area of science this is called a Classic Citation.

Now, what triggered Dr Bohm was actually an experiment where it showed up that electrons was reacting beyond the speed of light.

The second part of Bohms theory comes from the reducing rat brains experiment.

Indeed our brains are most likely a Hologram.

And when you cut away a part of our brain (or a rat brain) it is just a matter of time when the memories and ideas from the vasted part are back into the brain that is still there.

Now this is only valid for the plain brain, not the hormon based, or balancing part of the brain.
 

[Jahn]

So a thunder is not a sign of the wrath of God, it is just electric particles discharging in the air.

Why, are you serious? Thunder in the sky, we all know is made by Thor, the god with the hammer Mjölner, when riding in his wagon.