Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM, John Mikes  wrote:


> ​> ​
> Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
> their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude
>

​
Easy, just change from "if X and Y then Z" to "if X and Y then usually Z".
In fact that is exactly what scientists have been doing in the real world
from day one.
​
I don't see why this bothers you so much, after all there is no logical
reason ANY event must have a cause so we should count ourselves lucky that
at least some of them do. And it's not as if we have a choice in the matter,
​
we know for a fact that the
​ Bell inequality is violated so if you insistent determinism then thing
are non-local or things don't exist in a definite state when you're not
looking at them or both. And it gets worse, ​more recently it was
discovered that the
Leggett–Garg inequality
​ is also violated and that means those non-local forces must be even
stranger, not only are they unaffected by distance and carry information
faster than light but the future can change the past and the arrow of time
is dead. Do you want determinism THAT bad?​


> *​> ​Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no,
>

​Bur statistics is necessary and it works, and that is exactly what you'd
expect to happen if sometimes things are deterministic and sometimes they
are not.​

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 at 2:53:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm. 
> Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into 
> them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.�
> Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and 
> their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the 
> continuation of anything? 
>
>
> They are justified by their success in prediction.� "Random" doesn't 
> mean "anything can happen".� In the successful theories the randomness is 
> narrowly constrained and random distributions are accurately predicted.
>

We've discussed this before. Yes, distributions accurately determined; 
individual outcomes, No. So at some point God DOES play dice with the 
universe. And considering that any rule determining individual outcomes 
would wreak havoc with physics as we know it, I think QM is "the End of the 
Road". Should we lament or rejoice? AG 

>
> It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so 
> much. Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of 
> course, how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our 
> knowledge-base does grow.�
> That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).�
> I am on the basis of "I don't know".�
>
> In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.�
> *Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) 
> norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new 
> information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant. 
>
>
> It has been very successful in explaining thermodynamics by statistical 
> mechanics.
>
> Brent
>
> *Analytics*, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of 
> structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently 
> KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient: 
> restsricted to today's knowledge.�
>
> I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.�
>
> Regards
> John M
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Nicki LovesDogs]

Fantastic group. Been looking for people to continue those valuable 
conversations. I'm listening to them every single day sometimes all day 
long and deep into the night. Jiddu Krishnamurti is The ultimate 
philosopher. David Bohm is the only one during his life time who understood 
him. 



On Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 6:39:32 AM UTC-7, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the 
> theme that is quite often under discussion here. 
>
> Evgenii 
>
> p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I 
> said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t 
> think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this will go 
> wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way awakened a little 
> bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work – in 
> other words, something unconditioned.” 
>
> p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything 
> is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very fact that we are 
> sometimes able to see new things would suggest that there is 
> unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the brain is 
> unconditioned, or maybe beyond.” 
>
> p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of 
> intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into this.” 
>
> p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would 
> be foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that 
> clear?” 
>
> p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then 
> we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the 
> unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an image 
> of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and mistake the 
> image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the 
> unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our 
> thought for possibilities.” 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I have finished reading the book. As usual, there is no direct answer. 
Well,


p. 220 freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity.

Evgenii
--

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[John Mikes]

Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into
them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the
continuation of anything?
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much.
Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course,
how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base
does grow.
That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).
I am on the basis of I don't know.

In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.
*Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?)
norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new
information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
*Analytics*, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of
structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently
KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient:
restsricted to today's knowledge.

I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.

Regards
John M


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

 On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following:

  On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

 On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:

 Unconditioned=random works.


 I do not think so. I would say that

 If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
 foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning.


 ?? How do you conclude that?  Just because there is something Bohm
 calls the unconditioned doesn't mean there is not also
 conditioning, which may modify the unconditioned (=random).


 I am in the middle of the book, so I cannot tell you exactly what would
 Bohm say. The answer was mine.

 If I have understood Bohm correctly, he believes that we can somewhat
 influence the thought process. Along this way however, I doubt that random
 process will help. My logic is close to that of Rex Allen

 http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list/t/**5ab5303cdb696ef5http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5

 Yet, I did not want to say that this is Bohm's opinion. If I find
 something to this end in his book, I will let you know.

 Evgenii




 My point is just that if you go thru the excerpts below and
 substitute random for unconditioned everywhere then the meaning
 is unchanged. Bohm says, If everything is conditioned there's no way
 out.  I don't know where he thinks out is, but if somethings are
 random then he can get there.

 Brent


 Evgenii


 Brent

 On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

 I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes
 below to the theme that is quite often under discussion here.

 Evgenii

 p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even
 though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the
 reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all our
 attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies
 that we are in some way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is
 something beyond the reflex which is at work – in other words,
 something unconditioned.”

 p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
 everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the
 very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would
 suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material
 structure of the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”

 p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the
 movement of intelligence, then there is some possibility of
 getting into this.”

 p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
 it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
 conditioning. Is that clear?”

 p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the
 unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we
 assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to
 be stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the
 system of conditioning, and mistake the image for the
 unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
 unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in
 our thought for possibilities.”





 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to 
 everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 .
 For more

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[meekerdb]

On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot 
resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their 
consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?


They are justified by their success in prediction.  Random doesn't mean anything can 
happen.  In the successful theories the randomness is narrowly constrained and random 
distributions are accurately predicted.


It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much. Some newer 
knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course, how our primitive 
mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base does grow.

That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).
I am on the basis of I don't know.

In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.
*Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) norderlines within 
which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new information the borderlines change 
and our statistics becomes irrelevant.


It has been very successful in explaining thermodynamics by statistical 
mechanics.

Brent

*Analytics*, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of structural etc. parts 
in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently KNOWN composition. The real 
results may be ingenious, but insufficient: restsricted to today's knowledge.


I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.

Regards
John M


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:

Unconditioned=random works.


I do not think so. I would say that

If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning.

Evgenii



Brent

On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to
 the theme that is quite often under discussion here.

Evgenii

p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though,
as I said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if
we don’t think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this
will go wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way
awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex
which is at work – in other words, something unconditioned.”

p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very
fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would suggest
that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of
the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”

p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement
of intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into
this.”

p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning. Is that clear?”

p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned,
then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the
 unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an
 image of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and
mistake the image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that
there may be the unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to
leave room in our thought for possibilities.”





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[meekerdb]

On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:

Unconditioned=random works.


I do not think so. I would say that

If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning.


?? How do you conclude that?  Just because there is something Bohm calls the 
unconditioned doesn't mean there is not also conditioning, which may modify the 
unconditioned (=random).


My point is just that if you go thru the excerpts below and substitute random for 
unconditioned everywhere then the meaning is unchanged.  Bohm says, If everything is 
conditioned there's no way out.  I don't know where he thinks out is, but if somethings 
are random then he can get there.


Brent



Evgenii



Brent

On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to
 the theme that is quite often under discussion here.

Evgenii

p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though,
as I said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if
we don’t think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this
will go wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way
awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex
which is at work – in other words, something unconditioned.”

p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very
fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would suggest
that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of
the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”

p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement
of intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into
this.”

p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning. Is that clear?”

p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned,
then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the
 unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an
 image of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and
mistake the image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that
there may be the unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to
leave room in our thought for possibilities.”







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following:

On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:

Unconditioned=random works.


I do not think so. I would say that

If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning.


?? How do you conclude that?  Just because there is something Bohm
calls the unconditioned doesn't mean there is not also
conditioning, which may modify the unconditioned (=random).


I am in the middle of the book, so I cannot tell you exactly what would 
Bohm say. The answer was mine.


If I have understood Bohm correctly, he believes that we can somewhat 
influence the thought process. Along this way however, I doubt that 
random process will help. My logic is close to that of Rex Allen


http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5

Yet, I did not want to say that this is Bohm's opinion. If I find 
something to this end in his book, I will let you know.


Evgenii




My point is just that if you go thru the excerpts below and
substitute random for unconditioned everywhere then the meaning
is unchanged. Bohm says, If everything is conditioned there's no way
out.  I don't know where he thinks out is, but if somethings are
random then he can get there.

Brent



Evgenii



Brent

On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes
below to the theme that is quite often under discussion here.

Evgenii

p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even
though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the
reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all our
attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies
that we are in some way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is
something beyond the reflex which is at work – in other words,
something unconditioned.”

p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the
very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would
suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material
structure of the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”

p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the
movement of intelligence, then there is some possibility of
getting into this.”

p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning. Is that clear?”

p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the
unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we
assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to
be stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the
system of conditioning, and mistake the image for the
unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in
our thought for possibilities.”









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the 
theme that is quite often under discussion here.


Evgenii

p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I 
said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t 
think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this will go 
wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way awakened a little 
bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work – in 
other words, something unconditioned.”


p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything 
is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very fact that we are 
sometimes able to see new things would suggest that there is 
unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the brain is 
unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”


p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of 
intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into this.”


p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would 
be foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that 
clear?”


p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then 
we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the 
unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an image 
of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and mistake the 
image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the 
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our 
thought for possibilities.”


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[meekerdb]

Unconditioned=random works.

Brent

On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the theme that is 
quite often under discussion here.


Evgenii

p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I said, that by 
itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all 
our attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some 
way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work 
– in

other words, something unconditioned.”

p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything is conditioned, 
then there’s no way out. But the very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things 
would suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the 
brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”


p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of intelligence, then 
there is some possibility of getting into this.”


p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would be foolish for us 
to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that clear?”


p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On 
the other hand, if we assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to be 
stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and 
mistake the image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our thought for 
possibilities.”




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.