Wednesday, 15 October 2008


"In considering the relationship between the finite and the infinite, we are led to observe that the whole field of the finite is inherently limited, in that it has no independent existence. It has the appearance of independent existence, but that appearance is merely the result of an abstraction of our thought. We can see this dependent nature of the finite from the fact that every finite thing is transient." - David Bohm

Having ranted at length about the failings of Religion and Reason, perhaps it would be good to turn to something more constructive - like finding someone who might have tried to point the way to some kind of reconciliation of the two, thereby coming up with a potential vision of the future.

Well there is someone: Quantum Scientist David Bohm.

Before I start on the ideas of this remarkable man, I should clarify a few things about my last post. Although I have spoken negatively about the great historic movements of the past, I do so out of a desire not to dismiss them but to see where we have gone wrong and, therefore, where we might go right. All history is the story of the human effort to come to terms with life on this planet. We try these big ideas because, at least at first, they seem like good ones. One only has to look at the energy and excitement of early Christian or Muslim writers to see the inspiration the birth of their new religions gave them. Similarly the pioneers of the Enlightenment set out not to enslave the world or denigrate the inner life but to refashion it along more humane and just lines. All these processes were crucial parts of the long and painful evolution of our Consciousness on this planet. We are doing our best. If it keeps turning out wrong, well that is part of the cyclic process of development. Our natures are enormously complex, which is why I am suggesting that this time, before we embark on a new Grand Project, we turn inwards first and genuinely try to understand who were are...

Everyone would agree at the moment that in the present state of things, Religion and Science are at daggers drawn with each other. And not just Religion and Science, pretty much everything else! Everyone is very loud about the rightness of their own way, while seemingly utterly blind to where their own has gone wrong. Worse, on every side hostility to another point of view goes hand in hand with a shocking ignorance of another other. The Religion vs Science argument is a perfect example of this, with neither side taking the time to look beyond the most bone-headed expression of the other. Tragically, neither side can see the value and merit of the other, or the appeal. A value system based on an idea of the inner and another on the outer don't seem to see how much they need what the other has to offer. Thus we end up with religious people looking stupid by denying the palpably obvious and scientific people laughing at peoples' need for meaning and a sense of dignity. So we get nowhere.

This is why David Bohm is so fascinating, because he sought a means to rise above these divisions. Not only that, but he regarded them as deadly. The fragmentation of the world, its division into hostile camps miltarily, racially, politically, religiously and intellectually was, in his view, catastrophic as instead of working together to solve problems we were tearing each other apart, apparently unable to hold a position without utterly dismissing the validity of another. Even more interesting, Bohm was not only a great scientist, acknowledged by none other than Einstein as such, but also a great thinker, deeply committed to engaging with the problems of the world and interested in issues of Consciousness, Spirituality and Mysticism. A rigourous scientist, he counted as his friends and mentors not only Einstein, Oppenheimer and Feynman but also Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. In amongst all this, Bohm felt that human Consciousness was the key to everything. Rather than being utterly separate from the physical world or the byproduct of chemical reactions, he believed it was the glue which held everything together.

Bohm was born in the 1920s in America. He showed immense early promise in maths and physics when a child and was fascinated by science and science fiction. He was part of the Manhattan Project, lead by Oppenheimer, which saw America drop the first nuclear bomb, believing at the time that it might be the means to bring an end to world conflicts. He since recognised that he was wrong. A lifelong Marxist who was interested in ideas which might bring us to coexist in a more humane and harmonious way, he fell foul of the MacCarthy trials of the 50s and was forced to leave the country, never to return (Oppenheimer himself is thought to have been instrumental in informing upon him). As his career as a scientist progressed, he became more and more fascinated by the findings of Quantum Science, seeing in it a radical challenge to the prevailing Mechanistic view of the Universe that had begun with Newton. For Bohm, that model for understanding the Cosmos and our place in it was gone. Relativity and Quantum Theory had demonstrated that the true nature of Reality was fundamentally different from that with which we had been operating with since Newton and Descartes. Not only did he see this as a major revolution in Science, but he hoped that it would lead to a similar revolution in human Consciousness and how we lived together. For Bohm, how we saw the Universe was simultaneous with how we saw each other. Just as Newton had changed everything with his discoveries, leading to the intellectual and spiritual transformations I have been ranting about, so, he believed, the new discoveries of Quantum Science might transform us again...

So what were these new discoveries that posed such a challenge to the Mechanistic Newtonian/Descartian view outlined in the last post? Since Einstein's famous equation E=MC2, it has been established that all Matter is Energy. Matter itself is just very densely packed energy. Thus the whole Cosmos is one infinite field of energy grouped into differing levels of dense and less dense Matter. Hence the equation Energy = Mass x the Speed of Light Squared. Moreover, the Speed of Light is the only constant in the Universe. Everything else exists relative to it. Thus Einstein's equation is saying that all the Energy in the Universe is equal to the Mass of all the Matter in it multiplied by the Speed of Light squared. Now that's a HELL of a lot of Energy and it explains why we can create a nuclear explosion by splitting a single atom. Have a think about that. It means that every atom in your body contains enough Energy to create a nuclear conflagration. That's quite something to ponder upon! What mechanism is it that keeps all that Energy locked safely inside Matter?

The Speed of Light issue is even more interesting. After he had come up with his Theory of Relativity, Einstein said that 'past, present and future are stubbornly persistent illusions'. What did he mean by this? Very simply, as the Speed of Light is the one Absolute in the Universe, everything that happens in the phenomenal world does so in relation to it. In other words, everything is relative to light. If we could move faster than we do, if we could catch up with Light, then we would experience Time and Space in a completely different way. If we matched the Speed of Light, we wouldn't experience them at all -hence the darkness of Black Holes, the density of which means they absorb even Light, thus obliterating Time and Space within them. If we could move SLOWER than we do, we would experience Time and Space differently again. It would become stretched. Our specific speed or vibration in relation to Light thus determines our whole experience of the Universe. We aren't experiencing Reality, only a Reality, one entirely governed by our relationship with Light.

Ergo Time and Space are relative. In an objective sense, they don't really exist. They only exist in a subjective sense, as 'stubbornly persistent illusions'. At the same time, extraordinarily, everything is dependent upon everything else. The phenomenal world is like it is because of its relationship with Light. Take Light away and it ceases to exist, or at least Time and Space would cease to exist which is the same thing... More than that, Einstein posited that the logical extension of this theory was that Time and Space were not separate entities. In fact they are the same, both aspects of each other emerging out of Light. We hear the term 'Time-Space Continuum' bandied about on Sci-Fi programmes all the time without thinking about what it means. Well, now we do. Suddenly "And God said 'Let there be Light'" doesn't sound like such a stupid proposition after all...

Pretty mind-blowing stuff... Gives you a funny feeling just thinking about it, doesn't it? We can barely imagine what things might look like if we moved closer to the Speed of Light or, indeed, if we moved much slower. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise that this strikes at the very foundations of how we have seen the world over the last few centuries. The Scientific Method becomes largely redundant, as everything we are examining only exists in a relative sense. Any ideas of linear, mechanistic approaches to the Cosmos start to become a bit wobbly. So where does that leave us?

And if that wasn't enough, there was more. These ideas of Einstein's come under the title Relativity Theory. Quantum Science was about to discover even more bizarre things about the Universe and the way it works...


mathieu said...

As I studied physics for 7 years in france (I am french), I was looking for different interpretations of quantum mechanics which according to Richard Feynman, remained unexplained since 1960's.
The Bohm explaination of the Quantum mechanics is interesting but incomplete because it doesn't focus on the fact that the wave function ( essential component of any quantum structure) when it is mathematically reduced to give "us & matter" were not specially associated with the hidden parameters, his theory was supposed to find. So scientifically, the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics needs for experimental validation to be assessed rightfully;
there's many others candidates to explain the quantum link between matter and wave function,
the two other proeminent theories were filled by Hugh everett and Anton Zeilinger;
Zeilinger was probably the first physicist able to realise quantum teleportation of photons.
(source: He is probably the one that explained successfully quantum mechanics using a "binary system of computational logic" (means by comparing the spin up and down to a 0/1 binary series).
However concerning david Bohm, he is probably one of the greatest physicist of the XXe century in a sense that he was one of the first to give a quantum mechanics interpretation that was not contradictory with the Relativity (even if it is not experimentally verified).

Pegasus said...

You're right. But Bohm himself was positing what he knew was an incomplete theory, only one which he felt could be a fruitful line of enquiry. He knew it had not been demonstrated, but his hope was that people would take it as a model with which to explore further. He didn't know what the Implicate or Superimplicate Orders might be, but he thought we should look rather than keep trying to bring QM in line with Newton and Einstein. After all, Relativity Theory wasn't 'proven' until later, when the bending of light was observed and later still when we developed means to test some of Einstein's ideas.

In fact, is it not the case that with pretty much all Quantum Theory it is largely, at the moment, untestable? Much of QM is based on mathematics. We haven't yet established which model is 'true' ie the Multiple Universes of Everett, the Implicate Order of Bohm, String Theory etc except through mathematics. As yet it all remains in theory as we haven't developed the technology to open up 'Reality' and look yet. That's what we are hoping the Hadron Collider will do...

But thanks for posting!

Pegasus said...

Sorry, there was some really bad English there. That first sentence should have read:

"But Bohm himself knew he was positing what was an incomplete theory, one which he felt could be a fruitful line of enquiry."

mathieu said...

It is in this view that physics theories is so difficult to follow now. In the time I was studying physics I chose to do not look too much into the controversial aspects of the quantum theory and particularly to was is called "p-brane theory" (from paul townsend) and "superstring theory" (string theory in the cases of Fermionic interaction). to be verified, thoses theories are needed to enter into a scale of measurement named "Planck scale" and to which is corresponding a time named "Planck time= 10^-43s after the big bang" and a sclae of lenght named "Planck lenght= 10^-35 m".
What the large hadron collider will verify if it works (it was officially launched yesterday, 21 october 2008) is effect that are occuring at the scale of lenght of 10^-18m (which is the minimum lenght observable by man today) and will try to interpret the micro phenomenon of the Planck scale that could induce effect to this scale.
Litterally, it is as if your were trying to observe atoms with a classical microscope.
This is by those observation that physicist will try to understand if the string theory can be validated experimentally.
So, I am a bit sceptics about the LHC progress on this subject.
however, it is important to me that LHC try figure out if the Higgs Boson exists (another experiment will occur) to determine if the gauge theory of elementary particles ( also called standard cosmological model of particle physics) is a valid one.
The others possibilities of theory for physics progress should be regarded for now, in my view, as part of the human abilities to look for psychological archetypal models to understand the physical universe.
Bohm created this interesting reflection about the mind and To quote him from the book of Thomas mc farlane "Einstein & Bouddha, parallels thoughts", he said:
"All that is material is equally mental and what is mental is equally material".
Physicists tend to separate those two realms, but we are not sure that there is a real separation between them.
Another physicist, Wojciech Zurek, worked on a theory to try to understand where is the limit between the quantum world and the classical world, "how atoms give matter?".
This question was also worked out on Bohm reflections but after his time (source: His works is as valued today as it was when it was developped.

mathieu said...

I also made a mistake in the first line : "the quantum theory and particularly to was is called "p-brane theory" (from paul townsend)"
should be:

"the quantum theory and particularly to what is called "p-brane theory" (from paul townsend)"

and "sclae" for "scale".

I do apologies for thoses mistakes because I can't see them when I write and should take more time to re-read myself before posting.
It is one of my worst problem when I write some mails.

Pegasus said...

I think you've put your finger on the problem and highlighted why Bohm may still prove to be very important. We are using old methods to try and understand new ideas. As you say, the Hadron Collider is like trying to look at an atom through a classical microscope, or cut a cake with a chainsaw. All of this stems from an outdated view of the Universe which Quantum Physics should really have shown is no longer valid - the Mind/Body Split of Descartes and the Mechanistic Model of Newton.

Since those ideas became dominant we have spent the last 200 years not trusting human Consciousness and trying to find tools, machinery and methods whereby somehow we can dissect and view the phenomenal world 'objectively'. So we build an enormous Hadron Collider which turns out isn't going to work rather than trust our own intuitions.

The paradox here is that it is absolutely impossible to eliminate human Consciousness even from the Scientific Method as a) human Consciousness came up with the Method and b) even if the Scientific Method COULD give us cold, objective results ('evidence') they would have to be interpreted. And BANG in comes human Consciousness again.

More than that, almost all great leaps forward in Science have NOT been made via the Scientific Method but through intuitive moments of understanding which were then TESTED by the Scientific Method. Think of Newton and how he thought up the idea of Gravity or Einstein, none of whose revolutionary ideas were verified until much later, if then! Similarly Bohm always reached his conclusions intuitively and THEN tried to prove them mathematically.

If Bohm is right and Consciousness IS the key to understanding the Cosmos, then we don't need to look very far to find the answers we need. What we have to do is invest in the study of Consciousness, its real operations and how it relates to the Universe around us. But this is exactly what the Science Establishment is deeply reluctant to do. For a start, Consciousness is an embaressement for most Scientists. They can't explain it, no universally accepted theory about it exists and, by and large, most think its little more than a useful byproduct of evolution, defined and circumscribed by Matter. The irony that it is Consciousness which brought them to this conclusion is lost on them, it seems but for some reason, the golden crown of human Consciousness which makes us unique has been dismissed as a joke, a ghost, an illusion...

Bohm helped to pioneer study of Consciousness, a field which is still deeply underfunded and neglected. For him, Consciousness was the key to everything as, he believed, it was in Consciousness that the Universe was reflected. In his book SCIENCE, ORDER AND CREATIVITY he suggests that Consciousness emerges out of the Implicate Order rather than emanating from chemical reactions in the brain. By this theory the brain is actually a 'receiver' and a 'sifter' of Consciousness, ensuring we don't overload etc. Interestingly, this is very similar to what Descartes ACTUALLY said. Cogito Ergo Sum, for him, was supposed to point to the existence of a Greater Consciousness, ie God. Thought = our existence and thus the existence of a Creator. Of course, we aren't told this by most Scientists.

Similarly Bishop Berkeley also hit upon the QM idea that the Observer brought things into being by looking upon them. He then asked what force kept things in being when they weren't observed (cf Zen: 'If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to see it, what does it look like?'). From this he concluded that for things to exist without human or animal observation there would have to be a Universal Observer 'observing' all the time. He called this God.

If one looks at all the ancient Mystical traditions you will find that they all talk about this. You will discover that the Mystical idea of God is very different to the Religious idea. The Mystical 'God' is described almost everywhere as Infinite Light and/or Infinite Consciousness incarnate everywhere. Much closer to Bohm's idea of Consciousness and the Implicate Orders and Einstein's Cosmic Religion than that of the Pope, Bin Laden, the Chief Rabbi or Richard Dawkins.

Now, I'm not saying that 'God' exists, I am just trying to explain why Bohm was interested in states of Consciousness and the idea of Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. If you're interested in this, look into the work of Bohm's friend, Karl Pribram, who has done more than most for the study of Consciousness. Pribram's ideas of the Holistic or Holographic Brain are hugely influenced by his collaboration with Bohm. An interesting coincidence here is that the Hindu state of transcendence beyond Dualism is known as Parabrahma... Pribram/Parabrahma.... Quite fun, don't you think?

Bohm was also very interested in the difference between Consciousness and Thought. Thought he saw as the enemy in the sense that inherited thought processes held up progress. Thus Scientists, having inherited the Newtonian/ Descartian/ Humean views of the Cosmos and Consciousness find themselves utterly resistant to anything which contradicts them. They become 'Necessary' rather than possibilities which need to be discarded should they block our approach to new truths. Consciousness was something else. It was intuitive, while being rooted in the analytical too. Bohm didn't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Bohm also believed that Consciousness DID have the ability to experience the Implicate Orders, something most Scientists deny, which is why we build things like the Hadron Collider. Bohm was very interested in so-called 'mystical states' experienced by spiritual and/or artistic people who suddenly get a sense of a unified Cosmos. It stands to reason that if Bohm is right and Consciousness is the key, then our own Consciousness should be the tool we use to explore the Quantum Universe. If Energy=Matter and Internal World=External World (or they are interlinked) then we need to be looking into this.

But the Physics Establishment are dead set against it - as is the medical, biological and chemical worlds are. The reason is, once again, the old Newtonian/ Descartian/ Humean view that the Mind and the Universe are separate. That the Universe operates entirely externally to us. If we deny this basic premise we have to throw out all our discoveries of the last 200 years - and that means rethinking everything. So it becomes 'Necessary' to find another explanation for things, which may take a long time if there isn't one! This was an example for Bohm about how Thought stops Consciousness from progressing.

To stress, Bohm WAS a Scientist. Neither he (nor I) are suggesting we all chuck out the Methods of Science or give ourselves over to wild speculation. What Bohm was trying to do was change the way we thought so we could look further and maybe discover something new.

mathieu said...

Thanks for this answer Pegasus and for the reference you gave me.
as we are discussing about the link between consciousness and the universe understanding, I would want to make an analogy to explain my view about this link.
Let's imagine that you are to an airport and you are waiting for your luggage. As it is a long time to come, you are looking for the rolling carpet and so, at once, you will have at time, the impression that the ground is moving and that the rolling carpet is fixed. Physically, it can be easily explained you changed your framework, your mind change his view and your are actually experiencing the motion of the rolling carpet through your mind.
Let's say now that you are meditating. To meditate you fix your view on though and let them flow.
As thoughts are as a 'rolling carpet' you are experiencing the same principle that in the physical experience, you have the sensation of being 'in motion' whereas the world around you is kept fixed.
In this case, you became the ground, magus would say that you are grounded and that your mind is centered (at least for a limited period of time).
Let's now take another case, let's say that whereas being fixed on thought, you are fixed in a state of absolute availability. Chinese Tai Chi master Chen weiming call this, to be 'shong' which means to be relaxed in a sense without even thinking about it.
In this stage, as you are using as a reference for your fixation, a 'nothingness state' or 'wu ji state' or 'absolute availibity state' the motion you are observing is not a flow, but is an overwhelming sensation of falling.
At this stage, there is no more ground, that's how buddha defined the nirvana, an ever falling state of consciousness.
Why are we speaking about this in a discussion about the link between physics, universe and consciousness?
Let's return to the first example.
The rolling carpet is our framework when we are taking it as a referee of observation.
Einstein and galileo before him, were both, but in different meanings talking about "The Relativity principle" to explain why so by observing a motion into a state of uniform translation we can transfer the law observed from one framework to another.
Now let's apply this same to second example, the man in meditation. The same physic principle is applied in the second case but in another form. Meditation is an application to the mind of physical uniform translation principle of motion.
In the the third case we are talking about the "inertia principle" which was also discovered by Galileo as " Conservative principle of Energy" and by Einstein in his general theory of relativity with the famous experience of a man falling into a lift (showing how gravity is depending of the accelerated motion).
So by analogy, the ultimate state of consciousness, called nirvana is no more that an accellerated motion of the mind.
That's why physics is so magnificient, it can permit to explain laws of the universe, using principle that by analogy can be transferred to different kind of motion (Principles governing motion are of the same essence when they are used physically and mentally and that's probably what Bohm understood so brilliantly telling that there is no difference between material and mental, the laws are differents but the principles remains the same).

However, when scientists are taking a way that seems to do not explore the meaning of consciousness, that's probably because they are fixed in a certain framework and can't decide which path will lead them to another one. Scientist are shifters, they like to go from one view to the other whereas mystics are traveller, they like to be in that view to see what is the other one.
Two different souls path can't lead to the same choices and that why they are always conflicting altogether.
In my view, I believe that the understanding depends from where our soul want to leave us. Let's say that, to our birth, we are born in a family that make us feel that science is the only good way to understand the universe, we will be inclined to go into a scientific path. We are not at all conditioned by our choices, we have to lead them to let the soul guide them.
by this, I mean that, to follow the soul path is not to take a way telling that it is where it's necessary to go, it's more ' wow! look at this, I like it, I am so excited to do it.' and this way will lead the eprson naturally not because it is a good or bad way but because it is the way that follow the principle of motion for this particular individual.
To speak it about Consciousness is not absolutely true but it is partially a part of make him 'conscious' to whom he really is.
The sense I give to 'consciousness' is not the same that I can give to 'conscience'. in his Tarot deck, Osho rajnesh describes a little story about it, the name of the card labelled to this story is "conscience".
This story relates how Jesus explains to his old friend Judas (Judas didn't betray him yet) why it was better to let Marie-Magdalena 'waste' (this are the words of Judas) a whole bottle of perfume to bath the feet of Jesus whereas sell it and give the money to poor people.
Jesus understood that the act of Marie-Margdalena was motivated by love and that's why he didn't react to this act: this state of mind is called "consciousness", react according to your heart, not to your views.
Judas reacted by 'conscience' because he was thinking morally to the point of view of society.
Consciousness can't be used in Science that's why scientists can't agree with it. Conscience should be used but there is too much action of the unconscious forces to make scientists be centered. Besides the great advantage that give science to understand the universe, is that it makes scientists grounded;
Personnaly, I prefer that scientists, don't try to follow the view of another understanding of what they are actually prepared to follow. Man should always know if he is actually enough centered and grounded ( to the qaballistic view it means that his connection to Malkuth is enough good) before trying to lift his views for another one.
I believe that modern man, before trying to developp anythings should learn more to know what he has already developped.
the understanding of the universe is not coming from knowledge, but from the understaning of the principle of motion in the universe,that is, from the beginning of the soul, from this past regressive structure that, magus explored by hypnosis and hypnagogic state and state Ferenczi a pupil of Freud seemt to have rediscovered in the Lamarck theory of evolution.
It is strange enough. We are always thinking that by knowing more we will do better.
Indeed if we can't do better with what we have how it could be better with what we don't have yet?

this is my view, I tried to make it less scholar and a bit more symbolic because I can't describe it directly using references.
I will conclude with another idea I will much but this reference, only an occultist can probably understand; It is a word from fulcanelli (end of his book, 'the mystery of cathedrals')(approximate translation of me from french):

"Nature don't open to everyone, Undistinguishly, the sanctuary door.
in thoses pages, the profane will discover, perhaps some evidences of a true positive science. We can't say however that we convert him, because we don't ignore how stubborn can be fixed ideas, How great is the strenght of care. The Initiate will make more profits, to the condition, however, that he won't despise the old Philosophers works, that he will study with care and appointment the classical texts, until he got enough clairvoyance to discern the dark points of the operational book.
No one can pretend to possess the great secret, if he isn't in resonance with his own researchs.
It is not enough to be applicated to the task, active and perseverant, if we miss of grounding principle, of concrete basis, if unmoderated enthousiasm blind the reason, si judgment is submitted to the ego, if the avidity vanishes to the light of the golden astre.
The mysterious science asks for a lot of accuracy, exactness, perspicacity in facts observations, a sane mind, logical and poundered, a quick imagination without exaltation, a forceful and pure heart. It is recquired, besides, to act with the greatest simplicity and an absolute indifference through to theories, systems,hypothesis, that, on behalf of books or famousness of their authors, we would admit there without control. She wants that thoses to whom pretending to her learn thinl more with their brain and less withe brain of others. She wants that they are asking for the truth of her principles, the knowledge of her doctrine and the practive of their works to Nature, our common mother. By exercising constanly to observing and reasoning faculties, by meditation, the tyro will ascend the ladder that lead to KNOWLEDGE"_ end of quotation

i believe there's something true into this, perhaps it's good to try to be in accordance qith our own understanding, perhaps it's there, that is the real 'knowledge' about the universe, I don't know.

Pegasus said...

An excellent post, Mathieu. I agree with everything you say and am enormously impressed by your breadth of knowledge. Its rare to find someone studying Science who also has taken the time to properly look into the Thoughts Systems that are Mysticism. Most Scientist can't look beyond the most superficial expressions of these things.

In my view I would take another step, and I think it was what Bohm was getting at in his discussion about Dialogue and an 'Unbroken Flow of Ideas'.

At present Science and Religion seem to be in deadlock with the one completely rejecting the conclusions of the other. What this means is that neither subjects itself to the rigourous examination of the other while simultaneously not taking the other seriously enough to do so. So, for instance, Scientists refuse to investigate the claims of Yogis or Lamas about the mastery they are able to achieve over their own bodies and the higher states of Consciousness they experience because they start with the premise that they are 'ridiculous' and 'impossible'. The same goes for Mystics in the West. The abuse and derision I have experienced from Scientists when I have tried to bring this up tells a sorry tale.

Perhaps what we SHOULD be doing is seeing this moment as a historic opportunity in which we can heal the Mind/Body split we have operated under for so long (and so catastrophically both materially and psychologically). The unifying priniciple between Science and Religion (or Science and Spirituality) is Consciousness. If Science were to clear its mind of prejudice and be prepared to enlarge its view of Consciousness through study of things like the meditative states you mention then we might get somewhere, liberating Spiritual Consciousness from the dead weight of thousands of years of religious dogma. At the same time, if only Science would recognise the ETHICAL dimension Religion thinks is important then it might operate in a different way again.

Bohm called for a state in which no value or thought system isolated itself from others and instead looked for a synthesis. A result of the remarriage of Science and Religion would cause both to progress. Religion might move out of its reactionary, superstitious, denying state and Science might gain a moral dimension it might need.

In the end, I suppose what I am saying is that we need both perspectives, but we need them to move forward, not leave themselves still entrenched in their unhelpful positions.

mathieu said...

Dear pegasus, your last message is real interesting and in the sam time very complex. You are proposing the idea that science and religion should allow themselves to mutually comprehend each others and be able to evolve from the progress of the this mutual understanding.
This view, was historicaly already evaluated but it is not possible to say if it works or not;
Nowadays, I am studying to prepare a test examination to become perhaps, librarian.
In the program I study, I have to study the implications to an artistic, philosophic, historic and socio-political of XVIIIth century and XIXth century on the XXth century.
In my program of revision, I studied a bit the french enlightnment, a major period in french history which was to the origin of a crisis named "French revolution".
This revolution had a lot of impact in europe, since it inspired others in Russia (in 1917) and was inspired by another one (the American revolution of 1787).
Back to the history of Europe, the revolution gave differents that first followed her (neoclassicism in Italy and France during the Napoleon Empire) anothers that opposed her (Romantism in germany and later in Great Britain and eventually in France).
But History is more complex than this because added to the cultural influences it's necessary o understand religious influences.
Indeed, this why I am evoking all those current. i will start by the consequences of the XIXth century on the Christianism in Germany.
Contrary to French that, by opposition of France where enlightenment philosophers were opposed by the romantism as an ideal to critizice classical science (Newton was fought by Goethe of his theory of light, Darwin was fought by lamarck, psychology was issued to preserve the soul against the strenght of the reason), Germany chose to integrate romantism and his 'enlightenment' into a same current called "Aufklarung".
This current has also the particularity that he integrated The catholic Church into the Enlightenment current. this particularity makes the German enlightenment special compared to the French one ( who was to the origin of French revolution) and the British one ( who was to the origin of British Liberalism).
The Auflarung was also special because his ideal was to create a union between differents religions and make them agree together so that they could work altogether.
But a nefarious effect of this current was that because of this committment, religions lose their identity and so came reals problems.
Religious people didn't know anymore what was the funding of their faith and lost the points.
At this time new religious currents called "messianism" were arriving. Thoses current were proposing to follow the example of the German enlightenment and do collusion of industrial system with religion (Saint-simon an auto proclamed prophet pretended he was the "new Jesus Christ" and created his own religion), science with religion ( a certain Fourier created is own church funded on the same principele that Saint-Simon), God and the social mecanisms ( Buchez created his church on this principle).
So because of the dilution of values and lost of identity from one major current in germany the totality of religions were disturbed.
Another consequences of this motions were creation of Nation- religion named in other words "nationalism". this lead us one century later to what we know in Germany and Italy.

Another point is the financial crisis of 1830 that coincide with the major confusion in religions at this period.
As said James hillman "money is psychic reality", which means that when those two realities are often related.
Another consequence of the problem due to financial crisis was the increase of antisemitic motion. this is probably due to the fact that Jews were the religion less involved in all this religious anarchy but involved in business in their social life.
They didn't suffered there from religious choices but would suffer one century later of the consequences of what happens at that times.
Amazingly, it was just another financial crisis in 1930 (Exactly one century after the 1830 crisis) that started the world war 2 with all thoses consequences;

If I did all thoses digression it is to tell that, now, the world situation is again a situation of financial crisis, by thistime it seems to me that, if we follow the historical logic of the unconscious, it is not the good time to speak about interelation between Science and religion because we could repeat the same errors from the past due to the fact, present situation is, to mystical point of view deciced by the equilibrium between diffents sephiroths but also to an historical point of view from the understanding that we have from the lesson history leant us;

in my view, it is always dangerous to make religion coincide with science even if they are not mixed altogether because they are using two different energies ( qabalah would say that science is using the energy of Malkuth and religion the energy of Tiphareth).
i am not absolutely sure about the correspondances between the sephiroth and science and religion. The fact is that when unconscious is involved it is always good to know from where we are coming before trying to go anywhere. Perhaps religion and science will help each other one day because, after all they are both trying to understand the universe, even if for different motives and in differents views, but thoses who are doing the changes would probably do good to look if they are centered and grounded so that their view wouldn't be too onvolved into what they are doing.
An energy flowing is always better of an energy stagnating. War issues and conflict in histories are coming from stagnation of energies because people are too involved to see that their own energy is actually infecting them producing what qabalist call "Qliphoth" (unbalanced energy) that will flow from one sphere to the other.

mathieu said...

I have to make apologies again for my spelling mistakes. I was not extremely attentive because I was thinking of a film I was looking after.
Hope my last message is understandable.

see you soon.

Pegasus said...

It was! And full of good points, again!

I think the point I am trying to make is slightly different. Religion and Science have now fought each other to a standstill. Religion has not been vanquished, but it is much reduced and many of its adherents, instead of showing any forward thinking velocity, as in the heydey of their faiths, are entrenched in outdated, reactionary and, to be frank, extremely unspiritual positions.

Likewise the Utopia that the Age of Reason and Science was supposed to have created hasn't arrived either.

Bohm would say that both represent outmoded ways of thinking which have become 'Necessities' but which are not being very creative at the moment. In Kabbalistic terms, both would be described as being almost completely encased in the 'Klippoth', the 'Husks' which prevent the life-giving energy and flow of the Spirit to burst forth.

What I am NOT suggesting is a grafting on of the two but a coming together of their concept of Consciousness. Mysticsm is the Quantum Physics of Religion. Quantum Physics is the Mysticism of Science. Where QM and Mysticism unite is in their visions of the Undivided WHoleness of the Universe, the role of Consciousness within that and Man as the microcosm of this macrocosm.

Where Religion used to serve its purpose it dealt with the reality of the Inner Life. Where Science did its bit was in its discovery and understanding of the Outer. What we need is a synthesis of this. In Hegelian terms, we need the awareness of the Inner that spirituality affords us to merge with the awareness of the Outer Science offers. Perhaps the best way of putting it is a genuine Metanoia which brings us all closer to a sense of the extraordinary nature of the Cosmos. A Universal awareness of what Einstein called 'Cosmic Religion', which he acknowledged as being present within the great religious geniuses (sic) of the past. A time, perhaps, when the Gnosis available only to the Mystics becomes available to everyone. As QM points towards a literal, physical awareness of those ancient Mystical truths the possibility therefore lies in this synthesis happening.

Thus I am not talking about a revival of old religions and their moral/ value systems. I am talking about the transformation of Consciousness that everyone from John the Baptist and Buddha to David Bohm and Carl Jung hoped for. It may come, it may not, but it won't come in a systematic sense - ie it won't come by being 'enforced' consciously. If it happens at all it will happen organically.

For too long Science has occupied itself with the material and sneered at the inner. In reply, Religion has made itself look stupid and ignorant by refusing to acknowledge the findings of Science. A bridge, a synthesis, will be a step forward and will probably be completely unrecognisable to what came before. An existence not based on either worship and following rules on the one hand while being aware of our primordial Oneness with everything through the interior landscape of Consciousness on the other.

This is why Bohm's theory of Orders united with Consciousness is so interesting. You can't worship the Implicate Orders, but you can expand your Consciousness into it and be aware that you are not just an isolated fragment. Bohm is actually talking about Transcendent Realities. All Mysticism encourages people to look into this as it peels us away from the crippling dependence upon the material world we live in with its fear of death, its need for conflict and the boosting of the ego with money and power.

I suppose this is what I mean. A new Consciousness which combines the Inner search of Religion with the Outer awareness of Science, not the grafting of one onto another... Something seems to be going on. Something is knocking at the door. Quantum Science is slowly penetrating the public psyche and there seems to be an enormous resurgence of interest in Mysticism as opposed to Religion per se... We shall see...

Pegasus said...

Also, to go back to one of your very first points, the reason there hasn't been much of an attempt to prove Bohm's theories experimentally is because there has always been huge resistance to his ideas. Even though String Theory is clearly influenced by the idea of the Implicate Order no-one acknowledges its debt to Bohm. He is still more popular OUTSIDE the Physics Community than within it. He's regarded as 'too Mystical' by most, even though his influence is everywhere. Also he was very critical of the predominant mindset of the Science Community, something which never goes down well, even with a supposedly 'dispassionate, disinterested' discipline like Science.

He's still a maverick, still 'out there' with the hippies and hoodoo merchants like Krishnamurti for most Scientists. That's why it was so refreshing to hear you describe as 'one of the greatest physicists of the XXe century'... Like Jung in the world of Psychology, he is still viewed with suspicion even though, like Jung, his cultural influence is still enormous. The poor, benighted members of the public like doors to be opened rather than closed...

mathieu said...

You are a true seeker, because you never give up your view and I like this. It's stimulating to discuss about this with you.
I agree with the fact that QM and Mysticism should unify but not in the sense of a common ground.
You are right again when you say that religion is dealing with the reality of the inner life and that science is dealing with the reality of the outer life.
If we are looking for the standing points available for this junction there's also differents aspects that are not so linked with moral questions but to what one could find when such a junction will be available.
Science produce 'results' and its job is, according to Von Neumann not to explain but to predict.
Religion permit humanity to sustain in order the necessary need to believe in superior structures called by psychologists "archetype". To the point of view of Jung the function of religion is to heal human soul psychologically.
So from one side, there's a will to predict and from this other side a will to heal.
It's true that thoses two sides can help each others. Indeed, if man was using the potentiality of his brain in his real sense, he probably wouldn't need computers to do the job but it doesn't solve the problem of ethics.
The problem is: why should we developp our brain to such an extent, if the most basic functions of day to day life is not even skillfully mastered?
Andrei sakharov the russian father of atomic bomb, became peace nobel price because he had remorse after understanding what was really the effects of atomic bomb on man.
Today theoritical physics are able to create more dangerous things that atomic bomb, should we let the brain continue to developp in that sense without even taking consciousness that, it was by that way that supposed past civilsation such as atlantean or even more historically known such as aztec were commonly destroyed by their own knowledge?
The world is ever changing but we are not forced to let him guide us.
Dinosaurs lived on earth during a 200 millions years without being worried into such problems as unifying science and religion. Man, almost destroy his world in his 1.6 million of years of evolution and scientists are actually predicting that man is not a final stage in the chain of the evolution of the species but most probably a degree which will tend with something else. Evidences proved that the humain complexified more in 50 years that he did in almost more that 4 centuries, the man evolution is accelerating. Again, the question is, why to do such a things that produce something that will increase again this rate?
Gandhi said, probably truly that 'there is more to do in life that to increase your speed'.
I agree that a change have to happen in consciousness to permit man to be more conscious of his evolution, of his world and of his place in the universe but we can't fight against ourselves, we need help to do it and we need time.
Thoses two factors can be reduced neither suppressed help will come when we will be enough interested to our fate to do not judge others for the mistakes they made but to help them to change their views and make the whole business go in progress and time will come when we will be enough patient to find in ourselves the best way to live with what with understanding it better even if it is not so perfect.
Tchouang tseu said in his book:
"There is no worst poison for humanity that Yang and Yin taken separately" and Lao Tseu said in his Tao Te king: " That's because we are always trying to force Nature that Yin and Yang are unbalanced, if we let them freely equilibrate Nature will do the balance naturally".
even if it is not really the place on this subject to discuss about all that I said (it should probably go to others topics) I want to say that it is necessary to make the junction clear before entering into a debate on how it will work.
From Bohm I just know his theoritical scientific works and some of his implication in spirituality.
Perhaps I should continue to discuss about this in another topics.
After all, all is related.
And as said Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford in his "chicken qabalah", "Everything is in Everything", a words that Heisenberg took in his autobiographical book "La partie et le Tout" (from french: "the Part and the wholeness") which is also a description of life and quantum reality that was followed by many others scientist such Erwin Schrödinger or d'arcy wentworth thompson.
If science can understand the nature of life it's not because life is scientifically defined but because life is made of symbolic motives that, as fractals structures repeats undefinitely. The same things occurs with the mind since thought are introduced as repeated motives that can reproduces themselves as sumbols into an infinite structure.
The more we are following one of that 'mind structure' the more we are risking to get lost into it. To a qabalistic view it would be necessary to consider that thoses structures refers to the sphere of Hod, so it is necessary to balance them with the instinct and emotions from the sphere of Netzach to maintain the center and in the same time to remain grounded (to always stay in a earthly level) so that our archetype doesn't fascinate us for too long.
Here i am speaking probably too much, each time I follow one structure of my mind and then jump to another one as Tarzan in the jungle: that's because this discussion is becoming deeper and deeper as far as we can go.
But, as any human beings I need to recharge energy sometimes, because due to the "psychic energy conservative principle" if I waste too much energy in one sphere, I will not have enough to sustain the others and so will risk myself to a lack of attention which consequently can induce an entry of the unconscious into the mind.

So I think it's better I cut the rope for this tpoic and start another one. We will not be able to agree because you and I have our arguments. but anyhow, it is very interesting to discuss with you.
thanks to have answered to my post.

Pegasus said...

Mathieu - a stunning post, your best yet. And I think we ARE agreeing 100%. What we have done is gradually clarify our positions so that we have come to some kind of middle ground - a synthesis as it were - exactly as Bohm would have wanted it. Both of us agree that there is more work for the human race to do, a new Consciousness to evolve. The Age of Religion and the Age of Reason will therefore be seen as necessary parts of the evolution towards that new Consciousness... How we will do it remains to be seen, but I guess its starts with the individual!

I love the Chuang Tzu quote on Yin and Yang. Re Kabbalah, I would also add that the ultimate aim of Kabbalah and the Sephirothic Tree is Unity. The desire of the Kabbalist is to first marry Malkuth with the Lesser Countenance (Hod, Netzach, Yesod, Chesed and Gevurah oscillating in perfect resonance around Tiphareth). When this happens, the Gulf is crossed and Malkuth and Tiphareth are united with Chokmah and Binah, thus restoring the Crown to its Kingdom. So once again Oneness is all... Indeed, as the Kabbalists say: 'All is the Ain Sof'...

If we are to conclude for now, here are some extracts from an interview Bohm conducted with Philosopher Renee Weber. You may find it interesting!:

David Bohm in conversation with Philosopher Renee Weber:

"WEBER: Speaking of mysticism, there is an important idea that I would like to discuss and understand and that is the idea of light. That is especially important to me because you are a physicist. Light has been used as THE privileged metaphor in the language of mysticism and experimental religions, going back to the Greeks and the east. In all these, light is the symbol for our union with the divine. They talk about light without shadow, an all-suffusing light, and it comes up as the central metaphor in near-death experiences. Do you have any hypothesis as to why light has been singled out as the privileged metaphor?

BOHM: If you want to relate it to modern physics (light and more generally anything moving at the speed of light, which is called the null-velocity, meaning null distance), the connection might be as follows. As an object approaches the speed of light, according to relativity, its internal space and time change so that the clocks slow down relative to other speeds, and the distance is shortened. You would find that the two ends of the light ray would have no time between them and no distance, so they would represent immediate contact (this was pointed out by G N Lewis, a physical chemist, in the 1920s). You could say that from this point of view of present field theory, the fundamental fields are those of very high energy i which mass can be neglected, which would essentially be moving at the speed of light. Mass is a phenomenon of connecting light rays which go back and forth, sort of freezing them into a pattern.

So matter, as it were, is condensed or frozen light. Light is not merely electromagnetic waves but in a sense other kinds of waves that go at that speed. Therefore all matter is a condensation of light into patterns moving back and forth at average speeds which are less than the speed of light. Even Einstein had some hint of that idea. You could say that when we come to light we are coming to the fundamental activity in which existence has its ground, or at least coming close to it."

Earlier Weber asks Bohm:

"WEBER: What you have been saying sounds like mysticism - that we are grounded in something infinite. How does it differ from what the great mystics have said?"

Bohm replies:

"BOHM: I don't know that there's necessarily any difference."

And yet elsewhere there is this exchange:

"WEBER: Is the super-implicate order a euphemism for God?
BOHM: I don't know what the meaning of the question is since the super-implicate order is in turn part of a still greater implicate order. It's not a euphemism for God because its limited.
WEBER: Then let's shift the question to the ultimate super super-implicate order.
BOHM: But we can't grasp that in thought. We're not saying that any of this is another word for God. I would put it another way: people had insight in the past about a form of intelligence that had organised the universe and they personalised it and called it God. A similar insight can prevail again today without personalising it and without calling it a personal God."


Have a think about that last passage. He's saying something VERY subtle there...

Its been terrific chatting with you! I hope we will chat more. And please look around the Blog. You may find some stimulating ideas elsewhere too. I would be very interested to know what you think of the preceding entry, A PAUSE FOR THOUGHT: WHY BOTHER?...

Best wishes! And thanks again! Its been an honour...

mathieu said...

Thanks Pegasus for this message.
I could add two points to what Bohm said about the understanding of what matter really is.
According to the Salam-Weinberg-glashow model (in other words the cosmological standard model of particle physics or electroweak interaction theory), the mass of particle is determined by an hypothetic particle which is to be discovered by the LHC and named "Higgs Boson". Physicists call particles "Physics vacuum fluctuation" of a quantum elctrodynamic field which induce a perturbation of this field originated to a "condensated wave packet" named "wave function".
So fo physicist matter is eventually defined both as wave and particles in its duality.
The other point about matter is that it is also defined as the famous Einstein Formula E= mc2. But this formula, to be applied, need to consider that particles are relativistically defined which means that the motion particles have is near from the light speed but NOT exactly to the light speed.
There's some particles that are going to light speed but again they are hypothetic, they are named "Tachyons" and were discovered theoritically by Jean Charon, one of themost controversial physicist because he developp a general relativity theory that included complex numbers ( which means that he used a time in two dimensions). Charon tried to explains psychic phenomenon called "Ghosts" as pseudo physical entity composed of a pseudi matter where electrons were in a quantum state where they are as supraluminic particles (source: just quote a passage of the site: "He describes how electrons, examples in particle physics of the ‘building blocks’ of life, are able to exchange information with each other in the ever continuous flow of life’s evolution. The electron is a veritable micro-universe. In this micro-universe, phenomena take place with increasing negative entropy, i.e. the electrons continually increase their informational content. This is how he describes it:

"As time flows, Spirit increases its order within each electron. It has no choice in this: it consists of a space in which order cannot decrease, a non-decreasing negative entropy space…The electron does not consider this constant negative entropy increase as an aim in itself, in other words the object of evolution, but as a means of discovering the objective of evolution…Each electron is like ourselves: as it increases its memorised information, it begins to perceive a new objective and to mould its actions accordingly…That is why we can speak of the spiritual ‘adventure’ of the universe, since Spirit is choosing to exist through constantly increasing awareness." (Charon 1977, p.167)"
Thoses theories are not considered by physicists and I think for this time I agree with them, not that I believe them to be uninteresting but I think that Physics MUST be validated exprimentally before any theory to be built. this theory was not yet validated and in my view I rather prefer to understand ghosts from the view of psychokinetic phenomenon because there at least, I have one experiment ( the Roger peoch experiment:
To a psychic point of view thoses phenomenon are highly complex to interpret because they required to put together knowledge of at least three science: psychology, physics,biology and eventually another pre requisite of what psychokinesis truly is.

So for the first point I wanted to talk about, I just prefer to consider the view of actual physicist rather than alternative views such as the view of Charon or the more elaborated view of Peoc'h. to me then, Matter is not exactly a condensed "light" but I can understand why Bohm told this. He was speaking in terms of energy; He probably wanted to say that matter is made of energy and so as light is "pure energy", matter is made of light.

The second point I want to tell is about what physicist names "the third quantum mechanics axiom: the symetry between Fermion and Boson".
To a physical point of view, a Boson is a particle of field, says a mediator for an interaction. So Light is made of photons and photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force. However a Fermion is a particle of matter and so an electron is a fermion.
The main difference between Fermion and Boson is that Boson can condensate in a fundamental quantum state, which according to the uncertainty pricniple of Heisenberg make that kind of structure "superfluid". Thoses states are obtained by a well known technic named "optics laser pumping" and are named "Bose-Einstein condensate" (source:
However Fermions can create condensate because, according to the Pauli exclusion principle Two fermion can't be physically in the same quantum state.
So when Bohm is telling that matter is made of light does he want to tell that Matter is made of Boson, whereas every quantum physicist know that it is made of fermions??
I am surprised here.
I don't really see what he want to tell.
However I prefer to think that he was not telling that.

concerning my Chat with you, It has been a pleasure for me too.
As I told you, I want to change a bit of subject and posted a comment
on your topic "Tao, eastward Ho!";
We can continue to discuss on this topic if you want.

See you soon,

mathieu said...

at the end of the last post I wrote: "However Fermions can create condensate because" and wanted to write:
'However Fermions can't create condensate because,'.

I continued this discussion in the part 2.The matter of "White and Blue Light"should be enforced both by mystics and scientists in order to comprehend each others views.
They shouldn't look at the knowledge of each other as a litteral reproduction of their own but more as a symbolic-analogic view of the same principles in a different order of laws.

Pegasus said...

Fascinating. Thank you. So Peoch is kind of saying that Consciousness is the motor for evolution of life in our universe? In other words, as electrons gather and record information (ie become more 'Conscious') they become more complex and thus need more complex organisms to 'house' and further' this Consciousness? That's very interesting and could, potentially, blow Natural Selection as a random thing out of the water. Natural Selection may the process whereby Consciousness evolves physically but it is not 'meaningless', it has a 'purpose'.

As for ghosts... Well that's a very interesting subject and a different matter! LoL!

Re Bohm & Fermions, I can't answer that as I don't know. Nor do I know how his remark relates in time to the other discoveries. I think what he is talking about is Light as Energy. 'Frozen' light is a bad term, I think. 'Dense' or 'Condensed Light' might be better. What he is saying is that Matter is, in essence, made up of densely packed Light Energy. Thus we are Light, or made of Light, but in a super´dense way.

What is interesting is that as Conscious beings we are, therefore, Conscious or Sentient Light bunched together in the appearance of Matter. There are some interesting questions to ask here:

What is the mechanism which makes this 'Dense Light' Sentient or Conscious? If it is us - ie our DNA or even just our Consciousness, then the normal relationship between Consciousness and Matter is being reversed. Science views Consciousness as emerging from Material Processes, but here those Material Processes happen BECAUSE of Consciousness. Thus, perhaps, the more complex the Consciousness, the more complex the organism... And whatever the case, Consciousness is the defining principle rather than Matter.

Conversely, if our Consciousness is NOT the thing that makes this Dense Light Energy Conscious, then what is? It must follow that the Light Energy is Conscious before it becomes us. Which means everything is, potentially, Conscious..

This also applies to how our Material forms work. Bohm points out the problem of what makes a cell 'alive'? We eat inanimate matter to nourish and replenish ourselves. Our bodies break down that matter and reintegrate it into our own bodies. It becomes part of us. So at some stage 'dead' matter becomes 'alive' in us... How is this possible?

Mindboggling stuff, but interesting...

mathieu said...

As it seems a bit mixed between different ideas, I should probably clarify just a bit...
The relationship between Matter and energy is well known to the physical point of view.
However, what is less is, as you said the understanding of why there's consciousness and what is the link between consciousness and matter.
As I saw other topics on your blog: " A Pause for thought: why bother?" and the part 2 of "Bringing it all back home", I post comments on the aspects of Light to the point of view of White Light (Physical light) and Blue Light (astral or mystical light).
The consciousness is not issued from the body but from a symbolic representation of the human mind.
When we agree in such a point we have to consider that there's another view that the view of matter/ energy to describe it.
This view is not material but coincidental.
You are talking about Natural selection to justify the fact that we are evolved living creatures that could adapt to our environment and complexify enough.
However, to the view of psychology, Ferenczi showed in his book " Thalassa: The Psychanasis from the sexual origin" that Man is also developped by regression and by symbolic process. In his view he considered that the steps of the birth were each one corresponding to a coincidental step of geological formation of Earth. Let's take an example:
The Drying of the ocean that permitted animal life to come from ocean on earth has his symbolic analogus in pregnancy when the newborn leave 'the amniotic world of the woman womb' for the physical world of human beings.
As such, if any catastrophic process to a geological scale is reproduced to the evolution of species in a symbolic way, How DNA can be then more that just a transmitter of information?
In Freenczi view, the Darwin theory of evolution is incomplete because it doesn't take into account the view of psychologist about all those issues.
Besides, another point is that there is no direct link between the awareness that we have of dense light energy and consciouness. It is a problem that isn't taken into account by science since it is a biblical view of what the world that was created by light ( This view include generally the fact that God created the world using light as a tool).
We can have a different approach to this problem. Rober penrose, in his book "The emperor's new mind: Concerning computermind and laws of physics", wrote that we are eating to decrease the increaing entropy of the body and maintain it to a global temperature of 37° celsius degrees.
This is not enough to explain why we are conscious of dense matter light but at least we can better understand why, to a biological point of view cells are alive. They are alive because they contribute to reduce entropy of the human body which should permit to maintain orders inside of us;
However to a psychological point of view, life is not defined as an ordering coherent form but as a dynmic process occuring into transforming a wholeness into its parts.
So for making us alive, it is necassary to consider that every scale in observation is acting onto others. Symbolically, this means that each scale is the counterpart of others. Let's take an example. Let's imagine an apple.
If you are looking to it as a material object, you will miss the quantum aspect so as you are not unifying scale you miss the wholeness of the apple. now consider the apple not as an object but as a process that evolving through time. From its beginning to the end the apple is consuming its entropy and that's what make it alive to a physical point of view but then, considering that view, you are again missing the point because you are not considering the psychological aspect of life: the symbolic meaning.
So let's start again and this time from the psychological point of view: the apple development is seen an analogus from another process occured in Nature and so it is not so the apple formation that is 'life' but the symbols behind the process that make apple formation analogus to another one.
In other words we can't seize life and consciouness looking only at one view. Life is a bit of those three view in the same time.
The wholeness of "apple" is made by the link between "the constitution of the apple", his physical process evolution (entropic) and his symbolic meaning compared to the others process in Nature analogus to that one.
consciousness is not coming from us, it is working through us but his formation is a same type of processing that for the apple: we have to ook for the biological structure of the brain, the processes neuro-chemically involved into the brain chemistry but also the symbolic representation available to us when we are conscious.
To make the link between this and the conception of light, please look for the post I made about the two others topics (debate between Blue Light and White Light in the part 2 of Bohm topics and debate about sex into the topics "a pause for thought: why bother?").
Here I didn't discussed on thoses aspects of the problem because it is needed to separate the different component and discuss them accordingly to have an understanding that is ,ot a melting pot of ideas.
As I said, it is a highly complex subject that unify at least 3 science Biology, Physics, psychology. The pre-requisite of psychokinesis takes into account the thought transferrence process showed by Ruppert sheldrake and used skillfully by Peoch into his famous experiment with chicken and robots.
This aspects is not treated here but I can do it in another post in you want.

Pegasus said...

The reason I was interested in the implications of these theories re Natrual Selection is because anything that blows apart the standard, reductionist theory expounded by people like Richard Dawkins excites me. You will see I mention RD a lot on these posts. Its because he infuriates me. Darwinism can only tell us about the footprints of an idea of Evolution, it cannot tell us the process or the reason or even what brought life into being. Dawkins' use of it to 'answer' everything is completely mendacious...

For some time I have been thinking that Conscíousness is the motor of Evolution. After reading Bohm, I begin to feel it is part of a Cosmic Process - which he refers to as the Superimplicate Order. Once again, Materialist interpretations are barking up the wrong tree. But Dawkins doesn't know enough about modern science to admit it - and what he does know he is awkward about...

mathieu said...

In my view, you are right about that. darwinism is an incomplete theory of evolution at least it gives some clues of changes but it not enough precise concerning the aspects linked to the mind evolving process.
If It was possible to have a theory of evolution mid-darwinian mid-lamarckian it would be probably better.

Pegasus said...

Agreed... And Bohmian! Lol!