Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

David Bohm, best theoretical and quantum Physicist, believed in parapsychology.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Bohm, best theoretical and quantum Physicist, believed in parapsychology.

    David Bohm was one of the best quantum physicists of all time and one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century (wikipedia).

    In the article, David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti, Martin Garner wrote that Bohm was favorably impressed with Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields and parapsychology. Bohm took seriously Uri Geller's psychic phenomena and carried a key bent by Geller. Bohm believed in panpsychicsm, in one interview he said, "Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind,"


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm


    David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American-born British quantum physicist who contributed to theoretical physics, philosophy of mind, neuropsychology. David Bohm is widely considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century.[2]
    ...
    David Bohm was widely considered one of the best quantum physicists of all time.[2]


    http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_...shnamurti.html

    David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti.


    Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000, by Martin Gardner

    Bohm's creative work in physics is undisputable, but in other fields he was almost as gullible as Conan Doyle. He was favorably impressed by Count Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity, with the morphogenic fields of Rupert Sheldrake, the orgone energy of Wilhelm Reich, and the marvels of parapsychology. [1] For a while he took seriously Uri Geller's ability to bend keys and spoons, to move compasses, and produce clicks in a Geiger counter, all with his mind.

    Bohm also flirted with panpsychism, the belief that all matter is in some sense alive with low levels of consciousness. "Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind," Bohm said in an interview published in Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm (1987), edited by Basil Hiley and David Peat. Bohm's later writings swarm with neologisms such as holomovement, rheomode, levate, enfoldment, soma-significant, and implicate and explicate levels of reality.

    In his biography of Bohm, David Peat tells how Bohm carried with him a key bent by Uri Geller as if it were a holy relic. When the key later disappeared, Bohm took this to be Geller's psychokinetic powers at work from a distance. When the key was found an hour later, he believed this to be another paranormal event! Bohm's close associate Basil Hiley at once recognized Geller as a charlatan. He often warned Bohm that if he appeared to endorse Geller it would damage their work. Bohm agreed to back away from Geller. As Hiley said to Peat, Bohm often had to be saved from idiots.
    Who are you going to believe David Bohm, one of the best physicists of all time, or the Amazing Randi?

  • #2
    Or, to put it another way, will you be susceptible to the fallacy of appealling to authority or not?

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey! You know what'd be a hoot? Go to this thread and for each scientist listed ask who'd we'd rather believe, them or James Randi!

      Comment


      • #4
        The same reply for this thread is just as approriate as it is for this thread:
        Max Plank (Nobel Prize in physics): Consciousness is not material.

        The above is a matter of opinion and holds no more authority today which was none to begin with, then it did back in 1992, David's year of death.

        Believe neither if either are spouting opinion.
        This might help you in understanding why using such a fallacy doesn't help you further the argument being presented.

        Appeal to Authority
        Explanation

        An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

        Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

        However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
        Example

        (1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
        Therefore:
        (2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

        This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.

        Comment


        • #5
          Didn't Erwin also feel the same way?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Limbo View Post
            Didn't Erwin also feel the same way?
            Erwin Schrodinger received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933. He believed consciousness was not produced by the brain and could not be explained in physical terms.


            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/325387
            “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

            ― Erwin Schrödinger
            Erwin Schrodinger:
            http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger
            The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."
            ...
            I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.
            ...

            There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger

            Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger ( 12 August 1887 – 4 January 1961) was an Austrian born physicist and theoretical biologist who was one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, and is famed for a number of important contributions to physics, especially the Schrödinger equation, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933. In 1935 he proposed the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.[2]

            Comment


            • #7
              the great stephen hawking's credentials need no introduction. he is a materialist who believes we are a bunch of robots. this thread is about which authority's beliefs one should emulate based on their resume?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by anonymous View Post
                Who are you going to believe David Bohm, one of the best physicists of all time, or the Amazing Randi?

                Given the subject, Randi of course.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Martin Gardner tries to make Bohm look stupid with his sneering and scoffing, but beside the searing light of Bohm's scientific brilliance, Gardner only makes himself look stupid.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by anonymous View Post
                    Martin Gardner tries to make Bohm look stupid with his sneering and scoffing, but beside the searing light of Bohm's scientific brilliance, Gardner only makes himself look stupid.
                    That'll be your opinion. Gardner makes no sneering nor scoffing reference to Bohm's scientific work.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Anonymous, I see there is a tad bit of Sniffy in you .

                      As for others, don't you think it is interesting that Schrodinger and Bohm both believed in the fundamental irreducibility of consciousness, having both thought very deeply about the subject, and been possessed of great intelligence? At the very least, this should give you pause, and spur you to examine philosophical arguments for the primacy of consciousness.

                      - Johann

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Johann View Post
                        Anonymous, I see there is a tad bit of Sniffy in you .

                        As for others, don't you think it is interesting that Schrodinger and Bohm both believed in the fundamental irreducibility of consciousness, having both thought very deeply about the subject, and been possessed of great intelligence? At the very least, this should give you pause, and spur you to examine philosophical arguments for the primacy of consciousness.

                        - Johann
                        And Max Planck

                        http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...nt_researchers

                        I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

                        As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

                        Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Johann View Post
                          Anonymous, I see there is a tad bit of Sniffy in you .


                          - Johann
                          Well, you know what Erwin said ...
                          There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind.
                          We are all Sniffy.
                          Last edited by anonymous; April 28th, 2012, 01:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Johann View Post

                            As for others, don't you think it is interesting that Schrodinger and Bohm both believed in the fundamental irreducibility of consciousness, having both thought very deeply about the subject, and been possessed of great intelligence? At the very least, this should give you pause, and spur you to examine philosophical arguments for the primacy of consciousness.

                            - Johann

                            Research has shown that people who think analytically rather than intuitively tend to be atheists. People who analyze problems using logic, because of their education, career, or innate characteristics, may become habituated to reductionist thinking. Reductionism works well in many branches of science. Psychology can be explained in terms of biology, which can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. In particular, scientists, engineers, philosophers, and other intellectuals, may become so habituated to reductionist thinking that they are unable to conceive that some phenomena cannot be explained in terms of simpler phenomena. For example, the subjective experience of consciousness, what pain feels like, or what red looks like, cannot be understood through reductionism. Psychic phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories cannot be understood through reductionism. This is why some people who are habituated to reductionist thinking simply cannot conceive that psychic phenomena could be real or consciousness might be nonphysical and survive bodily death. They hold on to the idea of epiphenomena even though it is a poor explanation of consciousness because it is the best they can conceive of within their reductionist prison.
                            Last edited by anonymous; April 28th, 2012, 02:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by anonymous View Post
                              Research has shown that people who think analytically rather than intuitively tend to be atheists. People who analyze problems using logic, because of their education, career, or innate characteristics, may become habituated to reductionist thinking. Reductionism works well in many branches of science. Psychology can be explained in terms of biology, which can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. In particular, scientists, engineers, philosophers, and other intellectuals, may become so habituated to reductionist thinking that they are unable to conceive that some phenomena cannot be explained in terms of simpler phenomena. For example, the subjective experience of consciousness, what pain feels like, or what red looks like, cannot be understood through reductionism. Psychic phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories cannot be understood through reductionism. This is why some people who are habituated to reductionist thinking simply cannot conceive that psychic phenomena are real or consciousness is nonphysical and survives bodily death.

                              They hold on to the idea of epiphenomena even though it is a poor explanation of consciousness because it is the best they can conceive of.
                              You somewhat over stated the article. The article suggests people are inclined to ways of thinking.

                              To the underlined. The opposite is also true. You are immune to habitual thinking ?

                              To the bold. That's your opinion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X