Learn from David Bohm!

Learn from David Bohm!
– “The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained.”, There is no such thing as thinking differently to an optimal calculator that knows its parameter space, and as  such, is able to learn effectively, unless claims from Penrose show up to be correct. That being said, current  thinking can be done with Peano, and the “differently” (or “non-rigorous” from Keynes) stems from the fact that  our knowledge contains many contradictions and therefore we shall aim at knowing less (in a sense), i.e. we ought  to challenge our assumptions.
– “Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness.”. Individuality representing a rel. big value stems from things that do not decrease in value over time. To find such a value, one has to achieve a larger picture of the perceive and challenge it. This individuality is built upon this new and challenged knowledge.
– “We havent really paid much attention to thought as a process. we have engaged in thoughts, but we have only paid attention  to the content, not to the process.”. What about the thought process can we say? From machine learning perspective this is just  walking in the parameter space, enough intelligent walking, i.e. one that should not get stuck in local minimas all too often.  Still, as we have been observing throughout the passing centuries, we get stuck. And we fail to ackowledge it fast.
– “Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is  in an actual process of movement.”, A very general statement,
– “My suggestion is that at each state the proper order of operation of the mind requires an overall grasp of what is generally known, not  only in formal logical, mathematical terms, but also intuitively, in images, feelings, poetic usage of language, etc.”, “Mathematical”
terms can also be written in form of images or feelings with our axioms at the bottom. Exploitation of different senses allows us to  “read” faster given certain descriptions of data are suitable for certain use cases.
– “Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thought and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes  the whole of society – as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times.”,
Thought as a system evolving from ancient times seems very relevant. Would we be able to measure what determines its growth?
– “But you don’t decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.”, What does it indicate that thought  runs one? One acts based on a thought that comes from ancient times and is shaped since then by all beings. Still, isn’t it the case that we can easily “thinking” as known? We can show the data in the connected form, analyze most irregular parts, exploit contradictory claims to save ourselves some redundant space walking, and then we could ask a bee or the entire swarm for some random walking. We could also  suggest some directions but at the same time remembering that our notion of importance is very limited, and we shall not get stuck for too long.
– “In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined.”,
In relativity we have an observer and we want to allow for his observations (given our axioms). In QEM we observe that the perceived does not work with Bell and Bohm, we then look for new mechanisms allowing for long term interaction. In relativity we would be able to determine exactly, in QEM not, but we sacrified seeking for the exact solution for for a moment, and just because we needed to admit that what we observe is something that is of least implicitness.
– “Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it’s creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates.”, We solve problems by finding and exploiting connections. We look for irregularites or find beautiful infinite schemas (like induction). We model step by step. A proof is never one or two, or 200 people. It has always been a gift of many lifes. The only learning I see here is that we shall remember of not getting stuck in local minimas, or (worse) in building models (see: Feferman on mathematical monsters) that arise only in our imagination. Still, this very imagination will start to be more and more recognized as a high variance jump over the param space. We make jumps of different sizes, but lets accept others and think big of them to make
interaction (the thought) more beautiful. In the end, all these jumps will be necessary due to the CLT.
– “People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning which is capable of constant development and change.”, Agreed, but I call it  interaction. This pool. Interaction shaping the parameter space of knowledge of the universe. Imagine that you are born in a place with almost no eyes (like we), almost no ears (like we), etc. The only thing you can do is to
learn about it via any interaction you are given. Would there be anything beautiful about it if you were given nothing? No, because you would not exist, given that you would not feel anything.
– “Thought has been constantly evolving and we can’t say when that system began.”, A beautiful question: could we by investigating the strength of growth of thought, having the very thought modelled via the density of connections between old nodes of knowledge, .. could we determine when it all started? I will investigate it when I have a node.
– “One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.”,
Again, not getting stuck. We have a lot of commitments and axioms, and our number system is based on our need for counting. We are still at the beginning of our journey and should be therefore more polarized towards challenging our own assumptions.
– “Suppose we were able to share meanings freely without a compulsive urge to impose our view or conform to those of others and without distortion and self-deception. Would this not constitute a real revolution in culture.”, imposing a view indicates that we are almost sure (or sure), conforming indicates that we have a perfect teacher, being able to learn together would be of great significance to the mankind.
– “In some sense man is a microcosm of the universe; therefore what man is, is a clue to the universe. We are enfolded in the universe.”, How are these two objects connected? A man and the universe? How to find the connection? How does a human objectively
look like? How does the universe objectively look like?
– “And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call ‘sustained incoherence.”, running away from unpleasant results refrains us from development, esp. given the fact that we still understand so little.
– “What is the source of all this trouble? I’m saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That’s part of our tradition.”, what  would then be so vulnerable in the very process of thinking? what is a thought? not walking in the parameter space?
– “This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn’t know it is doing something and then it struggles against it is doing. It doesn’t want to know that it is doing it.”, close to incompleteness, i.e. thought beyond the param space? if yes, then what is it?

Advertisements

About misha

Imagine a story that one can't believe. Hi. Life changes here. Small things only.
This entry was posted in Mathematics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s