Understanding maybe, but how big has the list of shit we have to learn about gotten lately? Moving toward understanding when we don't even know everything we have to understand would be a bad thing I think.
"Interesting... I'd like to read about that. But just because he's a scientist doesn't make all of his views into science..."
Absolutely not, and that's an important observation.
Here's a decent writeup of David Bohm's work from good ol' Wikipedia:
The holonomic model of the brain
Bohm also made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model  of the functioning of the brain. In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view-- much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow-- a view which is quite different from the more conventional "objective" approach. Pribram believes that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.
Bohm referred to his Quantum Model with the title The Implicat Order
From the link above:
Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.
Ever heard of Susan Blackmore, Rastus?
No, but I'd like to learn about her. I just did a search on her. Apparently, she's a specialist in Memetics, units of cultural information. Yes?
Yes. Former psi researcher, got out of it when she learned how hollow it was. Lots of interesting experience to draw upon. She has a good interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast.
Superfrog: "Neither is reality" what do you mean? Your evidence?
Interesting way to ask what I mean.
Well, for one, as I wrote before, we don't know what matter is, what energy is, what space is. We create ideas that serve as analogies, and see how well the universe corresponds with these analogies. We treated, for instance, space as if it were composed of euclidean points. From that, we applied concepts of geometry to make predictions, some of which corresponded to expectations.
Some did not.
Einstein then described points as "events" in General relativity, and conceived space as having non-zero energy. That's the basis of what he calls his "stress energy tensor" - a four dimensional matrix that governs cosmological activity. In General Relativity, there is no fixed geometry. The presence and quantity of matter determine space's geometry.
Both of these models are ideas in our noggins...and we then see to what extent the universe corresponds with that reality.
QM has a totally different approach. The two get entangled with the realization of the Black Hole - where the two models meet. Enter into the conundrums of modern physics.
My physics professor described nature as being the ultimate calculator- she shows us the real answer, all we can do is try to get as close as we can to it.
science is the search for the truth and, the reasons.
The whys and the hows.
The expansion of our understanding.
it's why we know, what causes earth quakes, why volanos erupt etc.
instead of thinking "ooh, the volcano erupted.... god is angry"
this is all just another piss weak attempt at the on going religious rhetoric.....
religion is prooved to be so far from reality that, instead of coming up with endless inane arguments that are pro-religion that, with in minutes get disprooved... they attack science...
as if this argument holds any weight....
it's like a snot nosed kid saying "I know you are but, what am I?" or "takes one to know one"
If people who believe in science, were so retardedly stupid to give this argument any weight, they would probably already be religious.
I am extremely anti-religious...
religion has caused more separation, wars, death and, crime than anything else in creation..
it is a fact that more people have been excecuted because of their religious beliefs than have died in every war in history.... including the religious wars....
so forgive me if I don't subscribe to being a part of the criminal, tax evading, murderous, hate breeding, war causing institution that has reaked destruction, genocide and, murder on the entire world for thousands and, thousands of years.
the christians are responsible for eradicating entire cultures and, civilisations in the name of money greed and, power.
THE ULTIMATE EVIL!
death side... third leg..
they are great constructive arguments that are full of wisdom and, insight.... thanks for 0
what embarrasses me is that civilization is still full of brainwashed idiots too blind to see.
where I come from 1 in about every 200 people may believe in some sort of god... but not fanatically.
most of them are considered weirdos by the general population.
to me, the fact that 60% of US believes in religion (of which none can agree) is insanity.
a whole nation of which 60% are weirdos... now that's embarrassing.
please explain where I have ignored facts.
Science is by no means a religion. The assertion that it is is patently false. What I'm suggesting is that the cock-suredness of the scientist is exceedingly myopic. It's still a dark, mysterious universe out there, don't kid yourself.
About "faith", there's the Buddhist faith and the Christian faith.
The Christian faith is to shield yourself from the information in the world contrary to your belief...and hold onto that idea with all your might...and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife.
The Buddhist faith (in the pure form, not the degraded forms existing today) is not to trust authority, but verify from your own experience for a proposition's validity. That's more akin to the scientist's faith.
I have faith that gravity will be at work tomorrow because to entertain the contrary would require me to live in a fantasy land. Same with all my "faiths", such as my car starting tomorrow. Eventually, I know it won't, but I don't have a good reason to believe that tomorrow it won't.
The scientist shouldn't have "faith" in anything, but should form models that best fit the data, holding no worshipful obedience to anything. If the data should demand reformulating the rules of science (and it does happen, such as the original observations of the energy output of quasars), then so be it...but not until that extreme situation occurs.
" deathside is correct. We only want to weed out the faiths and beliefs that we find distasteful."
Even as a joke, this implies to me that
1) you consider religion and science equivalent in terms of how they involve faith
2) you think that there is a prominent movement to "weed out" Christianity
Are either of these things true?
You don't see a difference between having faith in an empirically-testable system, and having faith in a faith-based system?
rastus} i came to the same conclusion after my masters in physics