Archive for February, 2009

The Implicate Order

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , on February 27, 2009 by dejavouz

Energy

The Implicate Order and Quantum Theory

The question of the relationship of mind and matter has already been explored to some extent in some of my earlier work in physics (Bohm, 1980). In this work, which was originally aimed at understanding relativity and quantum theory on a basis common to both, I developed the notion of the enfolded or implicate order.

The essential feature of this idea was that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything and that each thing is enfolded in the whole. From this it follows that in some way, and to some degree everything enfolds or implicates everything, but in such a manner that under typical conditions of ordinary experience, there is a great deal of relative independence of things.

The basic proposal is then that this enfoldment relationship is not merely passive or superficial. Rather, it is active and essential to what each thing is. It follows that each thing, is internally related to the whole, and therefore, to everything else. The external relationships are then displayed in the unfolded or explicate order in which each thing is seen, as has already indeed been indicated, as relatively separate and extended, and related only externally to other things. The explicate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical (Newtonian) physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understood properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order.

Because the implicate order is not static but basically dynamic in nature, in a constant process of change and development, I called its most general form the holo-movement. All things found in the unfolded, explicate order emerge from the holo-movement in which they are enfolded as potentialities and ultimately they fall back into it. They endure only for some time, and while they last, their existence is sustained in a constant process of unfoldment and re-enfoldment, which gives rise to their relatively stable and independent forms in the explicate order.

The above description then gives, as I have shown in more detail elsewhere (Bohm, 1980) a valid intuitively graspable account of the meaning of the properties of matter, as implied by the quantum theory. It takes only a little reflection to see that a similar sort of description will apply even more directly and obviously to mind, with its constant flow of evanescent thoughts, feelings, desires, and impulses, which flow into and out of each other, and which, in a certain sense, enfold each other (as, for example, we may say that one thought is implicit in another, noting that this word literally means ‘enfolded’). Or to put it differently, the general implicate process of ordering is common both to mind and to matter. This means that ultimately mind and matter are at least closely analogous and not nearly as different as they appear on superficial examination. Therefore, it seems reasonable to go further and suggest that the implicate order may serve as a means of expressing consistently the actual relationship between mind and matter, without introducing something like the Cartesian duality between them.

At this stage, however, the implicate order is still largely a general framework of thought within which we may reasonably hope to develop a more detailed content that would make possible progress toward removing the gulf between mind and matter. Thus, even on the physical side, it lacks a well-defined set of general principles that would determine how the potentialities enfolded in the implicate order are actualized as relatively stable and independent forms in the explicate order. The absence of a similar set of principles is, of course, also evident on the mental side. But yet more important, what is missing is a clear understanding of just how mental and material sides are to be related.

Evidently what is needed is an extension of the implicate order, which develops the theory in the direction indicated above. In this paper, we shall go into another approach that in my opinion goes a long way toward fulfilling this requirement. This is based on what has been called the causal interpretation of the quantum theory (Bohm, 1952; Bohm & Hiley, 1975, 1987; Hiley & Peat, 1987). To show why this is being brought in, I shall first give a brief review or some of the main features of the quantum theory that called for a new interpretation along the proposed lines (see also Bohm, 1984; Zukav, 1979).

First, the quantum theory implies that all material systems have what is called a wave particle duality in their properties. Thus, electrons that in Newtonian physics act like particles can, under suitable conditions, also act like waves (e.g. electrons can show statistical interference properties when a large number of them is passed through a system of slits). This dual nature of material systems is totally at variance with Newtonian physics, in which each system has its own nature independently of context.

Secondly, all action is in the form of definite and measurable units of energy, momentum and other properties called quanta which cannot be further divided. (For example, an atom is said to ‘jump’ from one state to another without passing through intermediate states and in doing this to emit an indivisible quantum of light energy.) When particle interact, it is as if they were all connected by indivisible links into a single whole.

However, in the large scale limit, the number of links is so great that processes can be treated to a good degree of approximation as divisible (as one can treat the collective movement of a large mass of grains of sand as an approximately divisible flow). And this explains the indefinite divisibility of processes that we experience on the large scale level as a limiting case.

Thirdly, there is a strange new property of non-locality. That is to say, under certain conditions, particles that are at macroscopic orders of distance from each other appear to be able, in some sense, to affect each other, even though there is no known means by which they could be connected. Indeed if we were to assume any kind of force whatsoever (perhaps as yet unknown) to explain this connection, then the well-known Bell’s theorem gives a precise and general criterion for deciding whether the connection is local, i.e. one brought about by forces that act when the systems are not in contact (Bell, 1966). It can be shown that the quantum theory implies that Bell’s criterion is violated, and this implication is confirmed by the actual experiments. Therefore, it follows that if there are such forces, they must act on-locally. Such non-local interactions are basically foreign to the general conceptual scheme of classical (Newtonian) physics, as it has been known over the past few centuries (which states that interactions are either in contact or carried by locally acting fields that propagate continuously through space).

All of this can be summed up in terms of a new notion of quantum wholeness, which implies that the world cannot be analyzed into independently and separately existent parts. This sort of analysis will have at most an approximate and limited kind of applicability; i.e. in a domain in which Newtonian physics is approximately valid. But fundamentally, quantum wholeness is what is primary.

In particular, such wholeness means that in an observation carried out to a quantum theoretical level of accuracy, the observing apparatus and the observed system cannot be regarding as separate. Rather, each participates in the other to such an extent that it is not possible to attribute the observed result of their interaction unambiguously to the observed system alone.

Therefore, as shown by Heisenberg, there is a limit to the precision of the information that can be obtained about the latter. This contrasts with Newtonian physics, in which it is always possible in principle to refine observations to an unlimited degree of precision.

Niels Bohr (1934, 1958) has made a very subtle analysis of this whole question. For reasons similar to those outlined above, he treats the entire process of observation as a single phenomenon, which is a whole that is not further analyzable. For Bohr, this implies that the mathematics of the quantum theory is not capable of providing an unambiguous (i.e. precisely definable) description of an individual quantum process, but rather, that it is only an algorithm yielding statistical predictions concerning the possible results of an ensemble of experiments. Bohr further supposes that no new concepts are possible that could unambiguously describe the reality of the individual quantum process. Therefore, there is no way intuitively or otherwise to understand what is happening in such processes. Only in the Newtonian limit can we obtain an approximate picture of what is happening, and this will have to be in terms of the concepts of Newtonian physics.

Bohr’s approach has the merit of giving a consistent account of the meaning of the quantum theory. Moreover, it focuses on something that is new in physics, i.e. the wholeness of the observing instrument and what is observed. The question is clearly also of key importance in discussing the relationship of mind and matter. But Bohr’s insistence that this wholeness cannot be understood through any concepts whatsoever, however new they may be, implies that further progress in this field depends mainly on the development of new sets of mathematical equations without any real intuitive or physical insight as to what they mean apart from the experimental results that they may predict. On the other hand, I have always felt that mathematics and intuitive insight go hand in hand. To restrict oneself to only one of these is like tying one hand behind one’s back and working only with the other. Of course, to do this is a significant restriction in physics, but evidently it is even more significant restriction in studying in mind, where intuitive insight must itself be a primary factor.

In view of the above, it seems very important to question Bohr’s assumption that no conception of the individual quantum process is possible. Indeed, it was just in doing this that I was led to develop the causal interpretation of the quantum theory, that I have already mentioned earlier, which is able, as will be shown in this article, to provide a basis or a non- dualistic theory of the relationship of mind and matter.

Prof. David Bohm

Advertisements

An Emperors New Mind

Posted in Scientific with tags , , on February 25, 2009 by dejavouz

Buddha

Consciousness defines our existence and reality, but the mechanism by which the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown.

Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells (“neurons”) and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches. However computation alone cannot explain why we have feelings and awareness, an “inner life.”

We also don’t know if our conscious perceptions accurately portray the external world. At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing. But the “classical” world we perceive is definite, with a flow of time. The boundary or edge (quantum state reduction, or ‘collapse of the wave function”) between the quantum and classical worlds somehow involves consciousness.

I spent twenty years studying how computer-like structures called microtubules inside neurons and other cells could process information related to consciousness. But when I read “The emperor’s new mind” by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991 I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds. Roger and I teamed up to develop a theory of consciousness based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons. Roger’s mechanism for an objective threshold for quantum state reduction connects us to the most basic, “funda-mental” level of the universe at the Planck scale, and is called objective reduction (OR). Our suggestion for biological feedback to microtubule quantum states is orchestration (Orch), hence our model is called orchestrated objective reduction, Orch OR.

In recent years I have considered that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist and other spiritual concepts.

Stuart Hameroff M.D

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org

Lady Slippers

Posted in Scientific with tags , , , , , on February 25, 2009 by dejavouz

paramecium1

“If we are to believe that neurons are the only things that control the sophisticated actions of animals, then the humble paramecium presents us with a profound problem.

For she swims about her pond with her numerous tiny hair like legs – the cilia – darting in the direction of bacterial food which she senses using a variety of mechanisms, or retreating at the prospect of danger, ready to swim off in another direction. She can also negotiate obstructions by swimming around them.

Moreover, she can apparently even learn from her past experiences – though this most remarkable of her apparent faculties has been disputed by some. How is this achieved by an animal without a single neuron or synapse? Indeed, being but a single cell, and not being a neuron herself, she has no place to accommodate such accessories.

Yet there must indeed be a complicated control system governing the behaviour of a paramecium – or indeed other one-celled animals like amoebas – but it is not a nervous system. The structure responsible is apparently part of what is referred to as the cytoskeleton. As its name suggests, the cytoskeleton provides the framework that holds the cell in shape, but it does much more.

The cilia themselves are the endings of the cytoskeletal fibres, but the cytoskeleton seems also to contain the control system for the cell, in addition to providing ‘conveyer’ belts for the transporting of various molecules from one place to another. In short, the cytoskeleton appears to play a role for the single cell rather like a combination of skeleton, muscle system, legs, blood circulatory system and nervous system all rolled into one!

It is the cytoskeleton’s roll as the cells ‘nervous system’ that will have the main importance for us here. For our own neurons are themselves single cells, and each neuron has its own cytoskeleton! Does this mean that there is a sense in which each individual neuron might itself have something akin to its own ‘personal nervous system’?

This is an intriguing issue, and a number of scientists have been coming round to the view that something of this general nature might actually be true (see Stuart Hameroff pioneering 1987 book Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology; Also Hameroff and Watt (1982) and numerous articles in the new journal nanobiology)”

Sir Roger Penrose

Mathematical Physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

Excerpt from “Shadows of the Mind”

Is Intelligence Awake 1.2

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , on February 24, 2009 by dejavouz

Conversation With Professor David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti Brockwood Park 7th October 1972

Continued…

Bohm: Yes. It is still projecting.

Krishnamurti: It is projecting it to capture it. So how does this intelligence take place – not how – when does it awaken?

Bohm: Once again the question is in time.

Krishnamurti: That is why I don’t want to use the words “when”, “how”.

Bohm: You might perhaps say the condition for it to awaken is the non-operation of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: But that is the same as the awakening, it is not merely the condition. You can’t even ask if there are conditions for intelligence to awaken. Even to talk about a condition is a form of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Let us agree, any movement of thought in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or non-action, is still in time – any movement of thought.

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then what is the relationship of that movement to this intelligence which is not a movement, which is not of time, which is not the product of thought? Where can the two meet?

Bohm: They don’t meet. But there is still a relation.

Krishnamurti: That is what we are trying to find out. Is there any relationship at all, first? One thinks there is a relationship, one hopes there is a relationship, one projects a relationship. Is there a relationship at all?

Bohm: That depends what you mean by relationship?

Krishnamurti: Relationship: being in contact with, recognition, a feeling of being in touch with.

Bohm: Well, the word relationship might mean something else.

Krishnamurti:What other meaning has it?

Bohm: For example there is a parallel, isn’t there? The harmony of the two. That is, two things may be related without contact, but by simply being in harmony.

Krishnamurti: Does harmony mean a movement of both in the same direction?

Bohm: It might also mean in some way keeping in the same order.

Krishnamurti: In the same order: same direction, same depth, same intensity – all that is harmony. But can thought ever be harmonious? – thought as movement, not static thought.

Bohm: I understand. There is that thought which you abstract as static, in geometry let us say, that may have some harmony; but thought as it actually moves is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of the confusion. We have the static products of thought that seem to have a certain relative harmony. But that harmony is really the result of intelligence, at least it seems so to me. In mathematics we may get a certain relative harmony of the product of thought, even though the actual movement of thought of a mathematician is not necessarily in harmony, generally won’t be in harmony. Now that harmony which appears in mathematics is the result of intelligence, isn’t it?

Krishnamurti: Proceed, Sir.

Bohm: It is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limit; that is why I call it only relative.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Now, in the movement of thought is there harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with intelligence. If there is no harmony but contradictions and all the rest of it, then thought has no relationship with the other.

Bohm: Then would you say that we could do entirely without thought?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought.

Bohm: All right. But how can it use something which is disharmonious?

Krishnamurti: Expression, communication, using thought which is contradictory, which is not harmonious, to create things in the world.

Bohm: But still, there must be harmony in some other sense, in what is done with thought, in what we have just described.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly in this. Can we first put into words, negatively or positively, what is intelligence, what is not intelligence? Or is that impossible because words are thought, time, measure and so on?

Bohm: We can’t put it in words. We are trying to point. Can we say that thought can function as the pointer to intelligence, and then its contradiction doesn’t matter.

Krishnamurti: That is right. That is right.

Bohm: Because we are not using it for its content, or its meaning, but rather as a pointer which points beyond the domain of time.

Krishnamurti: So thought is a pointer. The content is intelligence.

Bohm: The content which it points to.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Can we put this thing entirely differently? May we say, thought is barren?

Bohm: Yes. When it moves by itself, yes.

Krishnamurti: Which is mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without intelligence the pointer has no value.

Bohm: Could we say that intelligence reads the pointer? If the pointer has nobody to see it then the pointer doesn’t point.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So intelligence is necessary. Without it thought has no meaning at all.

Bohm: But could we now say: that if thought is not intelligent it points in a very confused way?

Krishnamurti: Yes, in an irrelevant way.

Bohm: Irrelevant, meaningless and so on. Then with intelligence it begins to point in another way. But then somehow thought and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function.

Krishnamurti: Yes. So we can ask: what is action in relationship to intelligence? Right?

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: What is action in relation to intelligence, and in the carrying out of that action is thought necessary?

Bohm: Yes; well, thought is necessary and this thought points obviously towards matter. But it seems to point both ways – back towards intelligence as well. One of the questions which always comes up is: should we say that intelligence and matter are merely a distinction within the same thing, or are they different? Are they really separate?

Krishnamurti: I think they are separate, they are distinct.

Bohm: They are distinct, but are they actually separate?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by the word “separate”? Not related, not connected, with no common source?

Bohm: Yes. Do they have a common source?

Krishnamurti: That is just it. Thought, matter and intelligence, have they a common source? I think they have.

Bohm: Otherwise there could be no harmony, of course.

Krishnamurti: But you see thought has conquered the world. You understand? – conquered.

Bohm: Dominates the world.

Krishnamurti: Thought, the intellect, dominates the world. And therefore intelligence has very little place here. When one thing dominates, the other must be subservient.

Death – A Great Act of Purgation

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , on February 24, 2009 by dejavouz

sci-fi-planets

Death is something not only mysterious but a great act of purgation. That which continues in a repetitive pattern is degeneration. The pattern may vary according to country, according to climate, according to circumstance, but it is a pattern.

Moving in any pattern brings about continuity and that continuity is part of the degenerating process of man. When there is an ending if continuity, something new can take place. One can understand it instantly if one has understood the whole movement of thought, of fear, hate, love – then one can grasp the significance, instantly, of what death is.

What is death? When one asks that question, thought has many answers. Thought says: “I do not want to go into all the miserable explanations of death.” Every human being has an answer to it, according to his conditioning, according to his desire, his hope.

Thought always has an answer. The answer will invariably be intellectual, verbally put together by thought. But one is examining, without having an answer, something totally unknown, totally mysterious – death is a tremendous thing. One realizes that the organism, the body, dies and the brain – having in life been misused in various forms of self-indulgence, contradiction, effort, constant struggle, wearing itself out mechanically, for it is a mechanism – also dies.

The brain is the repository of memory; memory as experience, as knowledge. From that experience and knowledge, stored up in the cells of the brain, as memory, thought arises. When the organism comes to an end, the brain also comes to an end, and so thought comes to an end.

Thought is a material process – thought is nothing spiritual – it is a material process based on memory held in the cells of the brain; when the organism dies, thought dies. Thought creates the whole structure of the me – the me that wants this, the me that does not want that, the me that is fearful, anxious, despairing, longing, lonely – fearful of dying. And thought says: “What is the value, what is the significance of life for a human being who has struggled, experienced, acquired, lived in such an ugly, stupid, miserable way and then for it to end?” So, thought then says: “No, this is not the end, there is another world.” But that other world is still merely the movement of thought.

One asks what happens after death. Now ask quite a different question: What is before death? – not what is after death. What is before death, which is one’s life? What is one’s life? Go to school, to college, university, get a job, man and woman live together, he goes off to the office for 50 years, she goes off earning more money, they have children, pain, anxiety, each fighting. Living such a miserable life one wants to know what is after death – about which volumes have been written, all produced by thought, all saying, “Believe”.

So, if one puts all that aside, literally, actually, puts it all aside, then what is one faced with? – the actual fact that oneself who is put together by thought, comes to an end – all one’s anxieties, all one’s longings come to an end.

When one is living, as one is living now, with vigour, with energy, with all the travail of life, can one live meeting death now? I am living in all vigour, energy and capacity, and death means an ending to that living.

Now, can I live with death all the time? That is: I am attached to you; end that attachment, which is death – is it not? One is greedy and when one dies, one cannot carry greed with one; so end the greed, not in a week’s time, or ten days’ time – end it, now. So one is living a life full of vigour, energy, capacity, observation, seeing the beauty of the earth and also the ending of that instantly, which is death.

So to live before death is to live with death; which means that one is living in a timeless world. One is living a life in which everything that one acquires is constantly ending, so that there is always a tremendous movement, one is not fixed in a certain place.

This is not a concept. When one invites death, which means the ending of everything that one holds, dying to it, each day, each minute, then one will find – not “one” there is then no oneself finding it, because one has gone – then there is that state of a timeless dimension in which the movement we know as time, is not.

It means the emptying of the content of one’s consciousness so that there is no time; time comes to an end, which is death.

The Matter of Culture

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , on February 24, 2009 by dejavouz

culture

I WONDER IF we have ever asked ourselves what education means. Why do we go to school, why do we learn various subjects, why do we pass examinations and compete with each other for better grades? What does this so-called education mean, and what is it all about?

This is really a very important question, not only for the students, but also for the parents, for the teachers, and for everyone who loves this earth. Why do we go through the struggle to be educated?

Is it merely in order to pass some examinations and get a job? Or is it the function of education to prepare us while we are young to understand the whole process of life? Having a job and earning one’s livelihood is necessary – but is that all? Are we being educated only for that?

Surely, life is not merely a job, an occupation; life is something extraordinarily wide and profound, it is a great mystery, a vast realm in which we function as human beings.

If we merely prepare ourselves to earn a livelihood, we shall miss the whole point of life; and to understand life is much more important than merely to prepare for examinations and become very proficient in mathematics, physics, or what you will.

Is Intelligence Awake 1.1

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , , , , on February 22, 2009 by dejavouz

Conversation With Professor David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti Brockwood Park 7th October 1972

Continued…

Bohm: But I can’t picture how it moves. In some sense it is moving in a perpendicular direction to the direction between past and future. That whole movement – then I begin to think that movement is in another time.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite.

Bohm: But that gets you back into the paradox.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is it. Is intelligence out of time and therefore not related to thought, which is a movement of time?

Bohm: But thought must be related to it.

Krishnamurti: Is it? I am asking. I think it is unrelated.

Bohm: Unrelated? But there seems to be some relation in the sense that you distinguish between intelligent thought and unintelligent thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but that requires intelligence: to recognise unintelligent thought.

Bohm: But when intelligence reads thought, what is the relationship?

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly…

Bohm: And does thought respond to intelligence? Doesn’t thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought is time. Thought is movement in time. Thought is measurable and thought functions in the field of time, all moving, changing, transforming. Is intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm: Well, we’ve seen that in one sense it can’t be. But the thing is not clear. First of all, thought is mechanical.

Krishnamurti: Thought is mechanical, that is clear.

Bohm: Secondly, in some sense there is a movement which is of a different direction.

Krishnamurti: Thought is mechanical; being mechanical it can move in different directions and all the rest of it. Is intelligence mechanical? Let’s put it that way.

Bohm: I would like to ask the question, what does mechanicalness mean?

Krishnamurti: All right: repetitive, measurable, comparative.

Bohm: I would say also dependent.

Krishnamurti: Dependent, yes.

Bohm: Intelligence – let us get it clear – intelligence cannot be dependent on conditions for its truth. Nevertheless, it seems that in some sense intelligence doesn’t operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: In that sense intelligence seems to depend on the brain.

Krishnamurti: Or is it the quietness of the brain?

Bohm: All right, it depends on the quietness of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the activity of the brain.

Bohm: There is still some relation between intelligence and the brain. We once discussed this question many years ago, when I raised the idea that in physics you could use a measuring instrument in two ways, the positive and the negative. For example, you can measure an electric current by the swing of the needle in the instrument, or you can use the same instrument in what is called the Wheatstone bridge, where the reading you look for is a null reading; a null reading indicates harmony, balance of the two sides of the whole system as it were. So if you are using the instrument negatively, then the non-movement of the instrument is the sign that it is working right. Could we say the brain may have used thought positively to make an image of the world…

Krishnamurti: …which is the function of thought – one of the functions.

Bohm: The other function of thought is negative, which is by its movement to indicate non-harmony.

Krishnamurti: Yes, non-harmony. Let us proceed from there. Is intelligence dependent on the brain – have we come to that point? Or when we use the word “dependent” what do we mean by that?

Bohm: It has several possible meanings. There may be simple mechanical dependence. But there is another kind: that one can’t exist without the other. If I say, “I depend on food to exist”, it doesn’t mean that everything I think is determined by what I eat.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite.

Bohm: So I propose that intelligence depends for its existence on this brain, which can indicate non-harmony, but the brain does not have anything to do with the content of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not harmonious, can intelligence function?

Bohm: That is the question.

Krishnamurti: That is what we are saving. It cannot function if the brain is hurt.

Bohm: If the intelligence doesn’t function, is there intelligence? Therefore it seems that intelligence requires the brain in order to exist.

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an instrument.

Bohm: Which indicates this harmony or disharmony.

Krishnamurti: But it is not the creator of the other.

Bohm: No.

Krishnamurti: Let us go into this slowly.

Bohm: The brain doesn’t create intelligence but it is an instrument which helps intelligence to function. That is it.

Krishnamurti: That’s it. Now if the brain is functioning within the field of time, up and down, negatively, positively, can intelligence operate in that movement of time? Or must that instrument be quiet for the intelligence to operate?

Bohm: Yes. I would put it possibly slightly differently. The quietness of the instrument is the operation of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. The two are not separate.

Bohm: They are one and the same. The non-quietness of the instrument is the failure of the intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: But I think it would be useful to go back into questions which tend to be raised in the whole of scientific and philosophical thinking. We would ask the question: is there some sense in which intelligence exists independently of matter? You see that some people have thought that mind and matter have some separate kind of existence. This is one question that comes up. It may not be relevant, but I think the question should be considered in order to help to make the mind quiet. The consideration of questions that cannot be clearly answered is one of the things that disturbs the mind.

Krishnamurti: But you see, Sir, when you say, “Help to make the mind quiet”, will thought help the awakening of intelligence? It means that, doesn’t it? Thought and matter and the exercise of thought and the movement of thought, or thought saying to itself, “I will be quiet in order to help the awakening of intelligence”. Any movement of thought is time, any move- ment, because it is measurable, it is functioning positively or negatively, harmoniously, or disharmoniously, in this field. And realizing that thought may say unconsciously, or unknowingly, that “I would be quiet in order to have this or that”, then that is still within the field of time.