Tags for this video have been changed from 'cigarette, last, Lena Bohm, naked, cooking, germany' to 'cigarette, last, Lena Bohm, naked, cooking, germany, graw bockler' - edited by Thylan

It's dead...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Charles Aznavour is an Armenian-French singer, songwriter and actor. Besides being one of France's most popular and enduring singers, he is also one of the most well-known French singers abroad. Often described as the "Frank Sinatra of France", Aznavour sings mostly about love.

He has written musicals and more than a thousand songs, made more than one hundred records, and appeared in sixty movies. Aznavour sings in six languages (French, English, Italian, Spanish, German and Russian), which has helped him perform at Carnegie Hall and other major venues around the world. He also recorded at least one song from the 18th century poet Sayat Nova, in Armenian.

- Wikipedia

you know, it's a little late, but thank you for posting this comment, I actually just really read it and love it. You said what I wanted to say only better... :

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

which reminded me of another fine post here on the sift, a Wired editor Kevin Kelly's TED talk about remarkable similarities between the evolution of biology and technology.

No this is it, this is exactly right. Electromagnetism is matter, you can derive equations for matter, for particles, including DeBroglie waves that quantum physicists completely ignore, from Maxwells equations for electromagnetism.

It doesn't say that Einstein was fundamentally wrong, it says that the interpretation of relativity was wrong, and it was, unfortunately. Einstein said that the more predictions that quantum theory made the sillier it looked. This clip is exactly the line of thinking that Einstein was on, so was Tesla, so was Maxwell, so was Bohm.

You only need two forces for this to work, gravity and electromagnetism. And we have only ever detected those two forces. The mainstream view is that you need four forces, gravity, EM, and strong and weak nuclear forces. Guess what, no matter how big a particle accelerator we build we cannot find those nuclear forces. Every time we build a bigger one the equations are changed and they put the Higgs at a higher energy level. When you try to work them out on paper you need infinite energy to hold the protons together in the nucleus of every atom. They botch the infinities, they normalise them, it's a complete mess.

I'll tell you what's not convincing, dark matter, dark energy, and force carrying particles like the Higgs and the other Bosons. You can derive everything from gravity and EM, you can even derive relativity from the same EM wave equations.

If you want to study something that isn't convincing, you need look no further than the mess that is quantum mechanics and string theory. Many are abandoning the field. Relativity is safer in the hands of the plasma guys than it is with the charlatans of QM and String.

Great Sift. Below is an interesting post regarding the application of Bohm's principles to political discourse (By NetRunner / Daily Kos)

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Bridging-the-Great-Divide

you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

which reminded me of another fine post here on the sift, a Wired editor Kevin Kelly's TED talk about remarkable similarities between the evolution of biology and technology.

Actually, MGS4 is the threadkiller.

I am biting off a lot, but I've been in a very adversarial mode about this election for a while now, and it's just not healthy.

I'd love to set the adversarial nature aside, but the past 8 years has shown me that's just going to lead to the end (or at least massive diminishment) of everything I believe in.

Bohm dialogue was kind've secondary to me -- interesting in its own right to be sure, but it doesn't seem like it could help the overall goal. I do see elements of it in how Obama has handled campaign attacks, but it's not really suited for the situation we have now.

It's definitely a good way to remain friends with people who're on the other side of the divide, especially when it comes to focusing on the shared experience of being human.

I was more focused on that wonderful quote that highlights the key issue I see. Democrats may win the presidency, a filibuster-proof majority of the senate, and rebalance the supreme court to our favor, but if the Republican/conservative people insist on staying in their alternate reality, it's just going to make the division worse.

Obama seems to have a way of piercing that bubble, but there's still a media empire out there dedicated to creating and sustaining the alternate reality.

I think media reform is probably one of the most important things to focus on if we do wrest control away from the neocons.

Personally, I'd love to see people who speak to the press charged with perjury for lying to the press. Let them say "no comment" if they want, but no more of this standing in front of cameras and flatly denying the facts at hand. If they want to do that, they can release a YouTube on their website.

I also think there's need for independent watchdog groups that have official standing as media regulators would be a good idea. Something like mediamatters.org, only with some restrictions on the political affiliations of who works there.

In short, truthiness needs to die for us to truly get back on track.

Netrunner, you are biting off way more than I would ever try to. It might sound absurd, but it seems that geomoo's post on DailyKos isn't particulary concerned about 'facts' at all (Incidentally, I haven't even finished reading that article because it keeps spinning me off into separate Google searches, that's the problem with not knowing anything). If the conclusion of the article is anything like it's opening, then it isn't about facts at all. It seems to be about two concepts that result in these 'separate realities', where facts have lost meanings.

The article seems to assert that thought is flawed and is often just emotional response disguised as "thinking", and as a result "listening" isn't actually practiced. In an effort to counteract these short circuits, The article introduces Bohm's Principles":

"[A]ny method of conversation that claims to be based on the "principles of dialogue as established by David Bohm" can be considered to be a form of Bohm Dialogue. Those principles of "Bohm Dialogue" are:

1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"

2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"

3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)

4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals' ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)

Usually, the goal of the various incarnations of "Bohm Dialogue" is to get the whole-group to have a better understanding of itself. In other words, Bohm Dialogue is used to inform all of the participants about the current state of the group they are in."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/8/194945/7976/80/531805

That seems to be a lot to take on at once, but the poster submits a personal observation that addresses really important point:

My wife and I both observed that a certain manner of speaking could have a profound effect on the listening. The group might be droning along about ideas. I might find myself reacting with boredom or anger or a mental critique. Then a participant would begin speaking from the heart, offering a specific example of the universal experience of being human.

Of course if we follow these principles, we can forget about painting any walls anytime soon. Like I said, that's more than I'm willing to chew. I'm having a hard enough time with the first steps of suspending judgment and really listening.

Again, excellent excellent post. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it's just what I was looking for.