In this fascinating 1990 interview, physicist David Bohm examines the deep connections between art, science, and spirituality. Conducted by Bill Angelos at an international symposium in Amsterdam, the conversation showcases Bohm's philosophical insights into consciousness and his lasting impact on scientific thought. Join us as we unravel Bohm’s distinctive perspectives on the universe and humanity's role within it.

The interview, recorded shortly before Professor Bohm's passing, captures a pivotal moment in his life. Bill Angelos, who was working on a biography of Bohm, attended the symposium titled “Art, Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy,” where Bohm shared the stage with esteemed figures like the Dalai Lama and artist Robert Rauschenberg.

During the event, Dutch television approached Bohm for an interview, which he agreed to under the condition that Angelos would conduct it. This discussion serves as a vital documentation of Bohm’s work in theoretical physics and his investigation of consciousness. His lifelong recognition of the relationship between thought and perception, a theme present since his childhood, remained central to his posthumous publication, “The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory.”

Bohm, a respected scientist admired by figures such as Oppenheimer, Einstein, the Dalai Lama, and Krishnamurti, was not only a remarkable intellect but also a compassionate advocate for humanity. This interview provides a glimpse into Professor Bohm’s extraordinary contributions to both science and our comprehension of humanity's place in the cosmos.

This transcript, captured in Amsterdam in 1990, stands as a testament to Bohm’s legacy and his approach to philosophical dialogue. Although he is no longer with us, his influence continues to resonate among friends and the broader community, ensuring that his insights remain alive.

Transcript — Interview with David Bohm | Amsterdam, 1990 — First Part

William M. Angelos: To start, I want to mention that we are old friends, and typically, friends don’t have notes while conversing. However, today is special. I appreciate you agreeing to this format, and I hope you'll excuse my notes.

David Bohm: (Laughs) That's perfectly fine.

William M. Angelos: I’ve prepared some questions for you.

David Bohm: Go ahead.

William M. Angelos: Some may find it odd that a theoretical physicist is interested in consciousness and the thinking process. However, your work has increasingly engaged with these topics over the years. When did this curiosity start? Why has it become such a crucial element of your current work? Can your explorations still be classified as physics, theoretical or otherwise?

David Bohm: My interest in consciousness began quite early, implicitly. One pivotal moment occurred when I was around eleven or twelve. While crossing a swiftly flowing stream in the mountains near Wilkes-Barre, I felt anxious as the rocks were far apart. I realized I had to leap from one to another without pausing, pivoting on one while moving to the next, rather than planning my steps.

William M. Angelos: Is that how you generally operate?

David Bohm: Yes, I believe most people do. (Smiling)

William M. Angelos: So, you tend to think before acting?

David Bohm: Correct. However, there are situations where that approach doesn’t work. You must act in a moment-to-moment awareness.

This experience left a lasting impression on me, highlighting that consciousness operates in a continuous flow of awareness, rather than through a predetermined map.

William M. Angelos: Do you recall revisiting this idea before your formal education in physics?

David Bohm: I don’t remember much of my childhood, but I had an urge to transcend boundaries. Growing up in Wilkes-Barre, I was aware of nearby towns like Ashley and Sugar Notch, but felt limited by that knowledge. Venturing beyond Warrior Run felt like crossing into uncharted territory.

William M. Angelos: I see.

David Bohm: I was intrigued by the concept of “the world” and its limits. I remember a Nordic folk tale about a place “East of the Sun and West of the Moon,” which fascinated me. I sought to go beyond constraints, a desire that intertwined with my implicit interest in consciousness at that time.

William M. Angelos: When did this occur? In the 1920s or 1930s?

David Bohm: In the 1920s.

William M. Angelos: So, the Great Depression hadn’t started yet.

David Bohm: Correct, it was still to come.

William M. Angelos: Do you remember the Depression years?

David Bohm: Yes, there was significant unemployment and hardship, with many people losing their jobs and banks failing.

William M. Angelos: You lived in a coal mining area?

David Bohm: Yes, and discussions of dire situations were common, even talk of revolution. Roosevelt's introduction of new measures provided a glimmer of hope.

As a result, I grew interested in politics, believing we needed to address these social issues, especially with the rise of figures like Mussolini and Hitler.

William M. Angelos: Meanwhile, your scientific interests were also developing?

David Bohm: Absolutely. I frequented the public library with a friend, exploring books on chemistry and physics. I also read Scientific American articles on atomic energy, which fascinated me as a potential source of limitless power.

William M. Angelos: Back to your interest in consciousness...

David Bohm: Right. In college, I pondered whether we are entirely determined or possess free will. I concluded that it didn’t matter as long as we felt free to act.

Later, while studying quantum mechanics with Oppenheimer at Berkeley, I encountered peers intrigued by Niels Bohr's views. Bohr noted an analogy between thought and quantum mechanics, where observation alters what is being observed in unpredictable ways.

Similarly, when we attempt to analyze our thought processes, they too become elusive. Observing our thoughts changes their trajectory, akin to the behavior of electrons in quantum theory. This connection between consciousness and physics intrigued me.

William M. Angelos: In your book on quantum theory, you introduced this concept?

David Bohm: Yes, I did.

William M. Angelos: That was published in 1952?

David Bohm: 1951, to be precise.

William M. Angelos: Did your subsequent work, “Causality and Chance in Modern Physics,” touch on consciousness?

David Bohm: Mostly implicitly. I proposed an infinite nature of the universe, emphasizing qualitative rather than quantitative infinity, with layers of chance and necessity. We often seek absolute laws, like Newton’s, only to find their limitations.

“Necessity” refers to what cannot be otherwise, while limits to necessity arise from contingencies—what can change. For example, a feather floating in air shifts with the wind, but in a vacuum, it falls unconditionally. This illustrates how complex and chaotic contingencies yield unpredictability.

William M. Angelos: You later connected these ideas more explicitly to thought?

David Bohm: Yes, I introduced that notion in later works.

William M. Angelos: And in your Special Relativity book?

David Bohm: Yes, that book explored the potentially limitless nature of reality, including consciousness. I proposed that consciousness and nature not only reflect each other but also interact.

William M. Angelos: Was this perspective unique at the time?

David Bohm: I’m not sure how it was perceived.

William M. Angelos: Were there any notable responses?

David Bohm: The book received some positive reviews, though that point wasn’t emphasized.

William M. Angelos: In your later work, you included an appendix dedicated to perception, correct?

David Bohm: Yes, in the 1960s. I drew parallels between perception and relativity, highlighting that observation depends on our interaction with what we observe.

Perception is dynamic; we engage with objects and observe outcomes. Our eyes must move to convey light and form, making perception an active process.

For instance, when observing a circular object, it may appear elliptical from different angles. While we recognize it as a circle, scientists later revealed that everything, including atoms, is fundamentally composed of more basic components, leading to a never-ending quest for a "Theory of Everything."

This suggests that everything, even our thoughts, may merely represent appearances. By integrating multiple perspectives, we deepen our understanding. However, the essence—true being—remains elusive.

Every viewpoint is limited, akin to mirrors reflecting a scene, each offering a partial view. Theories provide insights but do not yield final truths. The term “theoria” in Greek relates to “theater,” implying that theories merely depict aspects of reality.

Thus, science is primarily a perceptual journey rather than a mere accumulation of knowledge, which is a by-product of our engagement with the world. We must differentiate between correct and incorrect appearances, as the latter can be deceptive. Correct appearances relate to reality, even if they don't fully encapsulate it.

William M. Angelos: Is this an inherent aspect of the thinking process?

David Bohm: Yes, indeed. Our thinking should be viewed as an extension of perception, rather than just a collection of knowledge.

William M. Angelos: That’s a profound insight. Could you reiterate that?

David Bohm: Our thinking process... I would differentiate between “thinking” and “thought.” “Thinking” is active—it encompasses critiquing our thoughts and ensuring their coherence. If they lack coherence, we must revise them, leading to new intuitions and insights.

William M. Angelos:

David Bohm: “Thought” is static, akin to a record of past actions. It is conditioned, like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the sound of a bell, having learned that the bell signals food.

Every thought functions this way, where reflexive responses emerge based on previous experiences or logical reasoning. As such, logic itself becomes a reflex.

William M. Angelos: So, it’s a learned response?

David Bohm: Yes, and it requires critical evaluation to ensure coherence. Even seemingly logical arguments may lack coherence, necessitating our sensitivity to these distinctions.

William M. Angelos: How much of what we discussed was hinted at in your Special Relativity work?

David Bohm: Much of it was implicit.

William M. Angelos: You mentioned Piaget...

David Bohm: Yes, his work emphasizes that children learn through interaction. When their actions don’t yield expected results, they must adjust their approach, a process that parallels learning in animals and humans alike.

William M. Angelos: It follows a sequential pattern...

David Bohm: Exactly. Learning is continuous. If we rely solely on memory, we may falter, as the world is ever-changing. Awareness of inconsistencies is vital to effective thought.

William M. Angelos: The coherence vs. incoherence dynamic is central to understanding this.

David Bohm: Indeed. Without coherence, our actions can lead to undesirable outcomes, resulting in suffering and tragedy.

Jump to the next part: Interview With David Bohm — Beyond Limits 2 of 3

Keywords: david bohm; bohm dialogue; de broglie bohm; consciousness; implicate order;