Craig Hamilton
Sizing the evidence from research in modern fields of cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and with an eye for the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Amit Goswami is laying the groundwork for a new paradigm which he calls "monistic idealism" in his view is awareness, not matter, the foundation of everything that exists.
Before you continue reading, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now ask yourself the following question: at the moment when your eyes were closed, the world continued to exist even if they were aware? How do you know? If you find one of those puzzles that missed the philosophy professor used to whet your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are scientists, in universities all over, who believe they have found the answer. And their answer, believe it or not, is 'No'.
Now consider something even more disconcerting. Imagine for a moment, the entire history of the universe. According to all the data that the scientists were able to collect, it was formed by an explosion took place about fifteen billion years ago, starting point of a cosmic dance of light and energy that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet Earth. A formless cloud of ashes emerges from the primordial fireball, it slowly condenses into a solid sphere, finds its way gravitational orbit around the sun and thanks to a complex interaction of light gas and produces, after billions of years, a 'atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only create life, but also to sustain and multiply.
Now imagine that none of the facts mentioned above has ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the whole story existed only as an abstract potential - a cosmic dream of countless other cosmic dream - until, in the dream, life has evolved in some way leading to the birth of the first sentient being conscious. At that moment, only through conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe (including all the history that led to this moment) suddenly came to light. Until then, nothing had ever really happened. At that moment, there have been fifteen billion years. If all this does not sound like nothing more than the plot of a science fiction novel or a secular version of one of the world's great myths about creation, hold on strong: the second physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe was formed.
Goswami is convinced, along with many others, that the universe, to exist, requires a conscious sentient being who is aware. Without an observer, he argues, the universe exists only in power. And, as they say in the English physicists, Goswani did his accounts. Sizing the evidence from modern research in the fields of cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and with an eye for the ancient mystical traditions of the world, he is laying the groundwork for a new paradigm that defines "Idealism monist "according to that awareness is not the matter, the foundation of everything that exists.
Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon and member of the Institute of Theoretical Science at the same university, Goswami is one of those scientists rebel in increasing numbers, which in recent years and go into the field of spirituality for an explanation the results of their experiments apparently incomprehensible, as well as to confirm their own intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension. The culmination of Goswami's work is the book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Starting from an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), the book ties together a myriad of discoveries and theories from fields as diverse as artificial intelligence, astronomy and Hindu mysticism, in an attempt to demonstrate that the discoveries of modern science are in harmony with the deepest mystical truths. According
Goswami, quantum physics (as well as many other modern sciences) is proving that the essential unity of all reality is a fact experimentally verified. Because I think that this scientific confirmation of the spiritual dimension has enormous implications, he devotes with a passion to explain his theory to as many people as possible, its intent is to try to lead what he considers a necessary paradigm shift. His view is that since science is now able to confirm the mysticism, much of what used to take a leap of faith can now be empirically proven, so the materialist paradigm that has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question.
Interviewing Amit Goswami has been a challenging and intellectually stimulating. While I could hear him talking about the many ideas that seemed at ease, I had to put aside my skepticism meeting point to consider things that, until then, I thought inconceivable (Goswami is also a big fan of science fiction: his first book, The Cosmic Dancers, was given a glimpse of science fiction through the eyes of a scientist).
Whether you agree or not some of his more esoteric theories, creativity and passion that puts Goswami in his research deserve respect. Clearly, Goswami is willing to take risks for his ideas and enthusiastically shares his research with a worldwide audience. He discusses at length, in conferences and other forums, the sensational discoveries of new science and their implications, not only for science itself, but also for society as a whole. In India, his country of birth, is actively engaged in a growing movement aimed at bridging the gap between science and spirituality, through which it hopes to create a university faculty in "consciousness studies" based on the premise that awareness is the foundation of all beings.
Goswami is regarded by some, a pioneer in his field. Trying to bring down the materialist realism and to integrate all fields of knowledge into a single unified paradigm, he tries to open the way for a new holistic vision in which the spirit takes precedence. In fact, for all we know, Goswami is the only scientist the new paradigm that has taken a clear stand against the relativism so popular among New Age thinkers. At a time when the decline of human values \u200b\u200band erosion of any significance has reached an endemic level, it is hard to imagine anything more important.
However, no matter how important and valuable work that appears to play Goswami, in the end we have little doubt that it really lead to the kind of transformation which he hopes. Thinkers such as Huston Smith and EF Schumacher showed that they say is the arrogance, ol'ingenuità, scientists who believe they can expand the scope of their discipline to include or explain somehow the spiritual dimension of life. These critics suggest that the very attempt to give scientific validity to spirituality is a product of the same materialistic instincts that you would like to eradicate, and therefore, ultimately, the result is only the reduction of the spirit of God and the transcendent to mere objects of scientific interest.
Science is able to demonstrate the reality of the transcendent dimension of life? Or would make a better service to the spiritual potential of the human race to recognize the limits of its own field? The following interview presents us with these questions.
WIE: In his book The Self-Aware Universe She speaks of the need for a paradigm shift. Can you say something about the way we design change? Where and in what direction?
Amit Goswami: The current conception of the world considers everything composed of matter. Everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter to its essential components or building blocks. And the cause arises from the interactions of these building blocks or elementary particles elementary particles make up atoms, atoms, molecules, cells and molecules on brain cells. But from beginning to end, the basic cause is always the interaction between elementary particles. The belief is that all causes proceed from elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." In this view, what human beings - you and I - see their free will does not exist. It's just an epiphenomenon or a secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we are apparently able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.
Well, the opposite point of view is that everything starts with awareness. That is, awareness is the foundation of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation". In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world, we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal power - that there is a causal power from elementary particles upward, ie, a causal influence - but adds that there is a downward causation. It is revealed in our creativity in the choices of our free will when we make moral decisions. On these occasions, we are witnesses of fact made by the awareness of causation of descent.
WIE: In her book, she refers to this new paradigm as the 'monistic idealism. " In addition, suggests that science seems to be providing a demonstration of what the mystics have always said throughout history. That is, she argues that the current discoveries of science seem to parallel the essence of the eternal spiritual teachings.
Amit Goswami: They are the spiritual teaching, not just parallel. The idea that consciousness is the foundation of being is the basis of all spiritual traditions, as well as monistic idealism, though I gave him a name a bit 'different. The reason for choosing this name is that, in the West, there is a philosophy called "idealism", as opposed to the "realism material ", that only matter is real. Idealism says: "No, consciousness is the only reality." But in the West that kind of idealism has usually meant something that was, in fact, a duality: that is, consciousness and matter are separate. Thus, the term "monistic idealism" I wanted to make clear that I do not mean the form of idealism Western dualistic but monistic idealism that existed in the West, but only in the esoteric spiritual traditions. In contrast, in the East this is the mainstream of philosophy. In Buddhism, Hinduism (which is called Vedanta) or Taoism, this is the philosophy of all. But in the West this is a very esoteric tradition, known and shared only by very wise philosophers who have investigated very thoroughly the nature of reality.
WIE: Are you saying that modern science, from a completely different point of view - without assuming anything about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life - is "passed from the back", so to speak, and is now agree with this view, thanks to his discoveries?
Amit Goswami: Right. But it was something totally unexpected. Since its inception, quantum physics - which saw the light in 1900 and developed fully in 1925 with the discovery of the equations of quantum mechanics - has made us understand that the vision of the world might have changed. Physicists have been devoted to materialism fun to compare the vision of the world classical to quantum. Of course, not go so far as to abandon the idea that there is only upward causation and the matter is over all, but the fact remains that in quantum physics have seen the potential for a major paradigm shift. Then what happened was that, since 1982, have begun to get the results from laboratory experiments. That was the year when, in France, Alain Aspect and his collaborators took the crucial experiment that finally proved the truth of spiritual concepts, particularly that of transcendence. I have to specify what was Aspect's experiment?
WIE: Yes, please.
Amit Goswami: To give a little 'picture of the situation, we must say that for many years quantum physics was giving indications of the existence of other levels of reality, in addition to the material. Everything began when she suggested that quantum objects - objects in quantum physics - were potential waves. Well, at first, people thought, "Oh, they are like normal waves." But very soon it was discovered that no, no waves in space and time. It is absolutely impossible to define them in order in space and time. They have properties that do not match those of the common order. So they began to recognize them as waves in power, to potential and the potential was recognized as transcendent in some way beyond the material.
But the fact that there is a transcendent potential was not very clear for some time. Then, Aspect's experiment proved that it is not just theory, there is a truly transcendent potential, objects really do have connections beyond space and time. Out of space and time! What happens in this experiment is that an atom emits two quanta of light called photons in opposite directions. Somehow these photons affect one's behavior, at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. Note: the affect each other without exchanging signals in space.
Well, long ago, Einstein showed that two objects can never influence each other instantaneously in space and time, because everything has to travel with a speed limit and that limit is the speed of light. Therefore, any influence has to travel, if you are traveling through space using a finite time. This is called the idea of \u200b\u200b"locality". It is believed that each signal is local, in that it must employ a finite time to travel through space. However, the photons of Aspect - the photons emitted from the atom in the experiment of Aspect - affect each other at a distance, without exchanging signals, why they are doing instantly, that is, they are doing so at a rate exceeding that of light. Therefore, it follows that the influence could not travel through space. Rather, it must belong to a sphere of reality that we recognize as the transcendent realm of reality.
WIE: Fascinating. Most physicists agree with This interpretation of the experiment?
Amit Goswami: Well, physicists have to agree with this interpretation of the experiment. Of course, many times they take the following point of view, saying, "Yes, of course, experiments. But this relationship between the particles is not really important. We should not consider the consequences of this transcendent realm ... If anything can be interpreted in this way. " In other words, try to minimize the impact of this, still clinging to the idea that matter is above all else.
Me within himself know how things are, as it has been proven. It is said that in 1984 or in 1985, the rally on the American Physical Society (which I was present), he heard a physicist say to a colleague who, after the experiment of Aspect, anyone in the world had not believed that there was something really strange, would have a hard head like a stone.
WIE: So you are saying that from his point of view (shared by many others), is somewhat obvious that we need to introduce the idea of \u200b\u200ba transcendent dimension dl to give a convincing explanation to everything.
Amit Goswami: Yes, it is. Henry Stapp, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, says explicitly in an essay of 1977: things outside of space and time affect those within them. It is simply no question that this happens in the realm of quantum physics, where you have to do with quantum entities. Of course, the crucial point, the surprising thing is that we always have to do with quantum objects, because quantum physics is the physics of all objects. Whether or submicroscopic macroscopic quantum physics is the only one we have. Although it is more evident in the photons in the electrons in the submicroscopic objects, we believe that all reality, the reality appears, the matter is governed by the same laws. And if so, this experiment is telling us that we should change our worldview, because we too are quantum objects.
WIE: These are fascinating discoveries that have inspired many people. Several books have already tried to establish a link between physics and mysticism. The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and The Dance of the Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav have reached many people. Yet she recounts in his book that he had the feeling that something had not yet been explored, and that that something is his original contribution to this. Can you explain what are the differences between what she is doing now and what had already been done in this area?
Amit Goswami: I'm glad that she has asked this question. It's something that needs to be clarified, and try to be as comprehensive as possible. The early works such as The Tao of physics, have been very important for the history of science. However, they instead promote the spiritual dimension of human beings, we all held up, basically, on the materialist world view. In other words, did not challenge the materialistic point of view that everything consists of matter. This concept has never been questioned by any of these early books. In fact, my book was the first who has openly challenged, otherwise they are founded on a rigorous explanation in scientific terms. In other words, the idea that awareness is the foundation of being existed, of course, psychology, transpersonal psychology, for example. But outside of that, no tradition of science and no scientist have perceived with equal clarity.
My luck has been recognized within quantum physics, or discover that all the paradoxes of the latter could be solved by accepting the knowledge as the foundation of being. This was my original contribution. Obviously, this has the ability to change the entire paradigm, because now we can really integrate science with spirituality. In other words, Zukav and Capra - even if their books are great - not a paradigm shift occurs, there is no genuine reconciliation between science and spirituality, because they remained loyal to a fundamentally materialist paradigm. In fact, if ultimately everything is material, any causal power must come from matter. The awareness and spirituality are recognized, but only as a causal or secondary epiphenomena. And a consciousness epiphenomenal not going very well. I mean, it is not doing anything. So, even if these books recognize our spirituality, it ultimately comes from a kind material interaction.
But this is not the spirituality of which Jesus spoke, is not the spirituality of ecstasy that filled the Eastern mystics, it is not a mystical spirituality that recognizes when he says: "Now I know what reality is, this knowledge and deletes forever all the unhappiness. This is the infinite, this is joy, this is awareness. " This kind of exuberant statement made by the mystics would not be possible on the basis of an awareness epiphenomenal. It is permissible only when we recognize the foundation of being itself, when it is recognized that the right is the All One.
Well, a human being epiphenomenal not have any knowledge of this type. It would not make sense to know to be the All. So this is what I'm advocating. As long as science continues to be based on the material point of view, as far as trying to explain spiritual experiences in terms of brain chemistry, the phenomena of parallel or more, you're not really giving up the old paradigm. You're abandoning the old paradigm and full reconciliation with spirituality when science bases on the essential notion that consciousness is the spiritual foundation of all being. This is what I did in my book, but it is only the beginning. There are other books that are already Recognizing this fact.
WIE: So there are people who are substantiating his idea?
Amit Goswami: There are people who are going out into the open recognition of the same thing, that this view is the correct way to explain quantum physics and also to develop science in the future. In other words, the current science has not only led to the quantum paradoxes, but has also proved inadequate to explain the paradoxical and abnormal phenomena such as parapsychology, paranormal, and - even - creativity. Even the traditional problems such as biological or evolution perception that they contain several obscure points materialist theories do not explain. To give you an example, in biology there is what is called the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This means that evolution is not only slow, as Darwin thought, but there are times when it is fast, called "punctuation." However, traditional biology has no explanation for it.
If we base science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, we can see this phenomenon in the creativity and the creativity of authentic consciousness. In other words, we can actually see that awareness is working creatively even in biology, evolution of species. And then, now we can fill with essentially spiritual ideas (such as the creative consciousness of the world) these gaps that conventional biology is unable to fill.
WIE: This brings to mind the subtitle of his book, How the consciousness creates the material world. This is, of course, a rather radical. Could you explain a bit 'more concretely how this is really, in your opinion?
Amit Goswami: In fact, it's the easiest thing to explain, because in quantum physics, as I said before, the objects are not considered to be separate as defined according to our custom. Newton taught us that objects are defined entities, which are visible at all times and moving along trajectories defined. Quantum physics does not paint all the objects in this way. In quantum physics, objects are seen as a potential wave of possibilities. Right? So the question arises: what turns possibility into actuality? In fact, when we see, we only see events taking place. They begin with us. When you see a chair, you see a chair in place, not in power.
WIE: Right ... At least I hope so.
Amit Goswami: All hope so. Well, this is called the "paradox of quantum measurement. It is a paradox, because those who us to bring about this transformation? After all, in the materialistic paradigm, we have no causal power. We are nothing but the brain, composed of atoms and elementary particles. So how does a brain composed of atoms and elementary particles to convert wave potential, if he himself is a wave potential? He is to consist of potential waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it can transform their potential into something current wave. This is called a paradox. Now, the new concept, consciousness is the ground of being. So, who converts what is potential in today? Awareness, because it does not obey the physical quantum. Awareness is not made of matter, is transcendent. See the paradigm shift here? The way in which we can say that consciousness creates the material world? The material world of quantum physics is only a possibility. It's awareness, through conversion of the possibility in actuality, to create what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.
WIE: To be honest, the first time I read the subtitle of his book I thought it was a metaphor. But after reading the book and discussing it now, I'm convinced that she means so much more literal than you think. A passage from his book that literally left me dumbfounded is where he states that, according to his interpretation, the entire physical universe existed in the form of infinite potential in development until, at some point, the possibility has emerged of a sentient being conscious at that moment, instantly, all the known universe has come to light, including fifteen billion years leading up to that moment. You mean this really?
Amit Goswami: is what I mean, literally. This is what quantum physics demands. In fact, in quantum physics this is called "delayed choice". And I loved that the concept of 'self-reference. " In fact, the concept of delayed choice is very old. It must be a famous physicist named John Wheeler. But Wheeler did not count correctly in my opinion the whole issue. He left aside the self-reference. The question always arises: "It is believed that the universe has existed for fifteen billion years, but if you need the knowledge to convert the opportunity into actuality, how is it that the universe has existed for so long?". In fact, in the early glowing ball that supposedly created the universe - the big bang - had neither the knowledge nor sentient beings, organic carbon-based. But this new way of looking at things states that the universe has remained in power until the quantum measurement autorefenziale. This is the new concept. The eye of an observer is essential to demonstrate the possibility in actuality, and then only when an observer looks at everything becomes manifest, including the time. So the whole past, from this point of view, it becomes clear the instant the first sentient being watching.
It turns out that this idea, very clever and subtle, has existed in astrology and cosmology in the form of the principle called "anthropic". That is, among astronomers (but also among cosmologists) has made the idea that the universe has a purpose. It seems so oriented toward an end, there are so many coincidences, it seems very likely that he is doing something intentionally, that is being developed so as to give rise, at some point, a sentient being.
WIE: So you have the feeling that there is some intentionality in the way the universe is evolving, ie, in a sense, comes to fruition in us humans?
Amit Goswami: Well, humans can not be its end, but certainly they are the first result, because here is the possibility of creativity manifests the same sentient being creative. The animals are certainly sentient, but not creative in the way we are. So, human beings at this time certainly seems an epitome, though it may not be dell'epitome final. I think we have a long way to go and a lot of evolution that has yet to happen.
WIE: In his book goes so far as to suggest that the cosmos has been created for our own good.
Amit Goswami: Absolutely. But this is relating to sentient beings, the good of all sentient beings. The universe is us: it's clear. The universe is self-conscious, but it is through us. We are the meaning of the universe. We are not its geographical center - Copernicus was right about that - but we are the center of the universe of meaning.
WIE: Through us the universe is its significance?
Amit Goswami: Through sentient beings. It is not necessary to be anthropocentric in the sense of just the inhabitants of planet Earth. There may be sentient beings on other planets, other stars - in fact, I am convinced that this is so - and this is in total agreement with this theory.
WIE: This attitude "human-centric" - or centered on sentient beings - seems quite radical in an era when much of modern progressive thought (which includes disciplines such as ecology, feminism and the theory of systems) is turning in the opposite direction. This direction towards the tip ol'interrelazione interconnection, in which the meaning of each part of everything - including a species, such as human - is resized. The point of view that she is exposing a concept seems to appeal to more traditional, almost biblical. What would you reply to the advocates of the popular paradigm "nonhierarchical"?
Amit Goswami: is the difference between the perennial philosophy that we are talking about, monistic idealism, and what can be called a kind of pantheism. That is, these concepts - which I call "green" and Ken Wilber calls the same way - in fact limited to denigrate imagining God immanent reality. At first glance it seems a good thing, because everything is divine: the rocks, trees, every institution to humans. Everything is equal and is the divinity. It looks beautiful, but it certainly does not correspond to what spiritual teachers knew. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna: "All these things are in me, but I'm not in them." What does it mean? This: "I am not only in them."
So in other words, the reality shows there is progress. Evolution happens. This means that the amoeba is obviously a manifestation of consciousness, and as a human being. But they are not the same level. Evolutionarily, yes, we are faced with the amoeba. And the proponents of these theories "green" does not realize it. They do not understand well the development because they are ignoring the transcendent dimension, intentionality of the universe, creative play. Ken Wilber explains everything very well in his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.
WIE: So would you say that they can see part of the picture, but not this other aspect that you are introducing, and then their point of view is very ...
Amit Goswami: ... is very limited . That's why pantheism is very limited. When Westerners began to go to India, they thought that country was pantheistic, because it has plenty of. Indian philosophy tends to see God in nature, in many ways - in some cases, Indians love the rocks - then the Westerners thought that India was a pantheist. Only later did they realize that there is a transcendent dimension. In reality, this dimension transcendent is well developed in Indian philosophy, while the West remains concealed in a matter of esoteric systems such as Gnosticism, and in a few great masters, such as Meister Eckhart. In the teachings of Jesus, is to be found in the Gospel of Thomas. But we need to dig really deep to find this line in the West. In India, the Upanishads, the Vedanta and the Bhagavad Gita is very explicit. Now, "pantheism" sounds very good, but not all. It is a good way of being religious, to bring spirituality into everyday life, it is fair to say that everything exists in spirit. But if we just see the difference, to see the God in all things, without seeing the God beyond the particular objects, we are not realizing our potential, our own. So, in reality, the self takes to see this pantheistic aspect of reality, but also its transcendent side.
WIE: addition to being a scientist, she is also a spiritual practitioner. It might say something about what drove you towards spirituality?
Amit Goswami: Well, I'm afraid that this is a rather common, almost classical. The classic case of ideal, of course, is that of Buddha, at the age of twenty-nine recognized that all his pleasures were a prince actually a waste of time because there is pain in the world. For me it was not so drastic, but around the age of thirty years the world started crashing around me. I lost my scholarship, I came from a divorce and I felt very lonely. In addition, professional and gave me the pleasure of writing scientific papers ceased to be a pleasure.
I remember once I was at a conference and I went around all day to let me know and discuss with others. Then in the evening, when everyone had left, I felt very alone. I realized I have heartburn, and I had already finished a whole bottle of pills, but the pain did not decrease. I discovered the suffering; I found literally suffering. It was this discovery that led me to spirituality, because I could not think of anything else, although I had completely abandoned the idea of \u200b\u200bGod and were a material physics a long time. In fact, when my kids asked me: "You're an atheist?", I answered something like: "Yes." And if asked, "Does God exist?" I said, 'No, I do not believe in God. " It was not uncommon for me to say things like that. But at that time, around thirty-seven, that particular world - that God did not exist and the meaning of life was simply given by the quest for glory in a profession - did not satisfy me or made me happy. In fact, it was full of suffering. So, I came to meditation. I wanted to see if there was a way to find relief and even happiness. And finally, thanks to meditation, there came a great joy, but it took some time. I should also mention that I got married and love the challenge that was crucial. In other words, after I married for the second time, I discovered early on that love is very different from what I thought. My wife and I discovered the meaning of love, and that I contributed much to my own spirituality.
WIE: It is interesting that, although she has turned to spirituality because science not quenched until the end his search for truth, has always been a scientist.
Amit Goswami: is true. It just changed my way of being a scientist. What happened to me, why me disamorai by science, was that I had made a professional trip. I lost the ideal way to be a scientist, that I had lost the spirit of discovery, curiosity, the desire to know the truth. Since I was no longer seeking the truth through science, I had to discover meditation, where I went back to the search for truth, the truth of reality. What is the nature of reality, after all? You see, first temptation was nihilism: nothing exists. I was completely desperate. But meditation revealed to me very quickly that no, things were not so desperate. I lived experience: I had a glow when I saw that the reality really existed. I did not know what it was, but something there. This allowed me to return to the science and see if now I could do that job with energy and new directions, seeking the truth instead of professional glory.
WIE: How this renewed interest in truth, this spiritual center of his life, he modeled his scientific practice?
Amit Goswami: What happened was that my research science were no longer aimed at the publication of articles. Do not address most problems that would have allowed me to publish articles and receive scholarships. On the contrary, I was addressing the really important issues. And the most important issues of today are very paradoxical and anomalous. I'm not saying that scientists do not address important issues traditional, even they have. But one of the issues that I discovered almost immediately and I guessed that would take me to the problem of reality itself, was that of quantum measurement.
see, the problem of quantum measurement is that it is said that people turn away forever from any professional purpose, because it is very difficult. It was studied for decades without it would come to a solution. But I thought: "I have nothing to lose and I want to seek only the truth. Why not try? ". Quantum physics was something I knew very well, I had studied all his life, so why not tackle the problem of quantum measurement? So it was that I came to ask that question: "What force through the possibility in today?". And it took me all the years from 1975 to 1985 until it was beyond me, thanks to a spiritual catharsis.
WIE: Can you describe this catharsis?
Amit Goswami: Yes, with pleasure. It is a very vivid memory in my mind. You see, the general opinion of the time - found in every kind of book, the Tao of physics The Dancing Wu Li Masters, via Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf and other works still - it was that awareness should be a emergent phenomenon of the brain. And despite the fact that some of these persons, their honor, they were recognizing the consciousness a causal power, none could explain how this happened. This was the mystery, because if consciousness, after all, was an emergent phenomenon of the brain, any causal power must ultimately come from the elementary material particles. This was a puzzle for me and for all. And I could not find no way to fix it. David Bohm spoke of "hidden variables", so I trastullai with his ideas of an order of an explicit and implicit, and the like. But all this did not satisfy me, because in Bohm's theory, again, there is no causal powers given to awareness. It's all a realist theory. In other words, it is a theory in which everything can be explained through mathematical equations. That is, in reality there is no freedom of choice. Then I pledged in research by all means, because I was convinced that freedom of choice there.
Then one day - and it was here that the catharsis happened - my wife and I were in Ventura, in California. A mystical friend, Joel Moewood arrived from Los Angeles and we all went to listen to Krishnamurti. And Krishnamurti, of course, is one impressive person, a mystic remarkable. I listened and went home. Over dinner, I began to make a lengthy commentary on Joel on my latest ideas about the quantum theory of consciousness, and Joel gave me a challenge. He said: "You can explain consciousness?". I tried to draw me out of trouble with some verbal contortion, but he did not listen to me. He said: "We're putting the blinders of science. Do not you understand that awareness is the foundation of all being. " Not used this particular expression, but said something like: "There is nothing but God." Something snapped inside of me I can not explain well. What I had at that time was a fundamental intuition. My mind did a complete about face and realized that awareness is the foundation of all being. I remember that night I stood staring at the sky, so I guessed it was the mystical world and I was fully convinced that this was the reality, and that it was possible to make the scientist. You see, the prevailing notion - even among people like David Bohm - was: "How are you supposed to study science without assuming that there is reality, and all this matter? How can you be a scientist if you let the awareness do things, "arbitrary"? ". But I am completely convinced - there was the slightest doubt, since then - that you can do the science on this basis. Not only that, you can also solve the problems of modern science. And this is what is coming out. Of course, that night they were solved all the problems, it was only the beginning of a new approach to science.
WIE: Interesting. So that night, his approach changed completely. And after that everything was different?
Amit Goswami: Everything was different.
WIE: And then, when is to define in detail what it meant to be a scientist in this context, he discovered that his scientific thinking was deeper or that somehow had been transformed by that experience?
Amit Goswami: Yes, exactly. What happens was very interesting. First, as I said, I was stuck in this question: "How awareness can have a causal power?". But now I recognized that consciousness was the ground of being, in a few months the problem, the paradox of quantum measurement disappeared. I wrote my first article, which was published in 1989, but was merely an attempt to clarify the ideas and work out the details. Another What happened was that creativity, that on the night of 1985 took a deep breath, it took almost another three years before he began to express itself completely. But since then I have been fortunate to have an intuition behind the other, and many problems have been solved: that of cognition, perception, biological evolution, the mind-body healing. My latest book is called Physics of the Soul. The theory of reincarnation, elaborated in detail. It was wonderful and creative adventure.
WIE: seems clear that interest in the spiritual dimension in his case, had a remarkable effect on her as a scientist. Conversely, would say that science has influenced his spiritual evolution?
Amit Goswami: Well, I have ceased to consider them as two separate spheres. Thus, this identification, this totality, the integration between the spiritual and scientific, has been very important to me. Mystics often warn people: 'Look, do not divide your life into this and that. " For me, it happened spontaneously, because I discovered a new way of being a scientist when I discovered the spirit. The spirit was the natural basis of my being: then, since then, whatever he does, not much more I separate these two spheres.
WIE: He talked about new motivation in his work as a scientist, or of how that which supported his work to a certain point began to change. What are the true motivations of science? And how does it differ from those of the spiritual quest? In particular, there are thinkers like EF Schumacher or Huston Smith, for example, to the effect that since the scientific revolution, when the ideas of Descartes and Newton took hold, the approach of science has always been to try to dominate and control the nature or the world. These critics are asking whether science can ever be a suitable vehicle to discover the deeper truths, because according to them, it is rooted in a desire for knowledge cha wrong reasons. She, of course, is immersed in the scientific world knows of many scientists, the following conferences, is surrounded by all these things and maybe fight within himself against those reasons. Could you tell us something more about his experience of this?
Amit Goswami: Yes, this is a good question, we must understand it very deeply. The problem is that in this study, this particular form of scientific research - including the books that we mentioned earlier, The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters - even when spirituality is recognized within the materialist world view, God is seen only in appearance immanent divinity. That is to say this: you said that there is only one reality, that material. In saying this, even when they soak the field of spirituality, you are ignoring the transcendental level, because you are always dealing with a single layer. So, you are listening to one side of the bell, ignoring the other. Ken Wilber explains this point well. What must be done - and that is where the stigma disappears science - is, of course, include the other half in science. Well, I think first of my work including the details of this were rather obscure. Even if people like Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo and Madame Blavatsky (the founder of the movement theosophical) recognized that such a science could have been born, very few were able to conceive.
So what I did was provide a concrete aspect to all these visions of the last century. And in doing so, acknowledging that science can be based on the primacy of consciousness, the deficiency no longer exists. In other words, the stigma that science is only separation disappears. Materialistic science is a science separatist. But the new science says that the material part of the world really exists, that the movement separator is part of reality, but it is not the only one. There exists the separation and integration. In my book The Self-Aware Universe talking about the journey of the protagonist in the history of science. Story that four hundred years ago, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others, we began the trip separately, however, is only the first part of the journey of the protagonist. After his findings, he comes back. It is the return of the hero that we are seeing now, through this new paradigm.
0 comments:
Post a Comment