Meditation and Neuroscience

October 2, 2005 11:47 AM

Two Sciences of Mind.A good article on the emerging dialogue between neuroscience and Buddhism (previously discussed here). Allan Wallace of the Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama's plan to speak at an upcoming neuroscience conference has led to controversy and petition wars.
posted by homunculus (50 comments total)

Allan Wallace of the
posted by homunculus at 11:48 AM on October 2, 2005

Sounds like a cool magazine name though.
"Meanwhile Magazine."
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:49 AM on October 2, 2005

Elsewhere, Santa Barbara Institute founder Alan Wallace discusses happiness.
posted by homunculus at 11:50 AM on October 2, 2005

Intelligent redesign of neuroscience...
posted by Rothko at 11:57 AM on October 2, 2005

Dr Gu and many of the scientists who initiated the protest are of Chinese origin, but say their concern are not related to politics.

Not related to politics? What an amazing coincidence!

Chinese people who come to the US for a undergrad/graduate degrees tend to be at least indifferent to the Chinese government, if not supportive (in my experience) Nothing wrong with that, but to claim that it's "not political" that only the Chinese scientists are opposed to the lecture is ridiculous.
posted by delmoi at 12:05 PM on October 2, 2005

I think these neuroscientists are over-reacting. It's nice to see the beeb give an actual balanced view; while some of the claims/beliefs of Buddhism are extraordinary but unsupported by evidence (re-birth), I think that would be fascinating to hear about some of the ideas of how meditation can affect neuronal signalling and synaptic plasticity.

I think that studying monk's brains could be a valuable in learning about how the brain can rewire itself through certain ways of functioning (meditation) that could be really enlightening on how memory or habit or thoughts form.

This boycott is kinda like how some scientists scoff at studying the active components of marijuana - then having other scientists find a very similar endogenous (produced by the brain itself) molecule that appears to be important in modulating neuronal function wrt memory formation.

(Disclaimer: going to stop being an immunologist and training to be a neuroscientist in a few months.)
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:07 PM on October 2, 2005

I think these neuroscientists are over-reacting.

"It has been agreed that the talk will not be about religion or politics."

I'd have to agree.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:11 PM on October 2, 2005

One of the most intriguing parallels between the Buddhist model of mind and neuroscience is the emerging notion that consciousness is discontinuous -- a flicker of discrete "perceptual moments" that only appear to be continuous and solid.

Zen teachers and the late Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa have long held that if you look closely at mind while in meditation, you can learn to discern the "gaps" in the flux of awareness. In his book The Myth of Freedom, Trungpa wrote:


The sense of continuity and solidity of self is an illusion. There is really no such thing as ego, soul or atman. It is a succession of confusions that create ego. The process which is ego actually consists of a flicker of confusion, a flicker of aggression, a flicker of grasping--all of which exist only in the moment. Since we cannot hold on to the present moment, we cannot hold on to me and mine and make them solid things.
The experience of oneself relating to other things is actually a momentary discrimination, a fleeting thought. If we generate these fleeting thoughts fast enough, we can create the illusion of continuity and solidity. It is like watching a movie, the individual film frames are played so quickly that they generate the illusion of continual movement. So we build up an idea, a preconception, that self and other are solid and continuous. And once we have this idea, we manipulate our thoughts to confirm it, and are afraid of contrary evidence. It is this fear of exposure, the denial of impermanence that imprisons us. It is only by acknowledging impermanence that there is the chance to die and the space to be reborn and the possibility of appreciating life as a creative process.

Neurologist Oliver Sacks wrote a brilliant essay about the emerging, parallel scientific view in the New York Review of Books called "In the River of Consciousness." Alas, the full text of the article is now password protected, but there are a few salient excerpts here, including a quote from philosopher David Hume that says much the same thing:


David Hume, in the eighteenth century, favored the idea of discrete moments, and for him the mind was "nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement."

There's even a Sanskrit word for those "bundles": skandhas.
posted by digaman at 12:16 PM on October 2, 2005

The scientists are just being ridiculous, though it's understandable at this time when religion is being seen as a sort of alternative to science. To have someone like the Dalai Lama come and talk about something possibly of interest to neuroscientists, like the way meditation affects the mind, should be welcomed, as the Lama is certainly an expert. As for the junk science aspect, they're not saying believing the Buddha attained enlightenment under the bodhi tree affects the mind, they're saying that a life of careful control over the mind's normal wanderings can produce a unique brainstate in which things may be possible which people thought impossible. At the very least the scientists should consider this if there is any evidence to back it up.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:32 PM on October 2, 2005

While it may be acceptable to use Tibetan monks to do research, as a matter of fact Tibetan Buddhism is a religion - it posulates beliefs immune from science. A religious leader should be automatically disqualified in scientific circles. Buddhism is rarely priveleged with having sects which are basically free from theology and which are merely a philosophy and practice (Zen, in particular). To hold Tibetan Buddhism on high disregards the fact that we have a group of traditions, some of which is the most amicable to science "religion" extant. Even his selection as a leader is utterly superstitious - he was chosen as a child.
posted by abcde at 12:48 PM on October 2, 2005

To hold Tibetan Buddhism on high disregards the fact that we have a group of traditions, some of which is the most amicable to science "religion" extant

Parsing the syntax of this sentence made me hallucinate [grin].
posted by digaman at 12:56 PM on October 2, 2005

The scientists are just being ridiculous, though it's understandable at this time when religion is being seen as a sort of alternative to science. To have someone like the Dalai Lama come and talk about something possibly of interest to neuroscientists, like the way meditation affects the mind, should be welcomed, as the Lama is certainly an expert. As for the junk science aspect, they're not saying believing the Buddha attained enlightenment under the bodhi tree affects the mind, they're saying that a life of careful control over the mind's normal wanderings can produce a unique brainstate in which things may be possible which people thought impossible. At the very least the scientists should consider this if there is any evidence to back it up.

Say hello to intelligent design in orange robes.
posted by srboisvert at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2005

consciousness is discontinuous -- a flicker of discrete "perceptual moments" that only appear to be continuous and solid.

i totally agree with srboisvert. just because ID now wearing a bald head and an orange toga still doesn't make it science.

chogyam trungpa quite seriously sounds little different to deepak chopra's and his excruciating wanky 'quantum-mechanical self' excuse of a theory. they both make up what they don't understand and seem to work extrordinary hard at trying to look guru-like in public.
posted by rodney stewart at 2:56 PM on October 2, 2005

"My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

- The Universe in a Single Atom (prologue), by the Dalai Lama.

So, yeah, it's totally like ID.

(all bold text courtesy of Sparx Emboldening Emporium)
posted by Sparx at 3:01 PM on October 2, 2005

But wait, there's more!

"Buddhism must accept the facts - whether found by science or found by contemplative insights. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality - even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view".

The guy is not a hardcore reductionist by any stretch of the imagination, and his views on karma aren't informed by much in the way of evidence. But his basic stance is sound and he's generally interested in getting it right. I think some of your are getting hung up on the robes and not paying enough attention to the words.
posted by Sparx at 3:08 PM on October 2, 2005

they're saying that a life of careful control over the mind's normal wanderings can produce a unique brainstate in which things may be possible which people thought impossible. At the very least the scientists should consider this if there is any evidence to back it up.

Say hello to intelligent design in orange robes.

How is that like intelligent design? It's a testable hypothesis, and Davidson's research has verified that meditation can alter the functioning of the brain, demonstrating a degree of neuroplasticty that was once thought impossible.
posted by homunculus at 3:13 PM on October 2, 2005

they both make up what they don't understand and seem to work extrordinary hard at trying to look guru-like in public.

Trungpa was infamous for his drinking and womanizing, so he wasn't working too hard on his public image.
posted by homunculus at 3:15 PM on October 2, 2005

Dr Gu and many of the scientists who initiated the protest are of Chinese origin . . .

Damn, talk about beating a brotha while he's already down.
posted by quadog at 3:19 PM on October 2, 2005

Thanks for the Sacks link, digaman.
posted by homunculus at 3:25 PM on October 2, 2005

Also keep in mind that the Chinese are told some pretty bad things about the Dali Lama growing up. To them it would be like inviting Isabella de Castile to talk about the power of prayer in healing, or something.
posted by delmoi at 4:59 PM on October 2, 2005

about the dalai lama quote:
"if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

dalai lama is pulling your collective plonker. in exactly the same way you can't prove the spaghetti monster false, he knows it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative. any attempt will be futile as any explanation will always be followed with another 'ah but...' it's the well worn get-out clause that allows churches and uri geller remain in business to this day.
posted by rodney stewart at 5:17 PM on October 2, 2005

The guy who set up the counter petition happens to be a good friend of mine, and I can assure you, this is not "intelligent design in orange robes" for him. A few years ago, when I asked him whether he knew of any physiological explanation for the pressure I sometimes feel between my eyes when I meditate, he was pretty skeptical of the whole deal, replying "You're really getting into this new age stuff, aren't you?" He takes a pretty hardcore empirical and skeptical attitude to life, and you can see from his petition that he has absolutely nothing to say about Buddhist theology, and is even noncommital about the scientific import of the research in question.
posted by Coventry at 5:34 PM on October 2, 2005

the petition does in fact clearly say:

We disagree with the objection that science and religion are and must be inherently separate and incompatible

if that isn't that saying something about buddist theology then don't know what else is.

he's unilaterally made up his mind that buddist religion and science are somehow related. and it's there in black and white for all to see.

i seriously believe the only reason buddism gets any licence in modern society is because it happens to be perceived as trendy. the humanist 'religion without a diety' thing shouldn't disguise the fact that it's still fundementally the same rebirth/ID bollocks in different clothes.

buddah and his earthly minions all need to be tolerated with the same dirty big stick used against all the other dogmatic nonces trying in a sly way to gain credibilty off of the work of 'real' scientists. this should especially apply to rama lama ding dong and his tangerine attired baldy mates.

the petitioner does sound like a very nice bloke but in my experience if mr trendy nice guy thinks it's true, even more reason to avoid.
posted by rodney stewart at 6:46 PM on October 2, 2005

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Buddha
posted by mullingitover at 6:51 PM on October 2, 2005

and best of british luck in getting quantum mechanics somehow to agree with your own reason and your own common sense.

you should know as a certain fact that without QT you wouldn't actually exist. don't know about you but do believe i seem to exist despite whatever cobblers buddah says.
posted by rodney stewart at 7:21 PM on October 2, 2005

i am a dick. should have said QM.
posted by rodney stewart at 7:29 PM on October 2, 2005

tangerine attired baldy mates

That's pretty funny (I think it's the word baldy), but you're still being a dink.

If you can name a single scientific fact denied by the Dalai Lama on account of his religion, I'd say you might have a point. I'll give you, however, the fact that the karmic 'physics of morality' isn't laden down with excessive amounts of evidence, but as an attempt at a humanistic system of morality from 500 years before JC it's not doing too bad. I don't beleive a word of it myself, but I'm forced to admit that if everyone behaved as if it were the case, we'd probably be better off.

Karma was received wisdom from the hinduism of the time anyway. Buddha provided only a meritocratic improvement on it, in that it rejected the socially controlling caste system as well as the linked concept of an eternal soul.

But I digress: If meditation effects the plasticity of mind, then a long-term practitioner has a place at a conference on 'Neuroscience and Society'. Regardless of cultural trappings and inter-cultural animosity, if meditation has measurable effect it has relevence, as well as falsifiability and all that good stuff science requires.

(and it's been trendy for about 50 years. At what point does a trend stop being a trend and become mainstream)

on preview: QM clearly cannot be penetrated by reason, which is why nobody ever talks about it or experiments with it, except for mad people in asylums.
posted by Sparx at 7:42 PM on October 2, 2005

No, rodney. "Souls transmigrate upon death and are reborn in new bodies" would be saying something about Buddhist theology. What you quoted from the petition is a very general statement about the philosophy of science, and quite a reasonable one. There is little room for fundamentalism, even rationalist fundamentalism, in any sane view of the world, and a psychological technique which happens to be practiced by people with irrational beliefs can still be a valid subject of scientific study.

Why don't you go and read some of the research under discussion (there's lots more, that's just one of the top links of this search.) Buddhist theology does not enter into it. What's being studied is the neurological effects of meditation, a psychological practice anyone can do regardless of their religious beliefs. (I've been doing it for years, and I'm a pretty hardcore skeptic and empiricist myself.)
posted by Coventry at 7:43 PM on October 2, 2005

"Souls transmigrate upon death and are reborn in new bodies" would be saying something about Buddhist theology.

But it would be inaccurate, since Buddhism denies the existence of the soul.
posted by homunculus at 8:24 PM on October 2, 2005

i still don't get it. have to admit you're absolutely right on the mark there.

can someone then explain in basic terms what Buddhist meditation is supposed to do when say compared to hokey kokey meditation? what evidence says meditation with the buddha is so special and therefore better than meditation without? i mean can it be demonstrably and repeatedly shown in any way to make you smarter, healthier, sexier, slimmer or what.

if you say that it makes you more rational, then i'll have to disagree as a case in point. to be Buddhist i believe means you have to be cultish and irrational. a group of grown men spending many years assembled in garish time-stood-still outfits sitting all day chanting and doing other weird stuff isn't generally considered a rational thing to do. in any country, region or society if they were rational they would be taking care of their families or doing something constructive for society as a whole.

there has to be a serious disconnect with reality here. i also don't understand for sure why everyone here tends to be defensive about buddhism in particular. i'm atheist but somehow feel quakers are much more deserving of the adulation heaped on the attributes of buddha and it's followers. i can emphasize with the sentiment that buddhism the 'nice' religion but still doesn't convince why that makes it a better delusion than any other.
posted by rodney stewart at 8:55 PM on October 2, 2005

sorry if this is confusing. i'm directly questioning why the buddhist version of meditation requires special attention at this conf. i thought all non-buddhist people can meditate too but didn't get the honourable invite. what makes laughing boy here so bloody special?
posted by rodney stewart at 9:09 PM on October 2, 2005

what evidence says meditation with the buddha is so special and therefore better than meditation without?

Well, meditation is a central practice of Buddhism and it is not a central practice of most other religions. It's not that people can't meditate without Buddhism -- it's just that Buddhists are pretty much the experts on the subject. Why would you ask a Christian or an atheist or a Jew about meditation?

Meditation does have documented medical benefits, which is enough for some people to start the practice. And once you get that far, you inevitably find yourself thinking, "well, the Buddhists were right that meditation would help me, I wonder what else they might be right about?" And it turns out that they are right about a surprising number of things, at least at the level of the core religion. There is much wisdom in the idea that suffering is caused by desire, for example. You don't need the Buddhists to tell you that either, of course, but the package is fairly packed with useful information about living a good and happy life -- far more than I ever got out of the Bible, for instance, and I've barely scratched the surface of Buddhism. (I don't even consider myself a Buddhist, that's how little I've really dug into it.)

to be Buddhist i believe means you have to be cultish and irrational. ... in any country, region or society if they were rational they would be taking care of their families or doing something constructive for society as a whole.

Making yourself a better person is constructive for society as a whole and is pretty much a major function served by religion for all of human history. Religion is a survival tool, and it is eminently rational to survive.
posted by kindall at 10:43 PM on October 2, 2005

Buddhism is pretty much the most rational "religion" you'll find, and there are a lot of them out there. However, note that the term "Buddhism" is a very broad stroke, like "Christianity" or "Hinduism"; there are many sects which vary in belief but probably more importantly in custom. Buddhists in general don't carry with them a particularly large burden of beliefs, hence why the Dalai Lama can go around saying things about science like he does. Science and religion may clash yes, but not necessarily this particular religion, as it doesn't ask you to believe in a whole lot.
posted by mek at 2:56 AM on October 3, 2005

rodney, save yourself a lot of trouble and find out more about Buddhism before you slag it wholesale with so little apparent knowledge. Start with Zen, and avoid the more "culty" sects like Nichiren Shoshu. You might be pleasantly surprised. The Zen attitude toward Buddha runs along the lines of, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" -- i.e., if Buddha is getting in the way of understanding what is, forget him.
posted by digaman at 6:38 AM on October 3, 2005

can someone then explain in basic terms what Buddhist meditation is supposed to do when say compared to hokey kokey meditation?

It does have some benefits over some other types of meditation, in that it reflects a pretty exhaustive theory of the types of neuroses which plague people, and how to come to terms with them. However, no one associated with this conference is claiming one form of meditation is better than any other. If you had actually read the linked Shambhala article, you would have seen that the Dalai Lama has had a lay interest in scientific study of meditation for decades. He is thus highy qualified to speak on the subject as a lay person. There may be other equally qualified people, but his invitation to the conference does not in any way constitute a scientific endorsement of his religious beliefs, only of his scientific interest in meditation.

to be Buddhist i believe means you have to be cultish and irrational.

Well, I don't identify myself as "Buddhist", but I am a pretty serious practioner of Buddhist meditation (I meditate two hours a day.) I belong to no religious organizations, I sport no religious paraphernalia, and I practice no formal rituals. I just sit and watch my mind. I don't even talk to other Buddhists, except online. Am I cultisth? I am a computational geneticist, and my lab just found strong evidence for several new genes in C. elegans as a direct result of my scientific work. Am I irrational?

i can emphasize with the sentiment that buddhism the 'nice' religion but still doesn't convince why that makes it a better delusion than any other

Your confusion is due to your conflation of Buddhist religions with the techniques and theories of Buddhist meditation. They are closely linked in some societies, but quite easy for rational people to keep separate.
posted by Coventry at 7:19 AM on October 3, 2005

Even cats meditate. Just watch 'em. :)
posted by digaman at 7:30 AM on October 3, 2005

What's irrational is discounting widely-reported phenomena because they "sound" implausible, without investigating for yourself.

It's free and anyone can do it.

Phenomena that lie outside our mental map of possibility sound crazy to us. What's crazy is mistaking our maps for the world. Meditative practices are found, with more or less religious trappings and using various techniques, in ALL major religions. Hesychasm, certain Sufi dhikr practices, mystical QBL, to hit the big three Western religions.

The culture that surrounds the core teachings is superstitious, violent, and irrational, like all human religions. The core is inviolate and universal.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:40 AM on October 3, 2005

abcde: A religious leader should be automatically disqualified in scientific circles.

Well, I guess we will have to write off The Big Bang as a theory then.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:31 AM on October 3, 2005

Quotes of the Dalai Lama's posted earlier can be found here, which also reveals he talked with David Bohm and that leads one to think of the holonomic theory of the brain he developed with Karl Pribram. I first encountered it while reading The Holographic Universe and even made a post about Jansenism, covered in the book, a while ago.
posted by john at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2005

>I guess we will have to write off The Big Bang as a theory then

A theory foisted on us by an irrational cult of fundamentalists in robes, no less.

What strikes me about these articles is the unintended condescending tone of many of the scientists. As if actions that people have trained in, and been practicing, for thousands of years don't actually have any benefit to the practitioners until electrodes can prove it.
posted by occhiblu at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2005

Here's an interesting bit from an interview with Karl:

...if indeed we're right that these quantum-like phenomena, or the rules of quantum mechanics, apply all the way through to our psychological processes, to what's going on in the nervous system -- then we have an explanation perhaps, certainly we have a parallel, to the kind of experiences that people have called spiritual experiences. Because the descriptions you get with spiritual experiences seem to parallel the descriptions of quantum physics. That's why Fritjof Capra wrote The Tao of Physics, why we have The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and all of this sort of thing that's come along. And in fact Bohr and Heisenberg already knew; Schroedinger talked about the Upanishads, and Bohr used the yin and yang as his symbol. Because the conceptions that grew out of watching the quantum level -- and therefore now the neurological and psychophysical level, now that it's a psychological level as well -- seem to have a great deal in common with our spiritual experience. Now what do I mean by spiritual experience? You talked about mental activity, calling it the mind. That aspect of mental activity, which is very human -- it may be true of other species as well, but we don't know -- but in human endeavor many of us at least seem to need to get in contact with larger issues, whether they're cosmology, or some kind of biological larger issue, or a social one, or it's formalized in some kind of religious activity. But we want to belong. And that is what I define as the spiritual aspects of man's nature.

-TWM interview
posted by john at 10:02 AM on October 3, 2005

Sonofsamiam, or anyone else: Do you have any experience with the vipassana fellowship on-line meditation course? As a beginning meditator is it worth the $115, or is a better option to pick up a meditation book at a library?
posted by tidecat at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2005

I've never taken any course, but just used the book I linked to learn how to meditate. Not that I'm very skillful or studious, but I have certainly confirmed for myself the reality of certain previously doubtful phenomena.

I hear it often said that persisting in meditative practice will usually eventually lead one to seek out a group or teacher, but you don't need any teacher to get started or just experiment.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:50 PM on October 3, 2005

For a beginner, I recommend a retreat.
posted by homunculus at 3:07 PM on October 3, 2005

KirkJobSluder: You're right, that was totally unnecessarily brusque; in fact, the Dalai Lama does have some authority about the intent and nature of the meditation his followers practice. The image I had in mind was something like of the Pope lecturing to scientists (even this would sort of OK if we were talking about the neurology of prayer); but this is a special case because for once this leader agress empiricism should trump doctrine.
posted by abcde at 9:05 PM on October 3, 2005

I've been lurking MetaFilter for a few weeks now but have been compelled to decloak by tidecat's question. I don't know of the online vipassana program you mention, but I can say from personal experience that I didn't "get" meditation until I attended a 10 day silent retreat a couple years ago. Being surrounded by others with the same intent, and being instructed by experienced teachers made all the difference. It was a profound experience.

There are vipassana centers all over the world. I attended this one.

As for this fascinating discussion, I'd like to put forth what I believe to be the central conflict between Eastern and Western philosophy/science: Consciousness. The Western emperical mind says, "matter begat mind"; The East says, "mind (consiousness) underlies reality." (For a much more exhaustive discourse, please read The Quantum and The Lotus.)

Being of Western origins myself, I struggle with this question of whether our consiousness arose from increasingly complex biochemical processes, or has been there all along manifesting in myriad ways. Science really hits a brick wall when it attempts to explain consiousness itself. Buddhism has been actively pursuing this question for 2500 years and therefore offers an incredible treasure trove of data on the subject. Western scientists ought to get past the religious aspects and pay attention to the core findings, methinks.
posted by tritisan at 11:08 PM on October 3, 2005

Consciousness is not necessarily a brick wall; if we can never explain it reductively, which IMO is extremely unlikely verging on inconcievable, then all you have to do is assume a naturalist dualism - making consciousness a fundamental like matter and energy. Proponents of this theory include David Chalmers and (sort of) John Searle. About a quarter of Western cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind take this stance

One simple explanation is that the degree to which a system is consciousness corresponds to the amount of information it contains (in a thermodynamic sense), and there's also some theories about quantum-level activity in the brain, which I tend to subscribe to. In other words, western-style philosophy and science has not ignored the problem as much as it seems.
posted by abcde at 1:10 PM on October 4, 2005

To which a system is conscious, rather.
posted by abcde at 1:10 PM on October 4, 2005

Ugh, if we can ever explain it reductively, rather. Big difference.
posted by abcde at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2005

If meditation effects the plasticity of mind, then a long-term practitioner has a place at a conference on 'Neuroscience and Society'. Regardless of cultural trappings and inter-cultural animosity, if meditation has measurable effect it has relevence, as well as falsifiability and all that good stuff science requires.

If masturbation effects the plasticity of mind will I be invited to speak? The Dali Lama is invited because he is cool. I am not because I am just a wanker.
posted by srboisvert at 4:21 AM on October 5, 2005