[Buddha-l] neuroscience: neural plasticity

[S.A. Feite]

Hi Joy:

On May 30, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Joy Vriens wrote:

> Steve,
>
>>> It strikes me that "meditation research" is already flawed *from a
>>> spiritual point of view* in similar ways as yoga or tantra.
>
>> You feel the Buddhist tantras and yogas are flawed in some way?
>
> Yes, but it doesn't matter that much as long as one knows that.

Well, it's not something I'm likely to accept.

>
>>> It makes the -in my most humble POV- mistake of defining (and
>>> reifying) a result and then looking for possible other ways to
>>> achieve it (utilitarianism). It's driven by control wheras genuin
>>> spirituality, as I see it and which goes along the lines of William
>>> James' "surrender of self", isn't. It's driven by a belief in
>>> methods, technics and technicality (magic we would have called it
>>> in a remote past).
>
>> Indeed it is. But some of the research is really basic and about
>> things valuable to know like 'what happens to the person in samadhi?'
>> Can anyone achieve this and if so, how long would it take? How does
>> it change the mode of functioning in our neural hardware (the brain
>> and nervous system)? What happens to the brain when negative emotions
>> diminish?
>
> I suppose they have already done those tests on a person who is  
> asleep. What happens in the brain of a sleeping person and does  
> what happens involve that person somehow? What exactly qualifies as  
> "happening"? What happens in the other organs? I don't know, it  
> seems to me that there are so many a prioris with which these tests  
> are done. E.g. "negative emotions", what is negative about negative  
> emotions, what are negative emotions? I guess that whatever  
> disturbs the peace of mind is negative. But then how about love and  
> compassion that can disturb that peace?

Well this is precisely the topic of some of the first scientific  
studies, the effect of non-referential compassion on emotional  
balance and other factors.

> If it is not entirely clear what a negative emotion is then how can  
> it be measured?

I believe this is rather precisely discussed in many Buddhist texts.

> What exactly are we measuring when we measure and how much credit/ 
> value do we attribute to the result of measuring? The measuring and  
> the use of technology involve the use of mathematics and then  
> mathematical laws apply. Is all that adequate? E.g. can we measure  
> how much we love a piece of music with a ruler? And all this is so  
> frightfully!
>   subjective IMO.
>
>> Many of these things we still simply do not know. And it is possible
>> with brain wave entrainment, meditative states could actually be
>> fostered and assisted by technology. There could come a time when
>> part of basic education would include the ability to be free from
>> afflictive emotions.
>
> I am not sure emotions are afflictive in themselves and even if  
> they are I am not sure that not having them would be better.

There have already been a number of discussions (in the Buddhist/ 
Science dialogues with HHDL for example) on this very topic. For  
example, see:

http://www.amazon.com/Destructive-Emotions-Scientific-Dialogue-Dalai/ 
dp/0553381059/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9778767-7815355? 
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180533872&sr=1-1

or the short link:

http://snipurl.com/1mpb7

Steve