[Buddha-l] neuroscience: neural plasticity

[S.A. Feite]

Hi Pedro:

On May 30, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Vera, Pedro L. wrote:

> Hi Steve:
>
>> Then perhaps you should read Buddhism and Neuroscience or the Taboo
>> of Subjectivity. Or you could listen to the Dr. Wallace interviews on
>> Buddhist Geeks.com and other places. His debate with Searle on
>> video.google.com is provocative as well. Wallace argues, convincingly
>> IMO, for a new science based not merely on materialistic, objective
>> criteria but a subjective science as well.
>
> I am not familiar with Wallace's work. Is he a neuroscientist?

No, a trained monk under HHDL, educated in physics, Sanskrit and  
religion/philosophy but generally a polymath or renaissance man with  
obvious interest in neuroscience. He's currently the meditation  
teacher and researcher with the Shamatha Project, which is two, three- 
month retreats with complete psychological and medical imaging, etc.  
etc. longitudinal study of changes in practitioners. He also recently  
authored _Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience  
Converge_ a nice, brief synopsis of the challenges involved and the  
changes necessary for a more balanced science, the Buddhist  
counterpart being really a "Contemplative Science".

> Has he published his research findings so that I can review them?  
> From a professional standpoint, I am more likely to spend time  
> reading research articles than monographs.

You can find his CV et al here:

http://www.alanwallace.org/profile.htm (general)

http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm

http://www.alanwallace.org/cv.htm

>
>
>> Consciousness is not an artifact of the physical brain, it's the
>> product of the physical brain which is the product of many
>> different chemical, biochemical and molecular processes all
>> occurring at the same time (see the anatta in all of this??).
>
>>> I see materialism.
>
> Geez, you say that like it's a bad thing :) Yes, of course it's  
> materialism, because it deals with the material objects of the  
> brain and the workings of the brain. I find the concept of all  
> these biochemical/molecular processes arising and ceasing and  
> responsible for consciousness not at all disturbing and compatible  
> with impermanence and non-self.
>
>> So, according to your belief, consciousness cannot, does not and will
>> not exist separately from the body. A practice like phowa--
>> consciousness transference--is just an hallucination? The bardos are
>> not transitional states of being but symptoms of a dying brain
>> starved of oxygen?
>
> I have not found credible, verifiable evidence for consciousness  
> existing "outside" of the body.

Well, hopefully you can see that this is the perfect place for a  
first person, subjective experiential study. Send half a dozen  
college profs to a phowa retreat and record what happens :-))),  
subjectively and objectively or any number of possibilities. Or take  
a group of researchers who are already experienced in meditation and  
take them through the training for the bardo retreat.

> As a matter of fact, it becomes oxymoronic (given current  
> neuroscience understanding) to speak in such terms. I am not  
> familiar with "phowa" and am only dimly aware of the tibetan bardo  
> stuff. If I felt compelled to explain such experiences, I guess  
> your explananation sounds relatively reasonable, plausible and  
> parsimonious. Any other esoteric explanations dealing with  
> transitional states of being or different planes of existence, or  
> any other explanation that does not lend itself readily to  
> verfification and reproducibility, is not one that I would consider  
> scientific. From a practical standpoint of study design, how would  
> anyone be able to ascertain whether anyone's bardo experience  
> (whatever that is) is due to hypoxia in a dying brain or a  
> transitional state of being?. It's not as if we can see (as  
> experimenters) "transitional states of being". Hypoxia is  
> relatively easy to measure, on the other hand.

I agree, it would be difficult to find a good study design.

>
> However, I understand that, at least for some people, such beliefs  
> may be a source of great comfort and inspiration. That's great.  
> However, I do not see them as compatible with science (or at least  
> the science I know) and that's OK too.

This is where I see those approaching the idea of a subjective  
science--which really is what Buddha-dharma in it's technical aspects  
and experiences is--and finding a new methodology that would begin to  
include it. Wallace's recent works open an interesting door in this  
direction.

Best,

Steve