Western and Contemplative Sciences: a meeting with young neuroscientists

Earlier this week I was delighted, and honored, to sit in on a discussion with a small group of young neuroscientists. The topic was, “is the brain the mind; is the mind the brain?” They had gathered at the request of Dr. Dennis Phillips, a remarkably able and thoughtful professor at Dalhousie University. The conversation was held in a wonderful atmosphere of mutual respect in which all ideas expressed were considered and weighed in the light of existing evidence, theory and experience. There was an open minded, passionate interest in the topic, and all of its ramifications. The discussion roared on for nearly two hours, ending with an agreement to meet again soon, to continue on.

During the conversation I was struck with the parallels, often pointed out by the Dalai Lama, between western science and Buddhist psychology (what I would call contemplative science). Both ‘sciences’ involve gathering information and organizing it into a system of concepts that help us to better understand the nature of the world and of human experience. The goal is to get closer to ‘the truth’, to the way things actually are.

It’s interesting to consider that from this point of view there is no fundamental difference between spiritual (contemplative) and secular (scientific) intent.

Of course there are significant differences in methods. Contemplative science uses introspection (meditation) as the basic tool; individuals sit down and observe their own mind. From those experiences they develop concepts, and further refinements of the meditative techniques. These, in turn, are debated in a scholarly fashion, much like the ‘peer-review’ process in western science. Different ‘schools’ of thought arise and the entire enterprise moves forward, going through sequential ‘paradigm shifts’. (A concise description of this evolution in Buddhist thinking is available in the highly readable book, ‘Contemplating Reality’, by Andy Karr).

The young neuroscientists I met with were skeptical of introspection as a method, noting that it was inherently subjective and not amenable to the kind of ‘double-blind’ design that western science holds as an ideal. They also questioned whether the mind could actually observe itself; an interesting and useful point.

I suggested to them that contemplative science might, nonetheless, have something to offer to the current interest in correlating brain activity with mental experience (mind). It might be helpful, for example, to consider the various aspects or components of ‘mind’ that have been identified in the contemplative tradition as well as the concepts describing the overall structure and operation of mind.

In this regard, one view from contemplative science is that there is an ongoing, open ‘awareness’ that is continuous and that operates without conceptual or ‘dualistic’ thought. From this background of open awareness, suddenly arise the complex of thoughts and emotions with which we are so familiar, all based on a fundamental creation of the sense of self and other. Of particular interest is the view that the arising of thoughts and emotions occurs on a very short time scale, developing and elaborating over the course of perhaps 100 milliseconds and then dissolving back into the underlying open awareness. This arising occurs again and again, and yet again, so that it seems as if the thoughts and emotions are continuous. Yet, from the view of contemplative science, they are short duration, transitory phenomena; waves on the ocean of open awareness.

Is it this non-conceptual, open awareness that very experienced practitioners of meditation are able to access more consistently? Is this way of talking about the organization and function of ‘mind’ helpful in interpreting the current MRI and EEG studies of such practitioners?

It is no surprise that this two hour discussion did not lead to a definitive answer to the original question posed about the relationship of mind and brain. It was evident that there is no easy answer. Buddhist thought includes the concept of reincarnation, of some kind of continuation of mental experience after physical death. Most of the young neuroscientists preferred the idea that “mind is what the brain does”; that the brain produces mental experience. The end of brain function, in that view, is the end of mental experience. Importantly, this is the basis for determining the end of life in medical setting. If a person is ‘brain dead’, there is no further mental experience and the individual is ‘gone’.

Of course it is difficult to scientifically test this fundamental hypothesis; to do a double blind study. For the time being it seems each of us as western scientists or contemplative scientists (or both) will need to hold our own ‘working hypothesis’. Like a good Koan, the question of the relationship of brain and mind remains as a catalyst for sorting through our concepts and experiences and perhaps going beyond them to a more integrated understanding of our own mental experiences, so close at hand and yet so hard to fathom.