[Buddha-l] neuroscience: neural plasticity

[Vera, Pedro L.]

Steve:
 
Steve wrote:
> From what I'm seeing in research, some research does get NIH or 
"other" funding but much Buddhist meditation research is being 
privately funded. 
 
Does this mean pharmaceutical funding? A temple or Buddhist organization doing the funding? or private individuals? Obviously, the aim, purpose and pressure to find the "right" results would vary between these groups.
 
 
 
>The only reason I mention the downside is because 
of the recent writings of people like Alan Wallace which go into some 
detail into the "idolization of the brain" in consciousness research. 
This effects all meditation research directly or indirectly because 
of the materialistic bias inherent in the scientific-materialistic 
paradigm which forces researchers looking for grants to kowtow to the 
monies that drive this market. 
 
I think that the "scientific-materialistic paradigm" with its "materialistic bias" is the appropriate paradigm and bias for scientific research. The way that money is allocated usually has to do with specific emphases on particular diseases or conditions. These emphases are determined by a number of factors. However, relevance of biomedical research to some sort of human disease/condition is seen as vital for funding these days.
 
 
>In this case we're talking about the 
pharmceutical industrial complex. 
 
I'm confused here. I thought you were saying the funding was "private". At any rate, I do not follow the connection between pharmaceutical research being any more "materialistic" than any other scientific research.
 
 

>Would research get funded if it was trying to emphasize a new, 
subjective science? 
 
I seriously doubt it. Regardless of where the money comes from. In addition, would such research by published in scientific journals?? Again, probably not.
 
>>Accepting drug compay monies would essentially 
force researchers to take a scientific materialistic POV....
 
Again, we disagree. Doing scientific research (funded by pharmaceutical companies or your neighborhood muffler shop) does require the use of the "scientific materialistic" paradigm. I am presently unaware of an alternative. A scientific "immaterial" paradigm? Just what would that mean?
 
 
 
>and this may 
be in direct contradiction to the style of thinking necessary for 
advanced meditation research.
 
That would not be so bad. Particularly in we call it "religious" research rather than "scientific".
 
 
 What it boils down to is two opposing 
ways of looking at reality: one which says that consciousness is an 
artifact of the physical brain and another which says that 
consciousness itself is primary and the brain secondary. One relies 
on materialism, the other on the "taboo" of subjective inquiry.
 
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??).  Simply stated: no brain, no consciousness. The "taboo of subjective inquiry" which you refer to, I would leave in the realm of religion or perhaps even worse, pseudo-science (the psychoanalytic school comes to mind).

Best regards,
 
Pedro