[Buddha-l] neuroscience: neural plasticity

[Vera, Pedro L.]

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? 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.


> 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. 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.

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. 

Regards,

 

Pedro