Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Science of mind
Daozen
Veteran
I believe that sensations, perception, emotions, thoughts, memories and mental states - in other words, all those things we might call "mind" or "consciousness" - are wholly emergent from physical processes.
This idea is generally the view put forth by science, and I agree with it because it makes sense in the same way all good science does: it's a valid theory based on our observations of human behaviour, including the interaction of subjective reports and technological measurements. Of course many elements of this theory are still debated ( the nature of language, intelligence etc) but I think it's fair to say the vast majority of modern scientists do believe that physical systems underpin all "mental" activity.
My question is: does the buddhist theory of mind reject this notion? If so, why, and on what basis?
This idea is generally the view put forth by science, and I agree with it because it makes sense in the same way all good science does: it's a valid theory based on our observations of human behaviour, including the interaction of subjective reports and technological measurements. Of course many elements of this theory are still debated ( the nature of language, intelligence etc) but I think it's fair to say the vast majority of modern scientists do believe that physical systems underpin all "mental" activity.
My question is: does the buddhist theory of mind reject this notion? If so, why, and on what basis?
0
Comments
You can't find the mind. You can't find consciousness. That's because these words don't describe a physical "thing", they describe experience of things. Another way of saying "form and mind" is "form and experience (of form)"... and this gets rid of the pesky word "mind" which people take as being a "thing" and changes it to experience... and we all know experience isn't a separate thing, right? It makes you change perspective, get a better grip on not-self/anatta.
If our mental processes were a direct expression of the physical brain how can you explain a hardened criminal who one day has a revelation and abrubtly changes his ways to act in a new way? Or anyone who has a profound religious experience and changes their ways, for that matter. If experience is solely a result of physical processes its simply not possible for a brain to rewire itself that fast.
The Tibetan Buddhist view, at least, is that the brain acts more like a reciever for the mind like a TV or radio. Also from a Buddhist perspective how can you explain rebirth if the mind ends with the body?
That's all I got, the science is still out and at the moment its inconclusive. Science generally has a materialistic slant but newer cosmology says that 96% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy of which we have no idea what it is. So if science doesn't have a clue about 96% of the makeup of the universe I'd try not to put too much stock in an unproven assumption about the mind.
But back to your point, Tibetan Buddhism and quantum mechanics do appear to be in sync. (Finally--science is catching up!)
The Buddha taught nama-rupa or mind-body as a singular thing.
The Buddha taught consciousness is the cause of/depends on mind-body and mind-body is the cause of/depends on consciousness. (SN 12.67; SN 22.56)
The Buddha taught there is no arising of consciousness without a sense organ. (MN 38)
About "rebirth", the Buddha did not teach consciousness becomes disembodied from the physical body, like the later day Buddhists teach.
About rebirth, the Buddha simply taught beings "reappear" or are "born again" is a certain state according to their actions (karma).
Regards
I'd agree with Cloud and the others with a few caveats. First, the Buddhist view of the mind has to begin with the fundamental teaching of the skandhas. The skandhas begin with "form", which is the physical body, the brain, nerves, all the physical processes going on in your body and what the senses are sending to the brain. So form is important. It is, as the posters say above, what the mind arises from. But it's only one of the skandhas. When someone looks at the mind, they must also identify processes that arise from but are not defined by the physical form.
In other words, a neuroscientist might trigger a memory using a probe and electricity, but he has no idea of what that memory might be until he asks the mind using that brain. All he knows is, this part of the brain contains a lot of memories. He can probe all he wants, but only I can tell the scientist that I see and smell a flower garden my grandmother once owned and how it makes me sad because it reminds me of how her funeral smelled. The scientist is stumbling around in the dark. He will never be able to point to your brain and say, "Here is where you stored that memory of your first kiss, and this connection shows how disappointed you were when she wouldn't go further on the first date."
The sum is greater than the parts.
That desktop environment goes away when you turn the computer off... or does it? It sorta really is stored physically as the computer, hard drive etc... but it's not the same thing in that stored form as that point-and-click environment we know and love. It's only the powered-on, energized form that we interact with. Everything that exists, the emptiness that we are, can be seen from many different vantage points and perspectives. That is all the difference; there is no real difference, only different ways of looking at reality.
metta
> Let's try to avoid getting sidetracked into rebirth. I know that this topic has implications for rebirth, but honestly, there are more than enough rebirth threads already!
> When I say that mind “emerges” from physical processes (ie, the body, in particular the brain and nervous system), I don't mean to imply that mind is somehow completely independent from body, or vice versa. But what science does say is that the mind cannot exist without a physical structure underpinning it. To use an analogy the body/brain is like a TV screen and the mind/thoughts are like the picture on that screen.
@cloud
Agree there is no single unit that can be isolated and identified as mind, that it is more a collection of inter-related (networked) processes which collectively we refer to as “mind”. I also like your description of mind as “experience of form”.
In regards the computer hardware/software analogy to body/mind, it's a popular one which I think we can improve by saying the hardware is like the physical universe (ie there are rules, laws of physics that set the ultimate limits), that our body is like the operating system (a generally stable but ultimately dynamic and updatable software structure) and that that individual programs are like the mind ...
@person
Which subjective experiences of mind are you referring to in particular (that you say science hasn't really explained, except by high correlation)? Just want to make sure before answering.
Regarding the hardened criminal changing their way or the religious conversion experience, brain plasticity does indicate it can re-wire more extensively and faster than ever dreamed before. Considering the scope of different emotions/thoughts we can all experience even in a single day I'd say it's quite feasable for these things to occur. I'd also comment that no change is truly instant – in the sense that the preconditions and causes leading to a rapid change may have built up over a long time, and all it takes is that final push (the criminal may have been contemplating their bad life for a while, ditto the religious convert is usually ripe for converting). It's similar to a mental or physical slap that leads a monk, after years of study, to 'instant' enlightenment.
It must be only recently that Tibetans are using the TV analogy, unless they predicted it back in the day (which wouldn't surprise me, they're a smart bunch). If the “signal” is considered as all the causes and conditions influencing our body and mind, then I think it works well in a scientific sense too.
@IronRabbit
Sure, if form is emptiness and emptiness is form, then body and mind are also empty – which is to say, empty of any permanent, essential, attributes. I think science and Buddhism can easily agree on that.
@CompassionateWarrior
I am extremely cautious of heedlessly mixing precise scientific disciplines, and quantum science is one area that people love to drop into all kinds of contexts where it really doesn't apply. Although I think it is incredibly fascinating in its own right, I am not convinced that the study of sub-atomics is directly relevant to brain science. Chemisty, biology & systems theory are more pertinent.
@DhammaDhatu
See my opening comment in this post, but basically when I said the mind emerges from body, I didn't mean to imply they were not interdependent, sorry if I gave that impression. I think science and Buddhism can agree on this. As science sees it, it's a continuation of biological evolution: from basic elements, to molecules, to the cell, to complex organisms and finally, a bunch of stuff we choose to call “mind”.
@Cinorjer
In my experience, no-one is more conscious of the limits of science than scientists themselves!
That the sum is apparently greater than the parts, is I think, at the heart of the body-mind problem. However, I feel that in the last few decades, science has made enormous leaps towards a better understanding of this area. Through research that started with Conway's Game of Life, via fractals and chaos theory and into the area now broadly categorised as Complexity Theory which takes in these fields amd more, I think there are now a lot of good explanations for exactly how, from very simple rules, incredible things can emerge.
@Santhisouk
“People often mistake intelligence for wisdom”. Wise words my friend.
Metta to all!
I haven't come across anything that says our brains can rewire so fast so far, but if you have some article that says otherwise I'd like to read it. Though I have to acknowledge that, yes indeed, conditions were likely leading up to that abrupt change. Also, I've heard it said that the speed at which the physical processes in our brains occur can't account for someone being able to assess and hit a 90mph fastball.
As for the Tibetan analogy, I'm getting that from some comments I've heard during the yearly meetings between HHDL and the Mind and Life Institute where they discuss the associations and differences between science and Buddhism.
Just some initial thoughts based on your general description. Please do post the link if you can find it.
Clearly, there's still a lot to learn.
Working on finding that article/thread.
Is the mind a physical phenomenon, or a non-physical phenomenon?
In terms of the aggregates we could say that the mind is perception, volition, and consciousness. If these are classified as separate from the form aggregate, then I suppose we would have to come to the conclusion that they are non-physical phenomenon that depend on the arising of a physical phenomenon, that being the physical body.
That then makes 'mind' non-physical, that is, if we are going by the teachings of Buddha.
-Tikal
I’m not going to answer it today (lol).
I’m inclined to think that the answer will turn out to be a “simple” one.
Dna has a wonderful and simple way of passing on genetic information.
The principles of evolution through variation and selection are simple.
Relatively simple mechanisms create the complexity of life.
My guess (nothing more) is that one day we will see a simple mechanism which explains how qualitative phenomenal experiences emerge from our brain.
I also think it is incorrect to drag in dark matter or quantum mechanics.
Some religious people (not you of course) tend to point out that science does not supply all the answers (which indeed it does not).
And the next thing they do is, claim their dogmatic nonsense is just as good or even superior.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2911199841702354668#
www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_study.html
Scientific understanding is based dependently of mental theories and peer based social interactions (notice the circular reference here). The idea of a single correct theory is a fallacy promoted by those who should or don't know better. Most likely you won't believe this and the only way you will know this for yourself is to take your own truthful journey into the philosophy of science. The truth is vastly different than our superficial understanding on this, scientists tend to ignore the underlying assumptions needed for our theories to be valid. The important point is to talk to the philosophers of science not scientists!
One simple assumption is that there is only one correct theory of reality that describes reality as it is, and that this reality is completely understandable and describable by human theories. For instance there have been many situations where different mutually exclusive theories accurately account for observed phenomenon and the basis for selecting the "correct" theory is not based on scientific methods but on philosophical grounds. But this is fertile ground for investigation and not the sort of material that will lead to acceptance of others views. A warning though, this is a one way street
Once our understanding of physics become accurately grounded then other fields like neuroscience are seen in the light in which they are grounded as well. When the solid ground of science is seen for what it is we are left as homeless wonderers. This does not deny the great gains of science, only the absolutist view held by many.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions about science. Really, it's just an approach to acquiring knowledge. And frankly, it's a very effective one, and i think most scientists are to be admired. Yes it has its biases - everything does - but on the whole i take science as an incredible acheivement, and it's all thanks to simply looking at the world and saying: "What's the most effective way to answer this problem/describe this process?"
In fact, sometimes i think of Buddha as a kind of scientist. Of the mind, naturally.
Sure science is fantastic at what it does, yet it is this dismissal of the underlying assumptions as unimportant (both in scientific realism and everyday realism) that leads us to an incorrect view of reality. Scientists take great care to ensure that the foundations of their theories are sound, yet they don't take this far enough to isolate and examine initial assertions. Science projects the view that scientific understanding defines the ontological world as it is. This view is projected mainly by fringe scientists in the media and education system.
Scientists often swing between pragmatism (when pressed) and ontological scientific realism when given a free rein. Your answer above is an example of the swing towards pragmatism. For a vocation that is pedantic about dotting the i's and crossing the t's, this view shifting is unacceptable. Why are these questions not pursued? Because there are no answers that can be found, the concept of a solid foundation is flawed.
If you are happy with the view that science is merely a method to find answers to problems/processes (aka instrumentalism which B.A. Wallace claims is a form of idealism) then you cannot use science to back the idea that mind is purely a physical phenomena, because science cannot define what physical matter is. Furthermore science has no way of defining mind it can only observe behaviour and various fields from brain activity, yet these fields cannot be ultimately defined either. Mind can only be experienced subjectively by the individual not measured from outside.
I think that part of the problem here is that people think that if you question science then you are trying to discredit it, or the scientists. This is not the case, in fact science is able to progress when people question the status quo and new ideas are formed as a result. I look forward to seeing science completely embrace knowledge of these metaphysical (ie ideas, initial assumptions not based physical measurements) views underlying their theories and use this knowledge to expand the scope of their theories. You never know, maybe they may be able to incorporate the idea of mind into their reality. Maybe this is where they need to head to find their holy grail of a GUT (Global Unified Theory).
Anyway I'm just regurgitating things I've read over the years, most of the interesting info is in Choosing Reality. If you or anyone else has already read it I would be interested in your views on this if you care to share them but I suppose that's a different thread.
Cheers and take care, WK
After this last sentence I tend to agree.
Ultimately we don’t know anything.
But for practical purposes we have to make assumptions.
Science is the method for choosing the assumptions which are most likely “true”.
You've just summed up what I wanted to say in terms of science vs. metaphysics. I am not a 'left brainer' so I can't make a good arguement about the fact, as I see it, that personal prejudice and authority has shaped the landscape of today's science. Coming from a New Age background I rejected most of the scientific stuff, but these days I try to have an open mind and I liked the way you are presenting the idea of being more open in terms of the 'brain based mind' theory. Cheers...
The skandic/aggregate mind is a very obvious expression of the idea of a mind emerging/arrising/supervening from antecedent physical systems that it is not reducible to.
"There is no thinker, only thoughts."<<< this could have been said by any modern philosopher/neuroscientist.
xx
Science is a philosophy and, like most philosophies, easily challenged and changed (Read the philosophers of science and you'll see what I mean).
May all beings find the causes of true happiness within.
bucky
Well, anything can be a philosophy, if you're a philosopher
I meant science was literally invented by philosophers. Methods vary from scientist to scientist. Science is iterative. It has no "first principles," unless you consider just plain old curiosity a principle.
May you be at ease.
bucky
i was also curious about how you regard science
my impression is science is about verifiable fact or relationships. for example, scientists create medicines that cure specific diseases. is this not simply straightforward "cause & effect" principles, similar to Buddhism?
for example, the 4NTs are infallible. they assert whenever their is human suffering, it is always cause , 100% of the time, by ignorance, craving & attachment. is not much of science like this?
thanks
For example, the following sutta is simply a debate between various gods about how to rule the world as politicians. The titans favour ruling with punishment and devas (democrats) with tolerance. Do you regard this sutta as being about a reality other than this earth?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn11/sn11.005.than.html
If not, then these are just moral (mundane) teachings. Again, we have had numerous discussions about mundane & supramundane dhamma.
Regards
Spiny
Positivism is about verifiability, not the general use of science as explanatory.
Philosophy of science is largely about what METHOD(S) to use test empirical data with. Most social science and "medical science" uses the hypothetico-deductive model of hypothesis testing. This is not an appropriate method to apply the 4NTs as hypotheses. One of the purposes of a scientific theory is to generate hypotheses and commensurate methods to test their validity with. So, are the 4NT's part of a theory (in this sense), or are they hypotheses derived from a theory? If the latter, what is that theory. That is, what would you call it?
May you all be happy.
bucky
Hi Daozen, Spiny & seeker242,
Positivism is about verifiability, not the general use of science as explanatory. In general we might say science is simply the process of devising experiments to test experience.
Philosophy of science is largely about what method(s) to use test empirical data with. Most social science and "medical science" uses the hypothetico-deductive model. According to this view, one of the purposes of a scientific theory is to generate hypotheses and commensurate methods to test their validity with.
So, are the 4NT's part of a theory (in this sense), or are they hypotheses derived from a theory? If the latter, what is that theory. That is, what would you call it?
May you all be happy.
bucky
PS: IMO, the hypothetico-deductive model is not an appropriate method to apply to test the validity of "spiritual" truths like the 4NTS.
What (if anything) can we infer from the clear correlation between brain activity and various subjective mental states (as shown by experiments with MRI scans etc)? Is this not proof of the fact that 'brain is mind'?
For example, consider this experiment: We scan a lot of people and find that, when listening to sounds, certain areas/pathways of the brain are active more than when not listening. Then, we find a bunch of people who have damage to this brain area, and they are all deaf. 'This part of the brain processes sound' seems a perfectly valid conclusion to me. And from this and many other results (some far more sophisticated in technique), we are slowly building up a picture of how the brain is basically responsible for all those things we consider to be perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc, in other words our mind or consciousness.
Considering the brain's sheer complexity, this picture may never be complete, but at this stage i just feel we know enough to make conclusions about the obvious connection between the two.
Put it this way - what's the alternative conclusion? That these correlations are always a coincidence? Or that mind is actually a non-physical thing which somehow influences the brain?
I would say that yes mind is a non-physical thing, can you touch or hold your thoughts? And mind has been shown to influence the brain.
As a final test to see if the mind is simply a wholly emergent property of the brain, watch this whole video and see if you feel the sense of peace at the end. I'm not sure if everyone does, but I know I do and at least one other person in the comments section does. If you can feel that how can you explain it without saying that the mind transcends the brain.
Thank you, no time to watch this now - gotta work! - but will watch and respond later.
Daozen, in your OP, you put quotations around "mental" but not BRAIN. Why? Where does the brain end? Within the blood-brain barrier? In our nerves? At the tips of our fingers? John Cage claimed music is extension of our nervous systems!
Also in this discussion, the word "mind" seems to being used as if it has an accepted standard definition.
Finally, when you say mental states are emergent, do you mean that "mind" or "consciousness" are merely neural network properties or do you also mean mental states are irreducible?
May all beings find the causes of true happiness within.
bucky