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.
Brain Plasticity -The Brain that Changes Itself
Whoknows
Australia Veteran
Hi all,
I'm reading a fantastic book at the moment about the plasticity of the brain (http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/067003830X). Instead of the localisation model of the brain where each part of the brain was fixed in function, the plastic model, though still containing correlation between location and function, is dynamic and constantly changing. Yet another validation of the truth of impermanence that science has found.
If the matter and energy of the brain is constantly shifting and changing, how can people still insist that we are our brain as there is nothing that stands still long enough to equate ourselves with? It is also very interesting that brain changes have been found to be caused by experience. The funny thing is that experience, in this context, is by definition subjective and hence mind! Surprise, surprise mind causes the brain to change, though it is more correct to say that they mutually affect each other.
I'm looking forward to when conventional neuroscientists start seriously reconsidering the decision to do away with mind. That is when our understanding of reality will really advance. At least a paradigm shift is happening with plasticity.
Cheers, WK
I'm reading a fantastic book at the moment about the plasticity of the brain (http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/067003830X). Instead of the localisation model of the brain where each part of the brain was fixed in function, the plastic model, though still containing correlation between location and function, is dynamic and constantly changing. Yet another validation of the truth of impermanence that science has found.
If the matter and energy of the brain is constantly shifting and changing, how can people still insist that we are our brain as there is nothing that stands still long enough to equate ourselves with? It is also very interesting that brain changes have been found to be caused by experience. The funny thing is that experience, in this context, is by definition subjective and hence mind! Surprise, surprise mind causes the brain to change, though it is more correct to say that they mutually affect each other.
I'm looking forward to when conventional neuroscientists start seriously reconsidering the decision to do away with mind. That is when our understanding of reality will really advance. At least a paradigm shift is happening with plasticity.
Cheers, WK
0
Comments
work on the Brahma Viharas (the 4).... and chill out.
Form is emptiness, but emptiness is also form. Don't stop half-way through the sutra.
And none of this disallows the interplay between mind and matter, which is subtle and mysterious. In other words, I would allow Buddhism the assertion that both matter/energy and mind coemerge from {emptiness}.
Yes, I must admit that I was not happy about that portion of the book. It disturbs me because, although the scientists may generally be aiming for an altruistic goal, their means could in these cases be considered "ill gotten". So based on my understanding of karmic theory, which is no better than others, ill gotten gains always have a negative consequence waiting in the future.
I can't say that I ignored these parts of the book, I also strongly disapprove of experimentation on live animals, yet there is plenty of other information that is relevant to Buddhism.
Cheers, WK
On the other hand, Cartesian mind-body dualism went out with the neck ruff, and it think it is a mistake to try to map it onto Buddhism.
The mind owes its emergence to
{emptiness}
so does the matter.
Two different fruits from the same orchard
in the same dish
being eaten nearby the orchard
E = mc2 // rupaDhatu
@ = mc3 // arupaDhatu
lets start from there?
Einstein, explain this: what's schizoPhrenia? a brain divided in 2? that's the best Western Science can do to explain the nature of mind?
A pitty, it really is a pitty... but psychiatry has to die (along with its practitioners and believers?)
poor materialists, so many more life's... in samsAra.
what if someone decides there place of next Birth?
thanks for this confirmation. i chosed this rebirth.
This isn't psychiatry that's discussed in the book, it's neuroscience, as with the book the OP presented. And schizophrenia isn't "multiple personality" or a brain divided in 2 (or more). That's called Dissociation. Schizophrenia is more complex. Check in a dictionary. Western psychiatry is mainly concerned with pathology. It's not relevant to this discussion, anyway.
Moving on to another topic, how did you choose this rebirth?
Very cool, WK (to get back on topic). Just a note: who says we are our brain? We're much more than a brain. This ever-changing brain is one component of us, so there's a sort of permanence, for outward appearances anyway, with an inherent impermanence.
It's the same as the fact that our cells are constantly changing, sloughing off, being replaced by new cells. Everything is in flux. Yet everything remains recognizable.
Mind does change the brain. That's why we meditate; meditation changes the brain, it has been shown scientifically. It creates new neurons and can also develop different lobes of the brain. But...you probably knew that
Neuroscience is materialist, which is not buddhist.
'will rarely discuss how to chose rebirths, and the details on past lifes. 'chosed privacy.
Did Siddharta Gotama talked about a brain?! Sutric reference.
At the moment, I was a staunch materialist before Buddhism and wouldn't have thought otherwise is possible.
We start where we are, nowhere else. Though I expect you know this.
The great thing about the boddhisattva goal is that you can work with the world as it is working on transforming revulsion of Samsara to something more useful to others. To do that you have to work in others' conceptual framework and talk the same language. If one is interested in one's own salvation then this doesn't matter.
Otherwise science, physics, cosmology, philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, even economics and politics (etc.) are all fertile grounds for Buddhism.
Cheers, WK
the brain can change its structure; however the brain is just a linker to the 8th consciousness which is in arupa-dhatu.
after satori, the brain changes itself to a happiest state.
Once one reaches satori, does it become a permanent state? Or can one have a fleeting, or temporary experience of satori, after which one returns to the mundane state? Your statement sounds like once the mind experiences satori, physical (?) changes occur that enable a permanent state of satori.
The changes our brains undergo from our practice, be it Zen or otherwise, are only the same as they always undergo from learning.
you can get glimpses of nirvAna (through jhåna); but satori is once... don't know if it is differente for bodhisattvas.
then why there's sutric references for nirvAna as "the deathless"... i think nirvAna is so beyond common experience that anatta is the most accurate approximation.
In my view I see no difference between the Boddhisattva path and other paths. If the seeker is trying to emulate the Buddha then they will follow the same path, it doesn't matter what you call it.
As to anatta and deathless, anything that is conditioned leads to suffering due to its impermanence. Nirvana is said to be deathless because it is unconditioned and hence not impermanent and therefore there is no death in Nirvana.
There is great debate by those that say that you become enlightened and those that say that you are already enlightened and just realise it. The first set of people need to explain how nirvana is permanent if it is learned (and hence conditioned), the second set of people don't have to explain that because nirvana is already there. Of course both sets of arguments are, to some degree, faulty (yet still very useful) because they assume that reality as it is will conform to our concepts of what it should be. Whenever nirvana is explained in terms they are only approximations. Often it is explained in terms that don't make sense to us like unconditioned, nonarising, nonabiding, unceasing, unborn, free from reference points, ...etc. A paraphrased quote that I have heard is something like this: all streams flow into the one ocean, to me that sums up the different vehicles and shows that they are the same, but again this quote has many different levels of interpretation. It can also indicate nonduality and the all encompassing aspect of Nirvana.
As to getting attached to meditative experiences, it may sometimes be unavoidable, but its a long path and takes a while for the thick sticky fog to clear. Its easier if you maintain detachment from the start, from what I've read, under these situations, progression is then quicker.
Cheers, WK
those terms actually make sense...
Cheers, WK
Cheers, WK
deathless... death of dukkha. cessation of dukkha.
nirvåna