In the Spring of 2001 the popular press carried a number of articles claiming that scientists had 'explained' religious feelings as 'just a product of how the brain works'.
These articles referred back to a report in the New Scientist ('In Search of God' by Bob Holmes, New Scientist, 21st April 2001, pages 25 - 27 ). The report described experiments which demonstrated that when Tibetan Buddhist meditators experienced the dissolution of the distinction between self and other, there was an associated shutdown of the parietal lobe, a region of the brain responsible for the sensation of personal identity.
The tone of the tabloid press was that science had finally explained away mystical experience as some kind of malfunction of the brain. The original New Scientist report wasn't quite so simplistic, but did make some reductionist statements such as:
'Experiments on the brain have led neuroscientists to suggest that the capacity for religion may somehow be hardwired into us'
'You can have a dream and and it feels real at the time, but you wake up and it no longer feels as real. The problem is, when people have a mystical experience, they think that is more real than baseline reality - even when they come back to baseline reality'.
Why is this a problem? How real is baseline reality? What is reality?
In Buddhist philosophy, 'baseline' or 'ordinary' reality is what appears to the non-physical symbiotic mind after being filtered and distorted by the biological system which is the collection of our sense organs, nervous system and brain. This biological system has not evolved to represent reality. It has evolved to ensure its own survival - or more correctly to ensure the survival of those genes that code for it.
One of the mechanisms that ensures
survival is the instinct for self-preservation, which of course relies on the
projection on to the mind of an inherently-existent self or ego which has to be
preserved. Any animal which couldn't distinguish betwen self and other wouldn't
survive for any length of time.
This self or ego appears most strongly to
us when we are threatened, either physically, or emotionally (such as being embarassed
or insulted).
But how real is the self? Am I the same person I was when I was
six? Will I be the same person when I'm 64? The constituents of my body are constanly
being lost and renewed, and are said to totally turnover every seven years of
so.
So am I the same person I was when I was six, in the way that the axe
is still the same old axe even though it's had three new handles and four new
blades?
If my body is not the self then maybe my mind is the self. But my mind
as a fifty-year-old has more in common with other fifty-year-olds than it has
with that of the six-year-old I used to be. The six-year-old had a large store
of memories of his life back to infancy. Now I can only remember perhaps twenty
things that happened to me before I was six.
So the stable inherently-existent
self is a delusion. Many schools of Tibetan Buddhism (eg Kadampas) place great
emphasis on arguing intellectually against the concept of the inherently-existent
self, and also using meditational techniques to obtain a deep qualitative realisation
of 'the emptiness of the self' . (In Tibetan Buddhist philosophy all things are
empty of inherent existence).
To the average Westerner, deliberately cultivating
the idea that your ego doesn't exist as a fixed entity may seem weird and scary,
but in fact it can be immensely liberating. As one of the researcher/meditators
taking part in the study said "It feels like a loss of boundary. It's as
if the film of your life broke and you were seeing the light that allowed the
film to be projected"
A materialist would view this loss of the sense
of the self during meditation as pathological and delusional. A correctly functioning
brain produces 'baseline reality'.
A Buddhist would turn this view on its head.
The self or ego is a delusion and does not
exist inherently. The concept of
a permanent unchanging self is a carrot-and-stick mechanism imposed by the biologically-evolved
central nervous system on the non-physical mind. This mechanism is necessary for
survival and evolution, but ultimately the self is a delusion - it is unfindable.
The New Scientist article suggests that the parietal lobe is the neurological
seat of this delusion.
Relevant articles:
Qualitative Experience
'The
Buddhist does not doubt that the brain does some very sophisticated ordering of
its incoming nerve impulses into the datastructures which are the objects of knowledge.
But when all is said and done, those datastructures remain as objects. They are
not themselves knowledge, neither are they that which performs the function of
knowing'
Formless Mind
'The fact that the mind is formless means that it
is unconstrained, and hence has immense potential. The mind can comprehend all
objects including its own creations. The description of the root mind as 'formless'
doesn't just refer to its non-material nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited,
non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure or topology. In Buddhist psychology
the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic. The mind cannot be understood
in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is pure awareness'
Non-algorithmic
mind
'Possibly one way forward in describing non-algorithmic phenomena is to
describe what they are NOT. For a start, they are without form. They cannot be
described in terms of structure, nor of procedures (which can always be reduced
to form in a flowchart). Taking an analogy from computer programming we can say
they are not objects. An object is a structure (the term 'structure' includes
datastructure), which may or may not have an associated procedure (the term 'procedure'
includes mathematical and logical functions and algorithms)......'
Qualia
- Subjective Experience
http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/
Qualia are internal,
subjective qualitative states such as the redness of red, aesthetic experiences
of beauty and revulsion, pain, happiness, boredom, depression, elation, motivation,
intention, the experience of understanding something for the first time, etc.
Such states are subjective and private and are distinct (though causally related
to) physical and neural activities.
The
experimentally accessible processes, such as projection of images on the retina
and the resultant neural firings etc, are describable in terms of manipulation
of symbols (typically binary states such as fired/not fired, matrices of pixels
or strings of pulses). However, how these symbols and the processes that manipulate
them give rise to qualitative subjective experience is one of the major areas
of difference between the materialist and Buddhist viewpoints.
To the materialist,
all perceptions - sight, hearing, touch taste and smell - arrive in the brain
as bitstreams, a sequence of 1's and 0's like the bitstream which is bringing
this information to you down the telephone wire. The 1's and 0's are physically
implemented as electro-chemical impulses of neurons. The neural nets within the
brain process these raw bitstreams, firstly into data, then into information and
finally into knowledge.
Buddhist philosophy has no difficulties with this process
up to and including the point of generating information. However it points out
that no mechanistic explanation appears to be able to bridge the gulf between
information and knowledge, ie from symbols (whether on the printed page, or in
the brain) to actual experience. There seems to be no bridge between the data
about a rose, no matter how they are processed and arranged, and the actual subjective
experience of the rose. The immediate knowledge of the rose consists (among other
things) of the qualia of red, green, and the smell of its perfume, not to mention
the very immediate and unpleasant sensation I get when I attempt to pick it up
by its thorny stem.
The Buddhist does not doubt that the brain does some very
sophisticated ordering of its incoming nerve impulses into the datastructures
which are the objects of knowledge. But when all is said and done, those datastructures
remain as objects. They are not themselves knowledge, neither are they that which
performs the function of knowing.
A datastructure by its very nature must
have form. But according to Buddhist beliefs, the mind is formless and is capable
of grasping any object of knowledge, including facts about the mind itself, which
then become objects of knowledge in their own right. Consequently the mind is
potentially unbounded.
Buddhist philosophy states that the the gap between
information and knowledge cannot be bridged from the data-object side, it can
only be bridged by the mind reaching out or going to its object (as it appears
to do in certain quantum phenomena such as the 'spooky action at a distance' discussed
in the section on quantum phenomena). Thus the mind is not a extension of the
dataprocessing capabilities of the brain either in terms of hardware, datastructures
or algorithms. It is something totally different in its fundamental nature from
all of these.
The non-physical
mind
http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/
Most
Buddhist schools regard the mind as a fundamental aspect of experience which goes
on from life to life and does not owe its existence to any pre-existing physical
or mechanistic system. This contrasts with the materialist worldview, which claims
that all aspects of psychology can ultimately be reduced to neurology.
The
fact that the mind is formless means that it is unconstrained, and hence has immense
potential. The mind can comprehend all objects including its own creations. The
description of the root mind as 'formless' doesn't just refer to its non-physical
nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free
from any structure or topology. So it it is free from steps, loops, branches,
strings, tables, stacks, queues, datastructures and all the other algorithmic
constraints . In Buddhist psychology the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic.
The mind cannot be understood in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It
is pure awareness.
The (anti-Buddhist) philosophical doctrine of computationalism
(a modern form of materialism) claims that the human mind is a physical system,
and all physical systems can be modelled by a general purpose computer. Computationalism
lays itself open to refutation, since if any aspect of psychology is discovered
which cannot be interpreted in terms of the interactions of algorithms (procedures)
with datastructures, then one must conclude that at least one component of the
mind is not a machine, and is not indeed a physical system of any kind.
Meditation
on formless mind
One of the quickest ways to convince yourself that the root
mind is non-physical, (and is not therefore limited by one birth and one death),
is to meditate on the formless nature of the mind.
(1) Find somewhere quiet
and peaceful where you won't be disturbed. If at home take the phone off the hook.
(2)
If you can't manage a classical meditation posture just sit upright in a chair.
Try to keep your back reasonably straight. Avoid the two extremes of slouching
and getting excessively rigid.
(3) Observe your breathing. Don't try to control
it, just observe the natural rhythm of inhaling and exhaling.
(4) Once you've
settled into this observational state, but before you've got bored, introduce
a small amount of breath control - just pause for a second between the in and
the out.
(5) Next try a simple mental recitation. On the in breath mentally
recite the syllable OM (you don't need to say it out loud). At the pause between
the in and out mentally recite the syllable AH (there is no need to prolong this
pause any longer than it takes to mentally recite this syllable). On the out breath
mentally recite the syllable HUM.
(6) Keep on breathing and mentally reciting
OM AH HUM. Don't force the breath. Breathe naturally apart from the slight pause
long enough to mentally recite the AH between the in and out breaths. You can
then extend this pause if it helps you to feel calmer, and you can do so without
discomfort. You may like to imagine that you hold the AH sound at your heart during
the pause. Concentrate on the syllables and don't let your mind wander.
(7)
After a while the novelty will wear off and your mind will appear to become extremely
busy, with all sorts of thoughts competing for your attention. Your mind will
have much more immediate concerns than OM AH HUM. - 'It's a week since I last
phoned my mother - that reminds me, can I afford to pay my phone bill? - I haven't
checked my bank balance lately - I guess its bad because I haven't had a raise
since my boss put me on a wage freeze ....It's because I'm 48 and not likely to
find another job - Why do I have to work for that creep? - Surely I could branch
out on my own - the whole company's become a pile of poo - Oh look there's a crack
in the plaster - Is it superficial or something structural? Structural..structure...
Oh shit I should have emailed that drawing this afternoon..... etc,etc...
(8)
Welcome to your superficial mind! Why does meditation make the mind busier? You
thought it was supposed to calm you down. Yes ultimately it does, but in the early
stages all that happens is that your mind becomes aware of the incessant junk-thoughts
circulating in your brain (the first inkling that mind and brain are different!).
There's no more going on in your head than usual, it's just that you've become
aware of it.
(9) So is this incessant parade of trivialities all that there
is to your mind? Who's controlling it - obviously not you!
(10) Continue with
the OM AH HUM for a little while longer, gently returning your mind to the silent
recitation every time it wanders away.
(11) Now cease the recitation and examine
the constant stream of linked thoughts that your brain is presenting to your mind.
But try to distance yourself from these thoughts. Observe them but with a certain
amount of disinterest. Pretend you're observing someone else's stream of consciousness
rather than stuff which is obviously aimed at you. Don't get involved in this
thought stream. Rather than experience how one thought leads to another, examine
what the links are and how each thought arises.
(12) You'll become aware of
the datastructures in your mind - the associations or 'hyperlinks' which link
all mental objects together. Then you'll become aware of the algorithm - the automatic
process which like a webcrawler follows all these associations and presents them
to your awareness. You don't (at present) control this webcrawler. You will notice
that the webcrawler has certain preferred types of links, those that lead to objects
of anger, fear or desire. It doesn't pay too much attention to bland associations,
and there's no family filter on what it dredges up.
(13) You have now begun
to understand the algorithms and datastructures of the mind/brain. What you still
need to experience is pure mind - the actual awareness which is viewing all the
trivia which the webcrawler is displaying to it.
(14) Convince yourself that
your mind is neither the individual scenarios thrown up as the stream of consciousness
progresses, nor the mechanism which drives the stream of consciousness. Your mind
is pure awareness - non-structured and non-procedural. Occasionally the stream
of thoughts will subside into the root mind, and a moment or two of clarity will
occur before a new thread of associations emerges. When this happens, attempt
to catch a glimpse of the calm, space-like and empty nature of the root mind -
like a blue sky rather than one constantly obstructed by a passing procession
of clouds.
(15) Slowly come out of meditation. It may help to mentally recite
the OM AH HUM for a brief period.
It is traditional and auspicious at the end
of a meditation to silently dedicate any insight that you might have achieved
to the happiness and freedom from suffering of all sentient beings.
Object
Oriented Mind and Non-computable Phenomena
http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/
The great difficulty in talking about non-computable phenomena is that although
we can say in general terms what they do, it is impossible by their very nature
to describe how they do it. (If we could describe in a stepwise manner what was
going on, then the phenomenon would be algorithmic and hence amenable to simulation
by a computer program).
A typical
example of a noncomputable activity is assigning meaning to any object. For example,
when is a chariot a heap of firewood? Or when is a car a pile of parts? (as discussed
under shunyata). Many processes involving semantics, as distinct from syntax,
appear to be non-algorithmic.
Other apparently non-computable phenomena are:
Qualia
(singular 'quale') which are internal, subjective, qualitative states such as
the redness of red, aesthetic experiences of beauty and revulsion, pain, happiness,
boredom, depression, elation, motivation, intention, the experience of understanding
something for the first time, etc. Such states are subjective and private and
are distinct from (though causally related to) physical and neural activities.
Whether the causal relationship is one-way or two-way is open to debate.
Freewill
Freewill
is the ability to make conscious choices between options, which thus implies taking
responsibiliy for one's actions. The assumption that sane citizens possess freewill
is the basis for the rule of law in all civilised countries.
The root mind
Although
some superficial mental processes are algorithmic (for example performing mental
arithmetic) there are more fundamental aspects of the mind that do not seem to
be reducible to procedures.
Object orientation
Possibly one way forward
in describing non-computable phenomena is to describe what they are NOT.
For
a start, they are without form. They cannot be described in terms of structure,
nor of procedures (which can always be reduced to form in a flowchart). Taking
an analogy from computer programming we can say they are not objects.
An object
is a structure (the term 'structure' includes datastructure), which may or may
not have an associated procedure (the term 'procedure' includes mathematical and
logical functions and algorithms).
All algorithms (and other procedures) have
associated datastructures, though these may be implicit rather than explicitly
declared. For example, even the simplest functions, such as square root, have
an implicit associated datastructure consisting of the paired dependent and independent
variables. In contrast, not all datastructures have associated procedures.
Objects,
in this context, include databases, buttons, boxes, forms, scrollbars and all
the other paraphernalia of object-oriented programming. These objects consist
of graphical structures (customisable to some extent by changing their properties)
with associated algorithms, which are usually where the main customised functionality
resides. This often takes the form of specially written code.
Outside the realms
of computer programming, examples of objects are:
" Bicycle - mechanical
structure but no algorithm
" Wall calendar - physical structure and datastructure
but no algorithm
" Grandfather clock - mechanical structure, datastructure
(clockface) and intrinsic algorithm (the adjustable pendulum length is the independent
variable in the function determining the period of oscillation)
" Wind-up
musical box - mechanical structure and algorithm as stored program (metal pegs
on rotating drum).
" Solar system. Structure consists of one star, nine
planets, a few dozen moons, and several thousand asteroids and comets. Algorithms
are Newton's laws of motion (with a minor relativistic corrections for the planet
Mercury).
All physical structures can be simulated as datastructures (CAD packages
etc). All intrinsic algorithms can be expressed and implemented programmatically
(eg desktop clocks and MIDI players). Therefore all physical objects can be simulated
by computer programs.
Towards a science of consciousness?
Formless and non-algorithmic
phenomena are, by their very nature, forever beyond the grasp of science. The
scientific method (at least in the real sciences) consists of producing models
constructed out of datastructures and algorithms, which are used to predict the
behavior of the phenomena under investigation. Successful models are those with
the greatest predictive accuracy and widest applicability.
Science may never
be able to analyse such phenomena as semantics, qualia, consciousness and intention
because these 'things' do not have any structure, either static or procedural
- they do not have any conceptual 'nuts and bolts' for the dismantling tools of
science to get a grip on. The phrase 'Science of Consciousness' may thus be a
self-contradiction.