illuminating science

Great article on Wired News about links between the Dalai Lama and neuroscientists - the study of the brain. As I’ve mentioned before, I have great respect for the Dalai Lama. Whether one agrees with his religion or not, there’s not denying that he’s the most “rational” religious leader in the world, in that he has said publically he will gladly dispose of any beliefs that are scientifically shown to be false, regularly meets with scientists and actively encourages their work, and even attends international scientific conferences. (Are you listening, Pope Benedict?)

The article describes experiments which included measuring the brain activity of monks during meditation. They found that meditating on “compassion” (a specific type of meditation) produced specific changes in the brain, which demonstrates that meditation produces a “real” effect, although doesn’t tell us what that effect is. Other studies, however, have linked meditation to stronger immune systems and lower levels of cortisol, a hormone related to stress. Still more studies show changes in the physical structure of the brain.

This ties in with work of Jack Pettigrew, who measures “switching times” for “binocular rivalry” in the brain. An earlier post here describes it in more detail, but it basically refers to seeing the two sides of an optical illusion like the two faces/vase picture you might have seen. In a recent paper, Pettigrew showed that Buddist monks have significantly longer switching times than “regular” people, and that these times are greatly increased by meditation. Interestingly, this effect was for “one-point” meditation (focussing on a single object, basically “clear your mind”). For compassion meditation, no change was observed. (This suggest that this reinforces the validity of their results - it seems like a “real” effect due to a specific type of meditation, rather than just a reporting error from tranquil monks!)

I love the idea of science exploring Eastern philosophies (and something I love about Eastern teachings it that they lend themselves so well to this sort of thing - there’s very conceivably a real basis to them). One interesting development, however, is that the Dalai Lama was invited to give a keynote presentation (basically, the main talk!) at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. Many scientists strongly disagreed with that decision.

I’m not sure where I stand, so let’s be a physicist and consider some limiting cases. Most of the opposition was against having a religious leader speak at a scientific conference. If an Intelligent Design junkie were to speak at a conference on Evolution, I’d be dead against it - they clearly oppose the fundamental tenets of what is being taught. What if there was a priest with no scientific training but just wanted to talk about evolution? I think that’s the kicker - if they have no real “right” to be there; what are they going to contribute? Is the talk going to be constructive to the field, or is it going to go against the mainstream? The same argument applies to crackpots - I wouldn’t want them to speak at my conference!

If they’re going to talk about religion, then no, they shouldn’t be there. If they’re going to talk about philosophy, then it’s debatable - scientists talk about regularly at conferences about the philosophical/political aspects of science and research, and I think that’s valid. It probably comes down to the specific case. For me, the Dalai Lama has always seemed very open and unbiased, and I think he could offer a lot to directions in neuroscience, particularly in light of the current research.

Finally, I wanted to discuss the actual validity of the experiments. In some ways, they seem kind of crackpotty - why should I believe experiments claiming meditation strengthens the immune system over magnets curing cancer? And I confess, I haven’t seen the actual experiments, and nor do I know most of the researchers, so it could all be crackpotty. But I do know Jack Pettigrew, and he seems very much on the level; plus, the results are being presented at international conferences and in good, peer reviewed journals which suggests that they are supported by some, if not all, scientists.

But all that’s just my opinion. Regardless, I think that these are exciting new areas of research, and may well result in new understanding of our bodies and minds. As the Dalai Lama says “The purpose of meditation is not to cure physical ailments, but to free people from emotional suffering.”