Comments on the slides for the talk

Mental-states and their transformation by mindfulness 

by Henk Barendregt at the First International Conference on
Mindfulness, Rome May 8-11, 2013

Title page

Better to use 'mind/body-states' than 'mind-states' or 'states of
consciousness'. The states that are intended in this talk are from the
psychological point of view `action tendencies'. Those may be
conscious and unconscious; also they may be conceptualized (or even
observed) in the body or in the mind. A conscious state occurs when
seeing someone we (dis)like, with a resulting tendency of approach (or
avoid). One could say that this state is in the mind. A conscious
state like hunger seems to be in the body. Actually it is not
clear whether it makes sense to distinguish here between body and
mind: hunger is coming from a combination of conditions in body and
mind. An unconscious state results when we are primed without knowing
it. Flashing pictures to us subliminally in an experimental setting
does modify the reactions we make. Although the eyes are involved, one
may be tempted to consider this as a pure 'mind-state'. Finally some
hormones may influence our behavior. Here the tendency could be to
call it a body-state. Summarizing, this talk is about the modification
of mind/body-states, conscious or not. Best to just call them 'states'.

Overview page

Methodology. The paper is based on experience, Buddhist psychology
(the Abhidhamma, see Bodhi [2000]) and cognitive neuroscience. It uses
the scientific method: to be open to criticism and be willing to
change once position. On the other hand it uses cultivated
phenomenology: first person experience trained by 'deconstructing'
insight meditation as source of suggestion, to be investigated
scientifically. 

A successful example of this method is the discovery of the mechanism
of color vision based on a simple phenomenological observation by
Goethe. 

A highly successful example of phenomenology is the following. I heard
the story from colleagues, but see Duck (1988), Ribe and Steinle
(2002) and Sepper (2007) for the main parts of it. Around 1800
physicists after Newton knew that colored light forms a
one-dimensional (1D) phenomenon. Light comes in various wavelengths
and a particular one determines the color of the light. In 1810 the
poet Goethe, who was also interested in perception, suggested another
theory. He claimed that colors form a 3D phenomenon for the following
reason. When we have, say, 125 cubes, each one colored evenly in a
different color, then it is not possible to put them in a linear row
such that the colors change ‘smoothly’; also it is not possible to do
this in a plane. But in a cube of 5 x 5 x 5 of it is possible to
arrange the colors such that in all directions they change
smoothly. This observation is phenomenological: it is based on direct
perception, independent of rational considerations.

At first physicists maintained their position that colors form a 1D
phenomenon. But then the physician Young (1773–1829) and later the
physicist Helmholtz (1821–1894) tried to reconcile the observations of
Goethe with those from physics. They coined the hypothesis that the
human eye has three different receptors for color vision. If this is
the case, then a single wavelength induces a triple of reactions in
the retina and in the rest of the brain. This implies that colors are
1D at their physical formation, but 3D at their perception. The
Young-Helmholtz hypothesis was finally proved as late as 1960, that is
150 years after Goethe’s observation. In the meantime the multi-billion
industry of color photography and color TV-monitors had started, all
based on the fact that we have three receptors for color
perception. Today in 2009 the idea is still going strong in digital
cameras, flat-screens, and video-projectors. Politicians should be
happy: fundamental research does lead to economic growth. But in this
case one had to wait about 150 years for the spin-off. This is longer
than the re-election term, so politicians do not notice it.

Reductionistic vs holistic

Good science (and life) is both looking at the details and the whole.

Matter and consciousness

Whether mind (with its being aware) can be explained from matter has
been a debate since at least Plato. We will not enter the question
here.  During meditation we need awareness (in a focused form) but
will not worry about its ultimate nature.

I.1 If one will not pay proper attention to the notion 'right
mindfulness', then it may be lost in 2100 and the teaching of
mindfulness, both for MBI and insight meditation will have come to an
end. Using the right mindfulness we may hope to obtain a better
insight in the functioning of mind/body. And one may hope to improve
the teaching of mindfulness. Persons that have had at least three
periods of depression are have a chance of 90% to relapse.
After following an MBCT course this percentage drops to 45%. 
It would be nice to improve this number.

One needs to be clear what is (i) the scope, (ii) the definition and
(iii) the operationalization of mindfulness.

As to (i): the scope of the concept of mindfulness. Does it refer
to the state or the trait of someone? This may have an impact on the
way mindfulness is taught and trained.

As to (ii): the definition is even more essential for its way of training.

As to (iii): the operationalization is important for research on
mindfulness and its validation.

I.2 Consciousness consists of a stream of consciousness moments
(cetas).  Each moment of consciousness has an object (content) and a
state. Each state consists of a mix of substates (cetasikas). Buddhist
psychology distinguishes 89 states and 52 substates. It explains that
there are more (sub)states, but that the ones mentioned are relevant
for liberation. In daily life only 45 states are relevant, the other
44 only occur during (intensive) practice.

A state can be seen as a set of variables in the mind/body system
having a certain value. A sub-state is a subset of the relevant set of
variables.

The scope will be: mindfulness is a particular mental sub-state.  One
is mindful if this sub-state is present. This makes it possible to have
various forms of mindful states.

Mindfulness-as-trait means that a person is often in the state of
mindfulness.

Being mindful is easy (the lecture started with a guided meditation of
12 seconds: ``Please be not mindful now.'' This seems to be
impossible.) But the art is to be mindful often. ``One moment of
mindfulness is one moment of enlightenment.'' So the only thing is to
train to have it more often. But since mindfulness is often there, it
seems to be an essential ingredient of consciousness, we have, what
the Mahayana Buddhists call ``Buddha nature''.

I.3 The definition of mindfulness in a given moment is: to be
attentive at that moment in a non-judgmental way, reached by having
meta-awareness. This automatically entails an anti-dose to greed and
aversion.

The definition of being mindful has a moral component. It is good
to realize there is duty morality and virtue morality. At the natural
moments of mindfulness virtue morality is automatically there. If one
practices morality, however, one has to `add' morality, i.e. duty
morality. If one doesn't adhere to the right speech, action or
livelihood, then it is more difficult to practice mindfulness. For
example lying creates a burden: keeping in mind two models of the
world (instead of simply one), the actual reality and the one that one
pretends, i.e. lies about.

I.4 This is a list of cetasikas (substates) with the understanding
that one always has the universal neutral ones and has to expand
either to the left or right. Both ways is impossible. One also can
extend downwards, not the full class of occasionals at once, but
essentially one by one. Having increased concentration (vitakka and
vicara) may be combined with either greed or hatred, but then one has
gone to the unwholesome class, including the four universal
unwholesome ones, or with mindfulness (obtaining all other universal
beautiful cetasikas and possibly some occasional ones as well).
Therefore a ceta is always either unwholesome, OR neutral, OR
wholesome, depending on whether there is an unwholesome cetasika in
it, neither an unwholesome, nor wholesome in it, or a wholesome in it.
It should be emphasized that the classes of wholesome and pleasant
(determined by cetasika feeling, that can be either pleasant, unpleasant or
neutral) states are overlapping, see table down-right on this page.

wholesome = helpful, liberating
unwholesome = leading to attachment and hence suffering

partial enlightenment = eradication of the use of some unwholesome
                        cetasikas
full enlightenment = eradication of the use of all unwholesome cetasikas.
It is said to come in four steps:
E1 (overcoming doubt and wrong view)
E2 (diluting fear and greed)
E3 (overcoming fear and sensual greed)
E4 (= full E, overcoming amongst other things restlessness, 
    sleepiness, pride).

I.5 As to operationalization of mindfulness:
questionnaires are not reliable (see lecture of Grossman). More
interesting are the effects of mindfulness. But actual meta-awareness
is measured by the method proposed by Stephen Whitmarsh.

II.1 In daily life people (M/F) are worried about getting pleasant
objects: a large/comfortable house, a beautiful/reliable partner, a
fast/compact car. This in the hope to get pleasant states, which is
the ultimate motivation. But the mortgage may be high, the partner
demanding/unreliable, and the gasoline rare and expensive. Meditation
bypasses interest in objects and goes directly to the beautiful
mind-states. There are two main classes of meditation:
1. concentration or calmness meditation versus 2. insight meditation.
For the second type one needs to practice also the first type.

Also it should be said that insight meditation starts with something
very similar to a MBI (mindfulness based intervention). That is
because most of us have some dysfunctional states.

functional = being able to love and work
dysfunctional = not functional

(Though perhaps one should redefine this now we enter a period with
less working possibilities i.e. jobs.)

II.2 In order to understand the blue line, one should know that there
are the jhanas, that could be called the Buddhist mystical
states. These are characterized by high concentration and other
pleasant cetasikas:

vitakka
vicara
joy, bliss
compassion
equanimity

Having all five consists of the first jhana. Dropping them one by one
in the given order (except equanimity), results in jhana 2, 3, 4, 5.
These jhanas need some attention to physical input and are called
rupa-jhanas. From these one can jump to enlightenment. There are
higher jhanas, the arupa jhanas that are based on concepts, of which
the ceta will be fulfilled. But from the arupa jhanas one cannot enter
enlightenment.

The jhanas, although extremely pleasant, can form a 'defilement', as
there can be a hidden desire to keep this state. If this greed is
absent, then the jhanas form a good platform from where one obtains
enlightenment.

The three characteristics are the essential object of insight. Soon
after having encountered them one is in a temporary phase of

fear
seeing danger
disenchantment.

(Perhaps these `insights' are related to the clinical phenomena of
phobia, delusional paranoia and depression.)

Continuing the practice one can domesticate these dysfunctional
states. For this one needs equanimity, concentration, and joy.
Moreover one needs on the one hand be determined and on the other hand
be surrendering. Then the dukkha part of the three characteristics
will be transformed into nibbana (nirwana, cessation of suffering).

III.1 That all is predetermined is not in contradiction with freedom.
Predetermination means that the state of the universe now determines
how it will be. Freedom means that our state now determines some part
of the future. Well we are part of the universe. Thinking, feeling,
judging will all result in a choice. To know the outcome of this
choice one has to live, it is to complex to be computed by
computer. And: this choice mechanism doesn't belong to us. We ARE it.
We are the process that does the computation.

In spite of the freedom, we cannot employ it at its full potential,
because we are attached by our over-conditioning. When we break
through it, we have a wider choice space.

III.2 In this slide the stream of consciousness is depicted. All our 6
senses (5 physical senses + thinking) play their role. But we often
are stuck in the `thought-pump' (rumination, not necessarily with
unpleasant feelings, just being mind-less). The actions that are
performed are in the model on this page.

III.3 Now also the mind/body-states are in the model.
The first Nobel truth of Buddhism is explained:

There is suffering

By this pain is not intended (because then it would be impossible to
be beyond suffering), but the possibly resulting mental pain. It is
possible to be beyond this. There still is another form of suffering:
the stream_of_consciousness-pump goes on and on. It determines us, but
we cannot directly influence it. This sucks. In that sense

All life is suffering

Paradoxically enough, the insight that this is the case is liberating.
The reason is that one doesn't need to pretend and even less to try to
be in charge.

III.4 This slide is about the three aspects of states: 1. how they
feel, 2. how they are working on biological level and 3. how they
influence our behavior. As to 2, insight meditation gave me the hint
that some states come in a `fluid way'. This directed me to study the
possibility that states are implemented via volume transmission
through the cerebrospinal fluid.  One PhD student (Marinella Calle)
and a literature study with a colleague (Jan Veening):

http://www.fluidsbarrierscns.com/content/7/1/1
ftp://ftp.cs.kun.nl/pub/CompMath.Found/CSF.OT.pdf
http://www.fluidsbarrierscns.com/content/9/1/16

As to 3, with Antonino Raffone a model was developed in which
mindfulness was seen as a `self-modifying program', known from the
theory of universal machines by the well-known Alan Turing:

ftp://ftp.cs.kun.nl/pub/CompMath.Found/TM.pdf

The idea is inspired by Hofstadter's G\"odel Escher Bach book and
the principal idea is here:

ftp://ftp.cs.kun.nl/pub/CompMath.Found/reflection.pdf

III.5 This page provides a model of how meditation (mental
development) works. By restricting input (both physical and mental;
the latter by focusing on breathing or footsteps) and also the output
(by sitting still) the only thing that changes are the states.  With
continuous mindfulness one can observe that they form a circular path.
Under the right conditions one can step out of the vicious circle.

HB