A new era for mind studies: training investigators in both scientific and contemplative methods of inquiry

The study of the human mind has evolved over the course of many centuries. While modern neuroscience relies on objective, quantitative methods for measuring how mental events manifest as brain activity, ancient contemplative traditions have used first-person introspective practices to gain a greater understanding of the mind. It is now possible to combine these different approaches, hopefully in a mutually enriching, synergistic way. As proposed by the late Francisco J. Varela, studying the conscious mind could greatly benefit from bringing together the “first-person” perspective of a well-trained experimental subject with the “third-person” perspective of an outside observer (i.e., a scientist measuring brain activity). Varela called this approach neurophenomenology, referring to the combination of neural measurements with the style of inquiry of classic phenomenology (Varela, 1996). In neurophenomenology experiments, the subject is actively involved in describing his moment-by-moment conscious experience and is sometimes asked to generate specific mind states, while the experimenter is guided by these first-person data in the analysis and interpretation of physiological data (Lutz and Thompson, 2003). This methodology can be used to better account for seemingly random fluctuations in brain activity, which are usually discarded as “noise” but may reveal key insights into ongoing variations in the subject’s inner experience (Lutz et al., 2002; Lachaux, 2011). Recent advances in neuroscience may enable, for the first time, direct testing with rigorous scientific methods of claims made in past centuries through contemplative practices about how the mind works. Technological tools for measuring brain activity are becoming more precise and more sophisticated every day. However, high quality firstperson data remain difficult to obtain. Introspective methods have been criticized on the account that most mental processes are usually not consciously accessible. For example, we are usually unaware of our own decision-making processes (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977), and sensory stimuli can be perceived even in the absence of conscious awareness (Merikle et al., 2001). Nevertheless, rigorous introspection methods such as the elicitation interview developed by Petitmengin (2006) enable participants to provide—and validate—detailed firstperson accounts of their mental experience (Bitbol and Petitmengin, 2013). These new developments in introspective methods have challenged the notion that mental processes that are usually unconscious are irremediably inaccessible to conscious awareness, and suggest that some of them may be revealed when using appropriate methods (Bockelman et al., 2013; Petitmengin and Lachaux, 2013; Petitmengin et al., 2013). Expert contemplative practitioners are particularly well suited to introspective methods, as many of their practices require them to observe and describe their experience on a moment-by-moment basis in exquisite detail—thereby providing extremely valuable first-person data in the context of a neurophenomenological experiment. Expert meditation practitioners have acted as experimental subjects in a number of neuroscientific studies to date, although only few studies have included first-person input from these subjects as an essential aspect of their methods (e.g., Carter et al., 2005; Dor-Ziderman et al., 2013; Garrison et al., 2013a,b). In addition to being valuable study participants, expert meditators and contemplative scholars could contribute to scientific studies in other ways, as proposed by Varela (Varela et al., 1992; Lutz and Thompson, 2003). The traditional curriculum received by these experts typically includes not only training in contemplative practices but also extensive knowledge of the conceptual and cultural frameworks in which they have developed over the centuries. In this regard, the scientific study of the mind would benefit immensely from including contemplatives as full-fledged co-investigators. Importantly, such collaborations require establishing sufficient common ground between the perspectives of contemplatives and scientists, which can be difficult for individuals exclusively trained in one or the other discipline, as became evident in the first attempted interactions between both sides. The Mind and Life conferences have opened the way by facilitating exchanges between scientists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on a number of scientific topics over the years, including topics relevant to the study of the mind, such as consciousness (Houshmand et al., 1999; Hayward and Varela, 2001; His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Varela, 2002), emotions (Goleman, 1997, 2003), and neuroplasticity (Begley, 2007), and some of these meetings have inspired new scientific studies. More broadly,