--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:01 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> States of consciousness have physiological signatures, regardless > > >> of mental "content." > > > > > > Might I remind you that this is a hypotheis that has been > > > taught to you, one that you hope is true but do not know > > > is true? > > > > Pavlov's meditator? > > More like Heisenberg's Hunch. :-) > > When one sets out to measure a phenomenon, one's > expectations and assumptions, if present, cannot help > but affect what is "found." Many scientists go into their > experiments on the nature of states of consciousness > "wearing" an assumption that states of consciousness > are physiologically different, and that difference is > measurable. They *expect* to find differences. And > so they do. Their expectations create the differences. > > But the differences do not necessarily have anything > to do with the different states of consciousness. IMO > they have more to do with the nature of expectation > that the scientists bring to the experiment. > > I think that experiments such as the ones you posted > recently, about the real-world, practical-over-time > benefits of meditation, are valuable and probably > valuable, in that they would interest more people in > the possible benefits of meditation. But experiments > to prove the existence of something that has never > even been *described* accurately in the entire history > of human experience, and by definition *cannot* be? > Give me a break.
It isn't a matter of "proving the existence" of anything. It's a matter of demonstrating a high degree of correlation between subjective reports of experiences and specific neurophysiological "signatures." The studies that established the neurophysiological signature of dreaming did not "prove" that people had vivid fantasy experiences while asleep; it demonstrated that there was a high degree of correlation between the signatures and the subjective reports of those experiences. You can't really say dreaming has been described accurately either; you can cite some features that seem to be common to most people's dreaming experience, but it's very difficult, if not impossible, to describe the state itself. For that matter, we can't accurately describe even waking state *as a state*. <snip> > One need look no further back than the original > Wallace experiments and their emphasis on the > presence of certain types of brainwaves to see this > tendency to "find" what one already expects to find. > Wallace found a bunch of brainwaves that, because > of the nature of his belief in TM and what Maharishi > had told him, he *expected* to find something. And > he did. He associated these brainwave patterns > with transcendence. > > Well, as time has passed it's turned out that these > patterns occur in many circumstances, as a > result of many different things, and thus probably > has no real relationship to transcendence, right? Got citations to the studies that ruled out such a relationship? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
