We've discussed these before, it's nothing new. Since they've never
ever come close to showing this magical "pure consciousness" exists
most of this is moot! As the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
points out these pure consciousness claims are best seen as
metaphysical assertions. Since the earlier research failed to find
anything significant and independent researchers were able to find
that the EEG is the same as other relaxation techniques you would
have thought these people would have taken another tack on their
"pure con"! The most damning thing is that is already known is that
when independent researchers used proper controls in EEG on TMers,
there was nothing special going on at all. It's the same as someone
relaxing. So it sounds like someone needs to show these guys how to
stop designing poor studies.
On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:28 AM, sparaig wrote:
Thing is, Unc, I've cited it many times. Vaj just ignores it.
Research on the physiological correlates of pure consciousness
found during TM practice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7045911
Breath suspension during the transcendental meditation technique.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10512549
Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological
correlates of "consciousness itself".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9009807
Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: possible markers
of Transcendental Consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487785
Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and
transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural
model of TM practice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862565
A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence,
power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and
Transcendental Meditation practice.
Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of
pure consciousness outside of meditation in long-term TM meditators:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12406612
Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation
characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states.
http://www.tm.org/american-psychological-association
Abstract for the 2007 Conference of the American Psychological
Association
Brain Integration Scale: Corroborating Language-based â
۬Instruments of Post-conventional Development
Research on the physiological correlates of the stabilization of
pure consciousness outside of meditation in non-meditators:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01007.x/
full
Higher psycho-physiological refinement in world-class Norwegian
athletes: brain measures of performance capacity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> >
> > "If you won't list the papers, I won't respond. If you do
> > list the papers I won't respond."
>
> Why is it so important to you that Vaj "respond?"
>
> He *does* have a point that you keep talking about
> "newer research" that you never define. Seems to me
> that if you wanted to call people's attention to that
> research, you could cite and describe it, whether Vaj
> chooses to respond or not.
>
> In other words, you keep harping on the supposed
> fact that comparative studies that were...uh...
> not impressed with TM ignored research after 1980.
> But you *also* ignore this research, in that you
> don't cite it. You just talk about its existence,
> in the same way that Joe McCarthy used to wave a
> blank piece of paper around and say, "I have in my
> hand a list of 432 communists who work in the U.S.
> government." He never had to produce the "list,"
> only claim it existed. So far, you seem to be in
> the same ballpark.
>
> Yours and Judy's replies seem to be all about *whether
> you can get Vaj to argue with you*. It's pretty clear
> that THAT is your goal, *not* any critical examination
> of the supposed research itself. Just sayin'. I don't
> see any harm in listing these studies that you feel
> critics are missing, do you?
>
> And, since you know in advance that most here are not
> going to read them because...uh...they have lives,
> and they're not as heavily into the "gotta defend TM"
> thang as you are, why don't you synopsize what you
> feel are the most salient points of this "newer
> research." Then people could get a feel for whether
> you are waving a blank piece of paper or one with
> writing on it.
>
> What Vaj does or doesn't do isn't the issue. If you
> are trying to establish that you have credibility and
> he doesn't, I'm just pointing out that you haven't
> accomplished that.
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:00 PM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am speaking words and you are hearing different ones.
> > > >
> > > > THe most interesting research on TM has all been published
> > > > since 1980. If evaluations of the "significance" of EEG
> > > > results during TM don't look at the papers published in
> > > > the last 30+ years, well, it is obvious that they are
> > > > based on 30 year old research, now isn't it?
> > >
> > > If you're speaking of some new research I haven't heard
> > > of then, maybe. But unless you clearly list titles of
> > > papers then how the hell am I supposed to know what your
> > > foggy allusions are referring to? I'm not asking you
> > > to list them - I'm really not that interested. Relaxation
> > > response meditation is a good thing for many people.
> > >
> >
>
