There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand-picked subjects. The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure Consciousness.
L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > 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 � > > ��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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
