--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Response below. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings > > provide > > > > > > some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute > > measures > > > > > of validity. >>> > > > > > > > > Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in > > > > physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's > > research. > > > > I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem. > > > > > > > ****** > > > > > > The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the > > reduction of oxygen > > > consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it > > went something like this: > > > > > > Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their > > measurements taken while > > > meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely > > to TM. > > > > > > Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes > > closed reduced oxygen > > > consumption by the same amount as TM. > > > > > > It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. "O2 consumption > > twice as low as the > > > deepest point of sleep" had been the "proof" of TM's profundity; > > now TM was equivalent to > > > sitting quietly with eyes closed. > > > > > > The next development was "metastudies" which showed that, > > according to "global" > > > measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. > > The claim was the > > > same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable > > measurement. Now it was > > > teased out of the statistics. > > > > > > The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months. > > > > > > L B S > > > > > > > ************** > > > > Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of breath > > (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just a > > measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is > > significantly lower in TM. > > > @@@@@@@ > > Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably lower than if you were just > sitting with eyes closed. > > L B S>>>
I have never in my life had anything like the experience of breath suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes closed. The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if someone measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they will wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can sustain it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable and I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser form. OffWorld ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
