--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am solely addressing the issue recent posts raised in my mind of > "how widespread is the term and concept 'brain-wave coherence' (BWC) > used by scientists not associated with the TMO". My preferred method, > was to start with a search 'brain-wave coherence' to see who the > leading users are. > > http://www.google.com/search?q=brain-wave +coherence&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official > > produced 18 separate sites on the first two pages of links. 12 of the > first 13 were TM related, as were 13 of these 18 -- The five > non-TMo-related sites were > > One site was a discussion group blurb: > ">>I have some acquaintance with EEG signal processing, brainwave > coherence > >>analysis, and attempts to correlate these to anything like cognitive > states or > >>mental command. I believe it's possible in theory, and maybe in > commercial > >>practice, but I'm unaware of ANY (non-classified anyway) success > stories. > One to two dimensions of control can relatively easily be obtained > from EEG." > > 2 vendors of home bio-feedback equipment > > 1 music product > > 1 Bio-feedback doctor > > These last four, I classify as new-age sites. > > None were reflecting mainstream scientists doing research, publishing > papers, speaking at conferences,etc. or other things reflecting that > the term BWC was a prominent or even existing theme or concept > outside the TMO or related endeavors. > > My preliminary conclusion from this search is that in popular > mainstream areas (not scientific papers) BWC has been primarily > championed by the TMO. > > So I tried a search of scientific journals. > > My preliminary sense in reviewing these articles s that BWC in the > scientific commnuty may have several quantitiative meanings, e.g. > "multidimensional directed coherence" (see below) which, it is > unknown (by me) at this point if these methodologies of measurement / > definitional concepts etc of BWC are the same,similar or distinct > different from those employed by the TMO 30 years ago. > > Second, some articles appear to point to cohenrence be mundane and > normal -- even in monkeys, not a "big deal" in itself. > > Third, there are only several, but not a majority of articles, on how > great BWC is, and how it improves human performance or is beneficial > in some way. (Counter to what I would have expected if the scientific > community viewed BWC with the same grandeur as the TMO.) >
Doesn't anyone ever read what I write. I mentioned the article in Scientific American a week or two ago that says explicitly that EEG coherence is correlated with evolutionary scale: the higher a creature is, the more likely it is to show "intelligent behavior" or somesuch. Humans show thehighest levels of EEG coherence, primates and dolphins (I assume) show thenext highest. And why did you go with google scholar? If you want refereed scientific journal references, use pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed search term: eeg coherence 1081 references starting in 1968 and moving forward. BTW, EEG coherence can imply pathological conditions, depending. Epilepsy involves EEG coherence, for instance. However, that doesn't mean that all TMers are epileptic since the kind of coherence and its location is radically different than what is found in TM. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/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/
