I deleted this post a few minutes after sending it, seeing that Spraig
did respond with a link of cites (a bit of a shotgun) some of wich
possibly support the SA articles point. 

I am wading through the viable article(s) listed in the link that
appear to support the SA point. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 11:27 PM, new.morning wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>> And the Scientific American article I mentioned a week or two ago
> >>> specifically says that
> >>>> brain wave coherence is something that seperates the brains of
> >>> higher-order critters like
> >>>> primates and mammals from lower order ones.
> >>>
> >>> haha. And yet the top article on google scholar search for BWC was
> >>> about BWC in monkeys.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did you bother with the pubmed search?
> >
> > Yes I did. I havn't reviewed all 1000+ yet. Give me some time and I
> > may have some comments.
> >
> > Am I correct in inferring that in your above remark you are indicating
> > that you did not like my monkey coherence observation? It was an
> > independent, an non-linked, observation. Funny I thought. But perhaps
> > it requires a threshold level of coherence to laugh (at it).
> >
> >>
> >>>> The higher on the evolutionary scale, at
> >>>> least in the human perspective (where we're the highest), the
> > more often EEG coherence
> >>>> shows up. The explanation is that it apparently shows that
> > larger  brain structures are
> >>>> involved in problem solving.
> >
> > Since you were not forthcoming regarding my request for cites for the
> > studies behind your summary of the SA article, I bought the SA issue,
> > $5. And there were no cites of any published research the article or
> > behind your statement above.
> >
> > As I suspected might be the case, some is conjecture and speculation
> > of the SA article author or his speculation of what one of the
> > scientists might have speculated.
> >
> > Whew. Speculations can be fun, but thats not the same as peer reviewed
> > published research backing up the specualtion and personal
> > observations.(Though some readers bizarely imply, apparently, or
> > beleives, that all statements in SA are backed up by cited  published
> > research).
> >
> > And you remember or at least relayed to us more than what is actually
> > in the  article, IMO.
> 
> Are you implying that he was deliberately deceiving us?
> 
> I'm aghast.
>






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/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/
 


Reply via email to