--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > >> Understood. Though, for me that, and related, are the questions of > > interest: how does mainstream science use and measure the term BWC (or > > EEG coherence,etc); what is the significance of it, that is, is it a > > superior state, or one naturally found, is increasing BWC a good > > thing, etc. > > > > It's an interesting contradiction. In some contexts, EEG coherence is seen as a Very Good > Thing, and in others as a Very Bad Thing. Brain-damaged individuals often show EEG > coherence, presumably because the activity of the brain has not differentiated in a healthy > manner. Epileptics show EEG coherence due to abnormally firing neurons associated with > siezures. >
Is it clear when viewing or analyzing EEGs when coherence is good and when its bad? If not, do we know without doubt that the TM coherence is a good type. >From this list, but also from lots of people I have come across in the TMO, one could easily hypothesize that the TM type coherence diminishes cognitive and logical capabilities. ------------------------ 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/
