--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Although I have an obvious bias towards the hypnosis theory > > > > perspective on my own subjective experiences in TM over MMY's > > > > version, I am aware that there is a whole lot more interesting > > > > consciousness expansion information in these ancient systems. > > > > If we can get beyond the words used there is much to be > > > > learned from both perspectives that could be valuable. > > > > > > > > Thanks for your response. This topic fascinates me and > > > > any insights you or anyone else wants to share would be > > > > appreciated. > > > > > > Just as a data point, I'm one of those people who > > > is extremely resistant to hypnosis, but that didn't > > > seem to interfere with my TM experience. > > > > > > It may or may not be relevant in this context that > > > I had very little success generating alpha waves > > > on an EEG machine when I took a biofeedback course > > > (pre-TM). There was a distinct element of what I > > > think you would call "hypnotic induction" in the > > > instructions. > > > > > > And a caveat: You're coming awfully close to using > > > "hypnosis" to mean "anything that alters one's state > > > of consciousness." The broader you make your use of > > > the term, the less meaningful it becomes, and the less > > > useful for drawing the kinds of distinctions you're > > > looking to make. > > > > > > > There's no general concensus on how hypnosis affects the brain. > However, none of the > > studies claiming to show a consistent physical effect for hypnosis > that I glanced at showed > > the same EEG coherence pattern as TM. > > Why doesn't Fred/ MUM / anyone use brain imaging technology for > studies? EEG seems so primitive compared to what is available. > > Is it just cost? With donors kicking up `12mil / year, long-run, it > would seem a decent brain image machine could be leased / rented, > begged for, collaborated on, etc. if the effects are as substanial as > you believe, clear 3-D, high res, color, continuous images of thalmus, > and other areas, would rock the research world. And funding wnd > indpendent studies would sky-rocket. >
There's several points: *the equipment is incredibly expensive--I think a state-of-the-art machine is worth as much as MUM itself. *the physical resolution is amazing (down to a few cubic milimeters with the latest equipment) but the time-resolution sucks compared to EEG--minutes vs .01 seconds-- and samadhi lasts only a few seconds to a minute. *brain scanning is invasive--you can't do unlimited "takes" on a person in the same day for literal fear that you will fry their brain with heat and/or radiation. That said, they ARE doing scanning in some cases, in cooperation with the U of Iowa. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
