[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus. Note that professional apologists rarely apologize to those they have called liars in their attempts to defend the indefensible. Instead they often go off on a tangent, as if to prove that the thing they called the critic a liar for saying wasn't really as damning as implied. Wow, is Barry confused. Once again, he thinks he can tell what a discussion is about without having followed it. This isn't a tangent, it's the whole point: http://www.cascadiacon.org/Marc.htm Marc Abrahams is known for a number of things (most of them not worthy of arrestâ¦), but probably the two best-known things he has created are the Ig Nobel Prizes and his magazine, The Annals of Improbable Research. The Ig Nobel Prizes grow out of Marcâs belief that research ought to be recognized for being differentânot just good. He says of the Ig Nobel Prizes, âEach year, ten Ig Nobel Prizes are awarded. The selection criterion is simple: the prizes are for âachievements that cannot or should not be reproduced.â Examine that phrase carefullyâit covers a lot of ground. It says nothing about whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or pernicious. I raise this matter of good or bad, because the world in general seems to enjoy classifying things as being either one or the other. The Ig Nobel Prizes aside, most prizes, in most places, for most purposes, are clearly designed to sanctify the goodness or badness of the recipients. Every year, of the ten new Ig Nobel Prizes, about half are awarded for things that most people would say are commendable, if perhaps goofy. The other half go for things that are, in some people's eyes, less commendable. All such judgments are entirely up to each observer. Clearly, the professional apologist observer tends to see things differently than the less critical observer. :-) Barry's totally lost. I just think it's hilarious that I threw out the term professional apologist yesterday to taunt Judy into shooting the rest of her posting wad, and the moment she did and could no longer compul- sively defend anything about the Holy Research on TM, Lawson jumped into the fray. Barry, dear, what this discussion was about is whether an Ig Nobel Award is a judgment about the quality of the research for which it is given. Vaj and Hugheshugo have claimed it is such a judgment, but Lawson and I have quoted the guy who *invented* the awards saying that it is not. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that. Vaj and Hugheshugo are wrong, Lawson and I are right. You and Vaj and Hugheshugo are free to make your own judgments about the quality of ME research, *but you can't legitimately use the fact that it got an Ig Nobel as evidence*. You really, really need to learn to take the time to figure out what a discussion is about before you leap in to dump on the TMers' side of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? Why people like you don't like me, you mean? Not for a second. The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. Nope, if there's an apology to be made, it would be by you, given your first mention of the Ig Nobel: He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. As I pointed out (and you ignored), you were implying-- incorrectly--that the Ig Nobels are awarded for abandoning science or for not handing over data. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are. Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I don't agree with you about the ME. You sure? Let me correct you on that, I love science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape was Horizon I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so. My, we're a wee bit defensive, aren't we? I'm sure you love science; I never suggested otherwise. Nor did I say you were biased. You made that up. Quoting Marc Abrams, inventor of the Ig Nobels, again: The classic sequence of events for any breakthrough is: (1) Most people don't recognize its existence; then (2) When they do recognize it, their immediate reaction is to laugh or scoff at it; then (3) Some of those people become curious about this thing that they are laughing at, and then think about it, and so come to appreciate its true worth. (Notice that he doesn't specify whether true worth means very valuable or worthless.) What I meant by saying you aren't as faithful as the Ig Nobels to the spirit of scientific research is that you don't give the think about it part its full due, or at least you haven't with regard to Hagelin's research, as you go on to demonstrate: Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow-up page; 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly APS newsletter, WHAT'S NEW. It reads in part: The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of time-series analysis involving variables such as temperature and the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded, it was less than predicted. The weekly murder count was *not* less than predicted, no. In fact, no follow-up investigation was needed, as the study discussed the murder-rate anomaly in some detail. You might want to actually *read* the study sometime so you'll have some idea of what you're talking about and be able to see through Park's deliberately misleading report. Here is a more detailed version. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 Sad to say, this is even more misleading (and wildly inaccurate in places--e.g., the time-series analysis did *not* include fluctuations in Earth's magnetic field. If Park actually read the study, then he's telling a deliberate falsehood). After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know. It's amusing that you think I'm defending the ME. Instead of just assuming, why don't you *ask* me what I think of it? Wouldn't that be the more, er, scientific approach?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote: Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit from you: Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you can share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have time for wasted posts responding to a constant barrage of mischaracterizations which demand responses, strawmen/Judy's golem arguments and red herrings. Such pervasive dishonesty and consistent use of logical fallacy is something truly worth ignoring. Translation: Damn it, she keeps rubbing my nose in the inexplicable failure of my Buddhist researchers to take account of 20 years' worth of TM research. This failure makes them look really, really bad, and I don't have a coherent defense. We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to try to prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the cats meow and that world class scientists who get published in university textbooks just don't know what they're talking about. Actually, what I'm interested in is having the TM research given a fair shake and evaluated by unbiased scientists who don't have a personal stake either in exalting it or finding it wanting. Unfortunately, we can't expect to hear about that kind of evaluation from Vaj. But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and disgruntled text editors for scientific advice. LOL! Who's horribly and frantically desperate, again? Could it be the person who tries to discredit his opponent on the basis of her age? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. From the Ig Nobel Web site: The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is from the igNobel people as well. I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise, shall I say, entertaining. Nice try, but no cigar. and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. True dat. But should not be reproduced ain't quite the same thing, is it, now? Well actually the quote says cannot or should not. Right. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word or in Mr. Dictionary (and in particular, its distinction from the word and). So, in any event, the research you are referring to is pseudoscience. In your opinion. It's fine by Marc Abrams that you have an opinion, positive or negative. You just can't use the fact of the research having been awarded an Ig Nobel as evidence for that opinion. He's very clear and quite firm about that. Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try to make the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble? Yeah, too bad I had to quote from the guy who founded and still runs them in order to do it, ain't it? belly laugh (Note, of course, that I wasn't trying to make them look noble, simply pointing out that Vaj and Hugheshugo are wrong when they claim the Ig Nobels are intended as negative criticism.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. It's not astonishing at all (if it was, the scientists wouldn't have thought to look for it): chronic activation of the brain while doing specific motor tasks is known to increase cortical thickness in the areas activated by those tasks. The research is worth remarking on because it shows that activation of mental processes has the same affect, but its not astonishing. Its kinda predictable --which is what the scientists did: they predicted the effect and found confirmation. The REAL question: does this induced activation lead to behavioral changes? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote: Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was done on people reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they are already IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it at will is a strange concept. The key phrase here is what the reserachers considered CC. The fact is, if they were actually in turiyatita, since they'd be in samadhi 24/7/365 all they need to do is demonstrate: --the ability to change states of consciousness at will Yeah, the upanishads went into that in great detail as a requisite for the state... --the ability to hear what is going on externally to the meditator, while EEG shows it's in deep sleep. In fact, why would this be the case? One of hte indicators of sleep is that the thalamus shuts done connection to the outside world. Why would a condition (samadhi) where the brain reamins in a wakeful state while the thalamus shuts down connection to both the outside senses AND the inner sensory-feedback mechanism (thought) lead to some change in sleep where suddenly the thalamus is no longer doing what it used to do? etc. What we have here is simple 'sleight of hand'. They redefine CC from it's real yogic definition to what they think they can scrape up data for, dumbing it down and redefining it. This is an extremely deceitful and dishonest approach. Perhaps it is dumbed down, but given it is what MMY said about the subject for 50 years, its hardly redefining it in the TM researchers' minds. You're projecting a great deal here, I think. Now, if you're looking for someone who shows breath suspension non- stop for a full 20 minute meditation period, no-one has ever shown that in TM research. And I suspect, given the lack of the yogic methods to achieve that, we never will. As I said, one woman in the Kesterson study (I think, =maybe one of the others) was shown to enter the state for a minute or so at a time, for a total of 60% of the meditation period. The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid (Helen Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted about 60 percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at a time. Yes, those examples were from the Olson daughter I am told by a friend of hers. So you're aware of someone showing 60% of her time spent in the meditation state and you still say the above. That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And relaxing is good for most people. Tm isn't always relaxing. For me it was...other than some brief kundalini episodes. You've lived a quiet life, I think. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote: Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was done on people reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they are already IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it at will is a strange concept. The key phrase here is what the reserachers considered CC. The fact is, if they were actually in turiyatita, since they'd be in samadhi 24/7/365 all they need to do is demonstrate: --the ability to change states of consciousness at will Yeah, the upanishads went into that in great detail as a requisite for the state... Exactly, that's why the Mandukya-karika in the Shank. trad. is so important. You're not 'beyond the fourth' if you can't actually be beyond waking,sleeping and dreaming. It's common sense. --the ability to hear what is going on externally to the meditator, while EEG shows it's in deep sleep. In fact, why would this be the case? Because the fourth', turiya, is beyond waking, dreaming and sleeping of course. One of hte indicators of sleep is that the thalamus shuts done connection to the outside world. Why would a condition (samadhi) where the brain reamins in a wakeful state while the thalamus shuts down connection to both the outside senses AND the inner sensory-feedback mechanism (thought) lead to some change in sleep where suddenly the thalamus is no longer doing what it used to do? etc. What we have here is simple 'sleight of hand'. They redefine CC from it's real yogic definition to what they think they can scrape up data for, dumbing it down and redefining it. This is an extremely deceitful and dishonest approach. Perhaps it is dumbed down, but given it is what MMY said about the subject for 50 years, its hardly redefining it in the TM researchers' minds. You're projecting a great deal here, I think. Unless you actually got some sort of independent corroboration from the Shank. trad. itself or other yogis, you'd never know, would you? The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid (Helen Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted about 60 percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at a time. Yes, those examples were from the Olson daughter I am told by a friend of hers. So you're aware of someone showing 60% of her time spent in the meditation state and you still say the above. Yes. It's no big deal. As if often the case with Tm research, they're trying to make it look like something it is not. Unless the metabolic rate and heart rate really drops significantly, it's just an anomaly, that's all. In fact, yogic tradition warns about unconscious pauses in breathing in the untrained as dangerous. Of course what they'd like you to think is that these people are experiencing samadhi, but nothing could be further from the truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience came across as pretty weird. Ah, weird - Vaj's buzzword. The weirdest person around here is someone who thinks Buddhism is a missionary religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote: Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was done on people reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they are already IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it at will is a strange concept. The key phrase here is what the reserachers considered CC. The fact is, if they were actually in turiyatita, since they'd be in samadhi 24/7/365 all they need to do is demonstrate: --the ability to change states of consciousness at will Yeah, the upanishads went into that in great detail as a requisite for the state... Exactly, that's why the Mandukya-karika in the Shank. trad. is so important. You're not 'beyond the fourth' if you can't actually be beyond waking,sleeping and dreaming. It's common sense. --the ability to hear what is going on externally to the meditator, while EEG shows it's in deep sleep. In fact, why would this be the case? Because the fourth', turiya, is beyond waking, dreaming and sleeping of course. One of hte indicators of sleep is that the thalamus shuts done connection to the outside world. Why would a condition (samadhi) where the brain reamins in a wakeful state while the thalamus shuts down connection to both the outside senses AND the inner sensory-feedback mechanism (thought) lead to some change in sleep where suddenly the thalamus is no longer doing what it used to do? etc. What we have here is simple 'sleight of hand'. They redefine CC from it's real yogic definition to what they think they can scrape up data for, dumbing it down and redefining it. This is an extremely deceitful and dishonest approach. Perhaps it is dumbed down, but given it is what MMY said about the subject for 50 years, its hardly redefining it in the TM researchers' minds. You're projecting a great deal here, I think. Unless you actually got some sort of independent corroboration from the Shank. trad. itself or other yogis, you'd never know, would you? Well, Gurudev's oldest student thought very highly of MMY. YOu could claim it was all because they were in cahoots to kill the old man and make him the shankaracharya, I suppose... The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid (Helen Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted about 60 percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at a time. Yes, those examples were from the Olson daughter I am told by a friend of hers. So you're aware of someone showing 60% of her time spent in the meditation state and you still say the above. Yes. It's no big deal. As if often the case with Tm research, they're trying to make it look like something it is not. Unless the metabolic rate and heart rate really drops significantly, it's just an anomaly, that's all. In fact, yogic tradition warns about unconscious pauses in breathing in the untrained as dangerous. Ah, so, Helen Olson's 60% breath suspension is no big deal (even though no-one else in the world that you can point to in published research shows this) and is actually dangerous... Of course what they'd like you to think is that these people are experiencing samadhi, but nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, you're always right, because YOUR sources are correct and mine are incorrect, and that's that. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus. Note that professional apologists rarely apologize to those they have called liars in their attempts to defend the indefensible. Instead they often go off on a tangent, as if to prove that the thing they called the critic a liar for saying wasn't really as damning as implied. It is a quoate from teh editor of the magaizine and creator of the award. Here is a more complete quote: http://www.cascadiacon.org/Marc.htm Marc Abrahams is known for a number of things (most of them not worthy of arrestâ¦), but probably the two best-known things he has created are the Ig Nobel Prizes and his magazine, The Annals of Improbable Research. The Ig Nobel Prizes grow out of Marcâs belief that research ought to be recognized for being differentânot just good. He says of the Ig Nobel Prizes, âEach year, ten Ig Nobel Prizes are awarded. The selection criterion is simple: the prizes are for âachievements that cannot or should not be reproduced.â Examine that phrase carefullyâit covers a lot of ground. It says nothing about whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or pernicious. I raise this matter of good or bad, because the world in general seems to enjoy classifying things as being either one or the other. The Ig Nobel Prizes aside, most prizes, in most places, for most purposes, are clearly designed to sanctify the goodness or badness of the recipients. Every year, of the ten new Ig Nobel Prizes, about half are awarded for things that most people would say are commendable, if perhaps goofy. The other half go for things that are, in some people's eyes, less commendable. All such judgments are entirely up to each observer. Clearly, the professional apologist observer tends to see things differently than the less critical observer. :-) I just think it's hilarious that I threw out the term professional apologist yesterday to taunt Judy into shooting the rest of her posting wad, and the moment she did and could no longer compul- sively defend anything about the Holy Research on TM, Lawson jumped into the fray. I *still* say that these folks have a career wait- ing for them in politics. There, the proven tendency to call critics liars just because they ARE critics will be considered a plus.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here Vaj, and how much more of your life will you waste on this huge exaggeration of yours? You sound like a broken record, that no-one listens to. Reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that knock on my door from time to time. I am sure Vaj has the same missionary zeal to convert us all to Buddhism, away from 'evil' TM. Does anyone else find it fascinating that Tru-Blue TMers perceive anyone *mentioning* another path -- even when they do NOT push or sell it, or, as Vaj does, NEVER push or sell it, and fail to even mention any links or lectures or any way any- one would go about signing up for it -- as an attempt to convert them. I would suggest that this is a far more interesting phenomenon than Vaj's bias in favor of good science. It suggests to me that all the decades of demonizing anyone who even *reads* about another spiritual path other than TM -- let alone visits another teacher or tries another technique -- has WORKED. The TMers are so terrified of being perceived as going off the program that they interpret even a mention of another path as an attempt to lure them off of the highest path. Fortunately, there are a few people here who resisted this indoctrination, and still seem to have minds that function. I'm sure they will be able to sift through what is bias in Vaj's posts and what is not. Personally, I don't think that anyone needs the professional apologists to translate for the rest of us and keep repeating their consistent message: that *everything* he says is some kind of hit against TM, and that *everything* he says is not to be trusted. That is their consistent -- and only -- message, whereas Vaj seems to have something to say. Just my opinion...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote: Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was done on people reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they are already IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it at will is a strange concept. The key phrase here is what the reserachers considered CC. The fact is, if they were actually in turiyatita, since they'd be in samadhi 24/7/365 all they need to do is demonstrate: --the ability to change states of consciousness at will --the ability to hear what is going on externally to the meditator, while EEG shows it's in deep sleep. etc. What we have here is simple 'sleight of hand'. They redefine CC from it's real yogic definition to what they think they can scrape up data for, dumbing it down and redefining it. This is an extremely deceitful and dishonest approach. Now, if you're looking for someone who shows breath suspension non- stop for a full 20 minute meditation period, no-one has ever shown that in TM research. And I suspect, given the lack of the yogic methods to achieve that, we never will. The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid (Helen Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted about 60 percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at a time. Yes, those examples were from the Olson daughter I am told by a friend of hers. That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And relaxing is good for most people. Tm isn't always relaxing. For me it was...other than some brief kundalini episodes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience came across as pretty weird. On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:02 PM, gruntlespam wrote: Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. I don't remember her using the words pure research or even saying there was anything special other than the fact the TM people had done a lot of it; in fact she is suspicious of them it seems from the beginning because as a trained physicist she knew the unified field crapola was just bunk. No wool pulled over her eyes. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. She also comments on watching them Mad! as if to say 'this is really pretty whacky'. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. Yeah I got that too. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice- over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. But still it's pretty well known that unified field theories are describing the grossest physicalities and in no way are associated with consciousness. If she would have heard Hagelin--esp. if he used his castrato-TMers voice schtick--I can easily see her fleeing FFafter all she's not easily fooled. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Well they probably told her. When they take her to the teleconference she's sitting in front of a huge frickin' poster that says Global Country of World Peace in that Adobe Illustrator looking style they're so fond of. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. WTF was it with that guy? They get the video feed working and here's this guy meditating. So they wait for him to come out of TM. He seemed like a TM android. Cult! Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. Well, really she eventually, as a scientist, gets to the final part of research: the reviews that physicians use--and she finds that the TM research she'd seen touted and hailed all over the web and by the TMO, was actually when looked at honestly was rather ho-hum and insignificant. She'd been mislead. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit- players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. Who knows? Counting money I guess.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience came across as pretty weird. On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:02 PM, gruntlespam wrote: Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. I don't remember her using the words pure research or even saying there was anything special other than the fact the TM people had done a lot of it; in fact she is suspicious of them it seems from the beginning because as a trained physicist she knew the unified field crapola was just bunk. No wool pulled over her eyes. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. She also comments on watching them Mad! as if to say 'this is really pretty whacky'. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. Yeah I got that too. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice- over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. But still it's pretty well known that unified field theories are describing the grossest physicalities and in no way are associated with consciousness. If she would have heard Hagelin--esp. if he used his castrato-TMers voice schtick--I can easily see her fleeing FFafter all she's not easily fooled. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Well they probably told her. When they take her to the teleconference she's sitting in front of a huge frickin' poster that says Global Country of World Peace in that Adobe Illustrator looking style they're so fond of. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. WTF was it with that guy? They get the video feed working and here's this guy meditating. So they wait for him to come out of TM. He seemed like a TM android. Cult! Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. Well, really she eventually, as a scientist, gets to the final part of research: the reviews that physicians use--and she finds that the TM research she'd seen touted and hailed all over the web and by the TMO, was actually when looked at honestly was rather ho-hum and insignificant. She'd been mislead. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit- players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. Who knows? Counting money I guess. Vaj, you're so cynical. He had other people to count the money!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. I heard that Lawrence Domash said to MMY about no-one knowing if consciousness was the UF and MMY said WE are the leaders of this field How far would any of them have got in the TMO if they'd put their foot down and said let's stick to the facts? What are you supposed to do if you have a new fact nobody else knows about yet? Discard it? First you establish if it is indeed a new fact (and not wishful thinking due to having to fit in with your gurus teachings). Then you check against current theories to see if it is compatible with the latest ideas. If it isn't you have to prove that the other theories are wrong. I wish JH luck in that as his ideas haven't given anyone much trouble so far. snip Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? How the data was manipulated is what people are interested in, JH refused to hand over his work, which is just one of the reasons no- one took it seriously and he ended up with the Ignobel rather than the real thing. FWIW I would be overjoyed if it does turn out that JH is right and my meditating has had a positive effect on the world but I won't lose sleep if, as I suspect, it doesn't. Why can't people just be happy doing it rather than telling everyone it lowers crime rates, brought down the berlin wall, controls the weather, is responsible for the massive upsurge in positivity in the world etc etc. Can't we just get on with enjoying it rather than having to think we know everything and are the only people that are going to save the world. It's megalomania.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Big difference, one that I learned hanging out with scientists from the National Labs at Los Alamos. Scientists don't get groupies. You can be doing the best cutting-edge research in the world -- real megadeath stuff -- and does it help you get laid on a Saturday night? Noo. But being a big fish in a small pond...? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein Locksmiths get more groupies than scientists, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. Of course it is... But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. Er, but not in a survey of research, where there is a 20 year gap... Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research, but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. But, replications of no effect studies are a dime a dozen. The smaller the study, the more likely it is to find no effect, so in fact, no effect studies are CHEAPER to do then studies that have a decent chance of finding an effect. It's called statistical power. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question? However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not examined... For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies between 1986 and 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the first studies on the correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published--the studies that prompted Robert Forman to coin the term Pure Consciousness Episode/Experience AKA PCE. Google that term and you'll find its a very common term used in philosophical and theoretical discussions of meditation in general, even though the only research on that topic is done on TMers. In the other study that Vaj cited, 65 TM studies that fit the criteria for inclusion were inexplicably ignored by the researchers, even though the researchers were explicitly informed of their existence by one of the peer-reviewers in his critique of the paper before it was published. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? Yo: any and all studies from 1986 to 2004 are possible candidates for inclusion. Many of the studies might not have met their criteria for inclusion, but to suggest that NONE of the literally 100+ studies published in that time met the criteria while a whole mess of studies from the period 1973 to 1986 (which was a rather sparse period for TM research, BTW, with only a few dozen studies published), did, is to be, well Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:08 AM, gruntlespam wrote: On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb- down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. While pilot-style research has been going on for years, really good research is just starting by and large. I haven't really seen any good research from the TMO, with controls, lack of bias, etc. There has however been some good independent research on TM since the heyday of the TMO, but it sadly reverses many of the specious claims of the TMO. Of course, the study done by SKip Alexander of MUM along with researchers from Harvard, where each researcher was a proponent of a different form of meditation (TM, Benson's Relaxation Response and Mindfulness), done with randomized subjjects in a double-blind controlled study, which found that TM worked better than the other techniques on a variety of measures, couldn't possibly be a good study, even though it is one of the only studies ever done on any form of meditation where the researchers attempted to control expectations by having meditation teachers (each trained by proponents of that respective meditation technique) to present positive research and lectures on the subject. Nyah, couldn't possibly be a good study cause 1) it found something positive about TM compared to other techniques; 2) Vaj never heard of it; 3) was larger than most other controlled studies on meditation of any kind ever conducted. Lawson And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. :-) But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. It was a major step forward for neuroplasticity as a real phenomenon. Some of the new research from that same lab is just astounding and seeing publication in major, highly reputed journals. Hold onto your seat as in the next two years you're going to be seeing the results of the most detailed research on meditation yet, with controls, excellent study design and no bias.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great summary links. Thanks. With all those descriptive parts directly written about other techniques in these papers, anyone in the dome probably ought to have their badges revoked immediately for just reading these papers. Worst than confusing, this material is outright corrupting to the security of the teaching. ..have you ever visited any research of other spiritual technologies? Only to someone with an anti-TM bias. To a neutral party, theBuddhist meditation research is, at best, as suspect as the TM research. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes, she may have asked to film the teaching or asked for a freebie... The fee would not have been an issue. The Beeb has deep pockets. Don't forget that the programme was pitched for the layman, although she touched on advanced topics. The tragedy is that the price structure and organisation in the UK is not capable of making the most of the event. What is Vedic City ? MIU? Is so, a bit pretentious. Anyway, where is your cathedral? Tell me it isn't the dome. Uns. Actually, Vedic City is a genuine city in Iowa that sits next door to MUM. They have a website. Note the last part of the URL: http://www.maharishivediccity-iowa.gov/ Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. And, true to APA form, these writers refer to each and every point they are making by a parenthetical citation. All others--in other different meditation studies--need not be included as they are quite able to cover all their assertions with what they are currently using. It makes no sense whatsoever to include studies for the sake of writing their names as references. And of course such strawman thinking does also not support your rather odd claim that 'because TM studies are omitted, they haven't read them'. They had all the citations needed. Of course if the actual purpose of the paper was to examine all TM studies, then they could be in error. But that is clearly not the case with this paper. But, Vaj, they only looked at studies published in the 70's through 1986 and based their conclusions about TM on those studies. They didn't lok at anything newer save one 2004 study which they dismissed as not containing any physiological evidence for its conclusions, which is certainly true, because the abstract clearly identified it as a psychological study--a followup on an earlier physiological study on the same group of people. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) � People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. So, the TMers are guilty of bias, while the Buddhist researchers, who are on record (according to the mp3 file you referred us to recently) as saying that they have always believed that Buddhist meditation doesn't need scientific confirmation, are beyond bias... [much speculation about the dishonorable practices of TM researchers snipt] Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. No, this is yet more disingenuity. One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored the two most recent decades' worth of published studies. That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with APA form, as you know, or any of the other red herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in. It would have made sense for them to have ignored the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the most recent ones that dealt with the topics they chose to discuss. You clearly have little background in or understanding of science. I'm sorry Judy, you're TB faith in TM research, all it tells me is that you believe what you're told, with little critical comprehension or understanding. Nothing any of of us can say or do will shake your belief in the bible of McMeditation research, so I won't pretend to be surprised at your wind-up doll retorts. But thanks anyway. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:47 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. We'd really need to examine the data closely as TM researchers in the past have been very clever at the way the hide things and deceive. Given a past history of fraudulent conclusions There is no such past history, as Vaj knows. That's *his* highly biased conclusion, not an established fact. No it was (and repeatedly replicated, an important part of science Judy) actually a group of independent scientists who investigated TM researchers claims way back in the 80's!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent by accident before I finished typing it. So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an explanation for why they would just ignore twenty years worth of research. If true, that is suspect on the face of it. Whaddaya say, Vaj? There's no evidence that they ignored anything. All of the claims they make covering meditation research have citations backing their claims. So unless there's some specific area that is missing a valid, scientific claim, there's no need for more citations. This is just another Judy red herring. What they have done, and most TB's who spout TM research clearly aren't aware of, TM was investigated rigorously and independently long ago. Many TM falsehoods were shown to be just that, decades ago. These results were dupicated by other independent scientists at that time. In some cases you have 4 investigations, all independent researchers in agreement and 1 study by Tm researchers with varying data (and of course, conclusions). Through such investigation they were able to reach sound conclusions on TM in regards to blood pressure and the nature of the Tm relaxation technique by using adequate controls. So unless TM has somehow changed in the interim, the original findings still stand as good and valid science. We see the same trends in other corporations like oil companies who want to constantly counter established science on global warming by seeding doubt with questionable research. The idea isn't to plant the seeds of truth, it's to sell their product and falsely alter collective opinion by mass dissemination of lies and spin.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. Of course it is... But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, Another red herring. It wasn't written by Buddhist meditators in was written by Neuroscientists, one of which has studied Hindu, Buddhist and transcendental meditation. In other words, he's an expert in meditation research, including TM! whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, so it's only natural to be suspicious if you're a scientist (if you're not, you might not even notice). They lost credibility decades ago. Not to mention the natural bias present when researchers promoting a product try to push their own research.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question? However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not examined... For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies between 1986 and 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the first studies on the correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published Unfortunately none of these meet the criteria for samadhi. Maybe they should've called it Maharishi samadhi? :-) TM does not range outside of normal human circadian rhythms according to independent researchers. And the apnea study is so biased and non-randomized that I doubt a real scientist would even consider it science. The fact is, there no examples in TM lit. of samadhi at all, just theoretical conclusions they expect us to accept as beliefs. In order to do so they'd have to show that they had attained samadhi, in which case they'd be able to go into samadhi at will, for whatever length of time they chose and be unperturbed by their environment. This level of attainment is not present in even long term TMers. After 30+ years, it's seriously doubtful they ever will. That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And relaxing is good for most people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson Oh how convenient, he's just so ar ahead. That probably explains why, when I stopped at the local, very large and well stocked bookshop and checked the indexes of every physics book in there, I couldn't find his name anywhere. Surely someone who has finished Einsteins work would get a footnote or two at the very least. Perhaps the deafening silence of the rest of the scientific world actually speaks very loudly indeed. I think Penrose at least might have given the guy a mention. Him being the only other advocate of any sort of quantum theory of consciousness I'm aware of, though definitely not the UF variety, not yet anyway and as he's a genuine working scientist he won't be making unsubstantiated claims about the ultimate nature of reality in a hurry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Big difference, one that I learned hanging out with scientists from the National Labs at Los Alamos. Scientists don't get groupies. You can be doing the best cutting-edge research in the world -- real megadeath stuff -- and does it help you get laid on a Saturday night? Noo. But being a big fish in a small pond...? I'm shocked! I would have thought diddling with particle accelerators all day would be an absolute sure-fire babe magnet. I'm going to stop opening dates with a discussion on macro evolution in the cambrian fossil record and see if I get any better results, or anything at all for that matter ;-) I'd love to know if JH feels it's better to have a little crown and be thought of as world renowned by the very few left in the TMO than be working at CERN and be pushing boundaries. The TMO are so convinced that he can revive their fortunes that they have sent out a 40DVD pack to centres everywhere and have instructed them to charge people to listen. Apparently MMY said that if anyone wants to know what he thinks they should ask JH! This has obviously made everyone think JH is enlightened, which wouldn't hurt the groupie count I'll bet. Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein Locksmiths get more groupies than scientists, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, but it's interesting to hear, I shall look into that one, I wonder why he thought they were dishonest. As far as I know they were just totally crap at science, they failed to take into account the fact that a field effect would naturally have an affect in all directions and there was no corresponding upsurge in positivity in nearby Jerusalem. And they didn't take religious holidays into account, it's rubbish even I can see that. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. If the TMO really cared about science, they would put their hands up and say Oops! we'll have another go. They could stop the Iraq war for instance, actually I remember there are already enough pundits to have done that. And enough to have made America invincible. God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel guilty. He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, OK, let's see your documentation, please, for Hagelin having refused to release his (publicly available) data. but it's interesting to hear, I shall look into that one, I wonder why he thought they were dishonest. As far as I know they were just totally crap at science, they failed to take into account the fact that a field effect would naturally have an affect in all directions and there was no corresponding upsurge in positivity in nearby Jerusalem. And they didn't take religious holidays into account, it's rubbish even I can see that. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. Um, yes, I'm very well aware of that. Have you read Orme-Johnson's *response* to the critics? snip He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish. Actually, on the basis of this from you: He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the Ig Nobels are awarded for abandoning science or for not handing over data, because if you did, that would be hard evidence that you're a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for. So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:46 AM, hugheshugo wrote: God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel guilty. I know how you feel!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, OK, let's see your documentation, please, for Hagelin having refused to release his (publicly available) data. I read it somewhere, not good enough? Sorry it's all I can be bothered to look for just now and that isn't an admission that I'm wrong I just can't be arsed, this argument goes round and round and round the simple facts are if all this research was so good why did nobody believe it? Could it be that it's too easy to disprove? Just google it and look I can't be bothered to wade through it again, I've read it all a million times. As we know, scientists, don't believe it so the TMO should do it again, but wait! They are doing it on the invincible america course! And the result is.. No, it doesn't need an answer does it. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. Um, yes, I'm very well aware of that. Have you read Orme-Johnson's *response* to the critics? Yes, I didn't find it particularly convincing, if it's a field it either works as a field or it doesn't in which case stop calling it one. Jesus, does anyone on here actually think the war in Lebanon was affected by the ME? I think it's an insult to the peope who died, it's time for the TMO to prove it or shut up about it as far as I'm concerned. Can't we just talk about movies or something it's a lot more fun, remember fun? snip He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish. Actually, on the basis of this from you: He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the Ig Nobels are awarded for abandoning science or for not handing over data, because if you did, that would be hard evidence that you're a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for. So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? God, this is tedious. They are awarded for research that cannot or should not be reproduced. The end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit from you: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. From the Ig Nobel Web site: The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. True dat. But should not be reproduced ain't quite the same thing, is it, now? According to Marc Abrams, the founder of the awards, in no way is the Ig Nobel intended as criticism. Among the benefits of an Ig Nobel Award, as he notes in an essay on what the awards are and are not: Your breakthrough might go unnoticed. Say you have done something that you - and some other people - believe to be very, very good and maybe even very, very important. But most people don't recognize its importance. Worse, most people don't even recognize its existence. It's different from what they expect or what they have ever run across. What you have, you believe, is a breakthrough. The classic sequence of events for any breakthrough is: (1) Most people don't recognize its existence. (2) When they do recognize it, their immediate reaction is to laugh or scoff at it. (3) Some of those people become curious about this thing that they are laughing at, and then think about it, and so come to appreciate its true worth. The Ig provides much-needed publicity. So there you have a nice little benefit of the Ig Nobel Prizes. If you've done something people chuckle at and you win an Ig, then more people will hear about it. And maybe some of those people will also become curious, and will think about what you've accomplished, and fall in love with it. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/miscellaneous/what-is-this-2000.html http://tinyurl.com/39f66o The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote: Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit from you: Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you can share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have time for wasted posts responding to a constant barrage of mischaracterizations which demand responses, strawmen/Judy's golem arguments and red herrings. Such pervasive dishonesty and consistent use of logical fallacy is something truly worth ignoring. We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to try to prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the cats meow and that world class scientists who get published in university textbooks just don't know what they're talking about. But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and disgruntled text editors for scientific advice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. From the Ig Nobel Web site: The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is from the igNobel people as well. I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise, shall I say, entertaining. Nice try, but no cigar. and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. True dat. But should not be reproduced ain't quite the same thing, is it, now? Well actually the quote says cannot or should not. So, in any event, the research you are referring to is pseudoscience. Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try to make the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are. Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape was Horizon I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so. Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow- up page; 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly APS newsletter, WHAT'S NEW. It reads in part: The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of time-series analysis involving variables such as temperature and the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded, it was less than predicted. Here is a more detailed version. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are. Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape was Horizon I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so. Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow- up page; 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly APS newsletter, WHAT'S NEW. It reads in part: The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of time-series analysis involving variables such as temperature and the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded, it was less than predicted. Here is a more detailed version. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson Oh how convenient, he's just so ar ahead. That probably explains why, when I stopped at the local, very large and well stocked bookshop and checked the indexes of every physics book in there, I couldn't find his name anywhere. Surely someone who has finished Einsteins work would get a footnote or two at the very least. Well, as I said above, I'm not claiming his current theories are valid. However, John's early work, which got him the most fame, was done on Flipped SU(5) AFTER he had his discussions about Vedic Cosmology with MMY. Perhaps the deafening silence of the rest of the scientific world actually speaks very loudly indeed. I think Penrose at least might have given the guy a mention. Him being the only other advocate of any sort of quantum theory of consciousness I'm aware of, though definitely not the UF variety, not yet anyway and as he's a genuine working scientist he won't be making unsubstantiated claims about the ultimate nature of reality in a hurry. Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're philosophical in nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his philisophical discussions with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis of his fame and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well. Lwson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. Of course it is... But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, Another red herring. It wasn't written by Buddhist meditators in was written by Neuroscientists, one of which has studied Hindu, Buddhist and transcendental meditation. In other words, he's an expert in meditation research, including TM! He wrote a few studies on TM 30 years ago, and stopped publishing on meditation until 2004. That's, interestingly enough, the time-frame (1980s and 1990s) when TM research started being more rigorous--after MIU got accredited. whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, so it's only natural to be suspicious if you're a scientist (if you're not, you might not even notice). They lost credibility decades ago. Not to mention the natural bias present when researchers promoting a product try to push their own research. Well, Davidson is often represented as the head of the Dali Lama's team to research (validate) Buddhist meditation. BUt this is somehow different than pushing Buddhist meditation? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the front page anymore. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Yes. Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a blinkered bigot?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent by accident before I finished typing it. So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an explanation for why they would just ignore twenty years worth of research. If true, that is suspect on the face of it. Whaddaya say, Vaj? There's no evidence that they ignored anything. They didn't cite a single study on TM publsihed betweeen 1986 and 2004 n the section where they discuss TM and the 2004 study they mention, they dismiss as not being based on phsyiological research, which is of coursed, true, since the 2004 study was a psychological study done as a followup on a previous physiological study. All of the claims they make covering meditation research have citations backing their claims. So unless there's some specific area that is missing a valid, scientific claim, there's no need for more citations. This is just another Judy red herring. Except they don't consider physiological research done on TM after 1986 when they dismiss TM claims made in 2004. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question? However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not examined... For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies between 1986 and 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the first studies on the correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published Unfortunately none of these meet the criteria for samadhi. Maybe they should've called it Maharishi samadhi? :-) They call it episodes of transcendental consciousness or pure consciousness, and researchers (not TMers) have found the research compelling enough to refer to the state as PCE TM does not range outside of normal human circadian rhythms according to independent researchers. And the apnea study is so biased and non-randomized that I doubt a real scientist would even consider it science. Not all research need be randomized. If you're looking at claims of the existence of a state, you lok for markers of that state in people who claim the state occurs, NOT in the general population. Once you find markers for the state, you can do randomized studies, but until you find the markers, there's no point. Now, in fact, randomized studies on people who practice TM HAVE been done examining the occurance/non-occurance of those *previously established markers*, but the initial Kesterson study wasn't randomized because it wasn't that kind of study. ANy more than a study on monks with 20,000 hours of meditation experience is a randomized study... The fact is, there no examples in TM lit. of samadhi at all, just theoretical conclusions they expect us to accept as beliefs. Well, technically, they are physiological markers of self-reports of transcendental consciousness. That these physiological markers don't fit what YOU consider to be real samadhi is a topic all its own. Find modern studies done with modern equipment in laboratory settings of a dozen or two people showing what YOU consider to be the right physiological markers for samadhi. In order to do so they'd have to show that they had attained samadhi, in which case they'd be able to go into samadhi at will, for whatever length of time they chose and be unperturbed by their environment. This level of attainment is not present in even long term TMers. After 30+ years, it's seriously doubtful they ever will. Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was done on people reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year. Obviously, since they are already IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it at will is a strange concept. Now, if you're looking for someone who shows breath suspension non-stop for a full 20 minute meditation period, no-one has ever shown that in TM research. The closest is a woman who learned TM about 50 years ago when she was a kid (Helen Olson I suspect) who showed breath suspension periods that in total, lasted about 60 percent of a 10 minute meditation session, but they were only a minute or so at a time. That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And relaxing is good for most people. Tm isn't always relaxing. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're philosophical in nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his philisophical discussions with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis of his fame and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well. Lawson Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had flipped (no pun). It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit, I shall have to check that though and find a reference as this is the most important bit about the discussion I think, and it's bound to be a bit contentious. But til then, don't go all Judy on me and assume I'm picking fights for nothing. PS JH sytarted a hi-fi company called Enlightened Audio Design, I've heard some, it's rather good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: [...] As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. No, this is yet more disingenuity. One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored the two most recent decades' worth of published studies. That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with APA form, as you know, or any of the other red herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in. It would have made sense for them to have ignored the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the most recent ones that dealt with the topics they chose to discuss. You clearly have little background in or understanding of science. I'm sorry Judy, you're TB faith in TM research, all it tells me is that you believe what you're told, with little critical comprehension or understanding. Nothing any of of us can say or do will shake your belief in the bible of McMeditation research, so I won't pretend to be surprised at your wind-up doll retorts. But thanks anyway. :-) But, the section of the paper that examines TM research was in fact, examining TM research as the topic of that section, so to ignore the 20 years most recent research in the section examining TM research IS to ignore 20 years of research on the topic of that section... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Actually, the current website says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the front page anymore. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Yes. Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a blinkered bigot? Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say any more as though it does in order to support your argument... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? You barged into the bank and shouted, I've got a mind and I'm not afraid to use it? :-) The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. Now you've done it. Didn't you read the sign? http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ominouswarning.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2pryy7 :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're philosophical in nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his philisophical discussions with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis of his fame and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well. Lawson Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had flipped (no pun). I already posted his SLAC blibliography. John Started TM when he was 17 while recovering from a sking incident. According to people who knew him in college, he was already discussing how things like levitation might work on a QM level. Now, in grad and post-grad school, he published some well-respected papers on physics (top-cite 500+ according to SLAC) but his most important work, Flipped (SU) 5, didn't get published until AFTER he met with MMY in Switzerland. According to an interview John gave 20 years ago, he went back to his desk and started going through various GUT studies trying to see which fit most closely with MMY's exposition on Vedic Cosmology. He found that FLipped SU(5) was the closested philosophical fit. After some tweaking to make it fit even closer to MMY's theories, he realized that the modifications actually made the theory *stronger* from a Western scientific perspective, and faxed John Ellis at CERN the initial tweak with the note Isn't this the sweetest little theory. Ellis and John Haglein had already published research with Nanapolous when John and Ellis worked for Nanopolous in grad school, so Ellis contacted him directly with john's fax and the 3 started a decade-long collaboration on FLipped SU(5) and related issues. It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit His layman's discussions certainly go out on a limb, but his two initial papers on the subject, while philosophical in nature, don't include anything outside the mainstream of Physics EXCEPT to note the correlations between Vedic Cosmology and Quantum field theories (which is crazy enough in most PHysicists eyes). Certainly, I've never heard anyone claim that the math and analysis presented in those two papers is wrong, only that the premise (and conclusion) is completely insane simply because *it is* --the people who can read the papers all the way through generally don't. Ellis and Nanopolous likely DID read them all the way through because John published them at the start of their collaboration, but they continued working with him for another 5-10 years after he published those two papers. One is available online. I've been trying for years to get John to make the other available but my emails are ignored. Typical TM movement crap. They ignore my suggestion to put models of the TM building projects in Second LIfe too. They ignored my calls to set up internet presence at the start of John's second Presidential campaign also. Typical TM (but also typical political attitude from that period for everyone). 33) Is Consciousness The Unified Field? (A Field Theorist's Perspective). John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . RX-1131 (MAHARISHI-INT'L), MIU-THP- 86-015, (Received Aug 1986). 115pp. Published in Mod.Sci. Vedic Sci.1: 29, 1986. 60) Restructuring Physics From Its Foundation In Light Of Maharishi's Vedic Science. John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . MIU-THP-89-48, Sep 1989. 125pp. scanned version: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227 John's SLACk bibliography: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www? rawcmd=FIND+A+HAGELINFORMAT=wwwSEQUENCE=ds Lawson , I shall have to check that though and find a reference as this is the most important bit about the discussion I think, and it's bound to be a bit contentious. But til then, don't go all Judy on me and assume I'm picking fights for nothing. PS JH sytarted a hi-fi company called Enlightened Audio Design, I've heard some, it's rather good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the front page anymore. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Yes. Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a blinkered bigot? Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say any more as though it does in order to support your argument... Lawson But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? You barged into the bank and shouted, I've got a mind and I'm not afraid to use it? :-) The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. Now you've done it. Didn't you read the sign? http://www.photobasement.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/ominouswarning.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2pryy7 :-) Now that made me laugh!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're philosophical in nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his philisophical discussions with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis of his fame and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well. Lawson Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had flipped (no pun). I already posted his SLAC blibliography. John Started TM when he was 17 while recovering from a sking incident. According to people who knew him in college, he was already discussing how things like levitation might work on a QM level. Now, in grad and post-grad school, he published some well-respected papers on physics (top-cite 500+ according to SLAC) but his most important work, Flipped (SU) 5, didn't get published until AFTER he met with MMY in Switzerland. According to an interview John gave 20 years ago, he went back to his desk and started going through various GUT studies trying to see which fit most closely with MMY's exposition on Vedic Cosmology. He found that FLipped SU(5) was the closested philosophical fit. After some tweaking to make it fit even closer to MMY's theories, he realized that the modifications actually made the theory *stronger* from a Western scientific perspective, and faxed John Ellis at CERN the initial tweak with the note Isn't this the sweetest little theory. Ellis and John Haglein had already published research with Nanapolous when John and Ellis worked for Nanopolous in grad school, so Ellis contacted him directly with john's fax and the 3 started a decade-long collaboration on FLipped SU(5) and related issues. It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit His layman's discussions certainly go out on a limb, but his two initial papers on the subject, while philosophical in nature, don't include anything outside the mainstream of Physics EXCEPT to note the correlations between Vedic Cosmology and Quantum field theories (which is crazy enough in most PHysicists eyes). Certainly, I've never heard anyone claim that the math and analysis presented in those two papers is wrong, only that the premise (and conclusion) is completely insane simply because *it is* --the people who can read the papers all the way through generally don't. Ellis and Nanopolous likely DID read them all the way through because John published them at the start of their collaboration, but they continued working with him for another 5-10 years after he published those two papers. One is available online. I've been trying for years to get John to make the other available but my emails are ignored. Typical TM movement crap. They ignore my suggestion to put models of the TM building projects in Second LIfe too. They ignored my calls to set up internet presence at the start of John's second Presidential campaign also. Typical TM (but also typical political attitude from that period for everyone). 33) Is Consciousness The Unified Field? (A Field Theorist's Perspective). John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . RX-1131 (MAHARISHI- INT'L), MIU-THP- 86-015, (Received Aug 1986). 115pp. Published in Mod.Sci. Vedic Sci.1: 29, 1986. 60) Restructuring Physics From Its Foundation In Light Of Maharishi's Vedic Science. John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . MIU-THP-89-48, Sep 1989. 125pp. scanned version: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227 John's SLACk bibliography: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www? rawcmd=FIND+A+HAGELINFORMAT=wwwSEQUENCE=ds Lawson Thank you for the info and links I shall have a good read at my leisure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. Are you implying that I didn't get that quote from the organisers of the Igs? It's the one they have always used, but it isn't on the front page anymore. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Yes. Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson I like that quote, I shall use that in future, but Sparaig it's not just the one critic. I've been reading about this for years, I used to work for the TMO, I've done WPA's I have honestly honestly thought about it more than just reading a few websites. Do I come over as a blinkered bigot? Well, yes. When you quote something that the website doesn't say any more as though it does in order to support your argument... Lawson But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to check I was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they always say, that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. Jesus. It is a quoate from teh editor of the magaizine and creator of the award. Here is a more complete quote: http://www.cascadiacon.org/Marc.htm Marc Abrahams is known for a number of things (most of them not worthy of arrestâ¦), but probably the two best-known things he has created are the Ig Nobel Prizes and his magazine, The Annals of Improbable Research. The Ig Nobel Prizes grow out of Marcâs belief that research ought to be recognized for being differentânot just good. He says of the Ig Nobel Prizes, âEach year, ten Ig Nobel Prizes are awarded. The selection criterion is simple: the prizes are for âachievements that cannot or should not be reproduced.â Examine that phrase carefullyâit covers a lot of ground. It says nothing about whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or pernicious. I raise this matter of good or bad, because the world in general seems to enjoy classifying things as being either one or the other. The Ig Nobel Prizes aside, most prizes, in most places, for most purposes, are clearly designed to sanctify the goodness or badness of the recipients. Every year, of the ten new Ig Nobel Prizes, about half are awarded for things that most people would say are commendable, if perhaps goofy. The other half go for things that are, in some people's eyes, less commendable. All such judgments are entirely up to each observer. This makes the Prizes potentially useful in a very nice, and very powerful, way.â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here Vaj, and how much more of your life will you waste on this huge exaggeration of yours? You sound like a broken record, that no-one listens to. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here Vaj, and how much more of your life will you waste on this huge exaggeration of yours? You sound like a broken record, that no-one listens to. OffWorld Reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that knock on my door from time to time. I am sure Vaj has the same missionary zeal to convert us all to Buddhism, away from 'evil' TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished watching the program... She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice- over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. I'm positive she would have been even more sceptical after meeting Hagelin, he can be as eloquent as he likes as he talks a load of crap and undoubtably knows it, the only physicists that still entertain the CasUF idea are the what the bleep crowd and I'm sure that if pushed they would admit that it's just one idea among many, either that or they disqualify themselves as genuine scientists. Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes, she may have asked to film the teaching or asked for a freebie. Or maybe just assumed that all meditation techniques are the same and therefore already knew what was going on. But I doubt that, I worked for the press office and no-one ever got away without a major lecture and a few hundred info sheets to read. They probably just freaked her out. People in the TMO really think that Hagelin has finished Einstiens work and is the greatest scientist ever. All because MMY told them so, not many physicists would be impressed with that. Outraged actually.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Just finished watching the program... She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice- over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. I'm positive she would have been even more sceptical after meeting Hagelin, he can be as eloquent as he likes as he talks a load of crap and undoubtably knows it, the only physicists that still entertain the CasUF idea are the what the bleep crowd and I'm sure that if pushed they would admit that it's just one idea among many, either that or they disqualify themselves as genuine scientists. Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes, she may have asked to film the teaching or asked for a freebie. Or maybe just assumed that all meditation techniques are the same and therefore already knew what was going on. But I doubt that, I worked for the press office and no-one ever got away without a major lecture and a few hundred info sheets to read. They probably just freaked her out. People in the TMO really think that Hagelin has finished Einstiens work and is the greatest scientist ever. All because MMY told them so, not many physicists would be impressed with that. Outraged actually. yeah, but actually, how familiar are you with Hagelin's work? Have you read ANY of his papers? And its not like the rest of Hagelin's friends in the Ellis-Hagelin-Nanapolous collaboration on Flipped SU(5) were completely silent about consciousness and the unified field. For example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9510003v1 ON A POSSIBLE CONNECTION OF NON-CRITICAL STRINGS TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF QUANTUM BRAIN FUNCTION D.V. Nanopoulosa, (speaker) and N. E. Mavromatosb Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:10 PM, gruntlespam wrote: Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show. Use Apple Mail, not the Yahoo!-based website.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good synopsis and points. Actually the TM part seemed rather insubstantial and the general impression came across that all the scientific claims for TM (for cardiovascular effects, for instance) did not amount to much when properly reviewed. The following piece from BBC Health News is all about the programme and there is not even a mention of TM Scientists probe meditation secrets By Naomi Law Scientists are beginning to uncover evidence that meditation has a tangible effect on the brain. Sceptics argue that it is not a practical way to try to deal with the stresses of modern life. But the long years when adherents were unable to point to hard science to support their belief in the technique may finally be coming to an end. When Carol Cattley's husband died it triggered a relapse of the depression which had not plagued her since she was a teenager. I instantly felt as if I wanted to die, she said. I couldn't think of what else to do. Carol sought medical help and managed to control her depression with a combination of medication and a psychological treatment called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. However, she believes that a new, increasingly popular course called Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) - which primarily consists of meditation - brought about her full recovery. It is currently available in every county across the UK, and can be prescribed on the NHS. One of the pioneers of MBCT is Professor Mark Williams, from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Oxford. He helps to lead group courses which take place over a period of eight weeks. He describes the approach as 80% meditation, 20% cognitive therapy. New perspective He said: It teaches a way of looking at problems, observing them clearly but not necessarily trying to fix them or solve them. It suggests to people that they begin to see all their thoughts as just thoughts, whether they are positive, negative or neutral. MBCT is recommended for people who are not currently depressed, but who have had three or more bouts of depression in their lives. Trials suggest that the course reduces the likelihood of another attack of depression by over 50%. Professor Williams believes that more research is still needed. He said: It is becoming enormously popular quite quickly and in many ways we now need to collect the evidence to check that it really is being effective. However, in the meantime, meditation is being taken seriously as a means of tackling difficult and very modern challenges. Scientists are beginning to investigate how else meditation could be used, particularly for those at risk of suicide and people struggling with the effects of substance abuse. What is meditation? Meditation is difficult to define because it has so many different forms. By meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you can change your brain in ways that support that Dr Richard Davidson Broadly, it can be described as a mental practice in which you focus your attention on a particular subject or object. It has historically been associated with religion, but it can also be secular, and exactly what you focus your attention on is largely a matter of personal choice. It may be a mantra (repeated word or phrase), breathing patterns, or simply an awareness of being alive. Some of the more common forms of meditative practices include Buddhist Meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, and Zen Meditation. The claims made for meditation range from increasing immunity, improving asthma and increasing fertility through to reducing the effects of aging. Limited research Research into the health claims made for meditation has limitations and few conclusions can be reached, partly because meditation is rarely isolated - it is often practised alongside other lifestyle changes such as diet, or exercise, or as part of group therapy. So should we dismiss it as quackery? Studies from the field of neuroscience suggest not. It is a new area of research, but indications are intriguing and suggest
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb- down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: Good synopsis and points. Actually the TM part seemed rather insubstantial and the general impression came across that all the scientific claims for TM (for cardiovascular effects, for instance) did not amount to much when properly reviewed. The following piece from BBC Health News is all about the programme and there is not even a mention of TM Scientists probe meditation secrets By Naomi Law Scientists are beginning to uncover evidence that meditation has a tangible effect on the brain. Sceptics argue that it is not a practical way to try to deal with the stresses of modern life. But the long years when adherents were unable to point to hard science to support their belief in the technique may finally be coming to an end. When Carol Cattley's husband died it triggered a relapse of the depression which had not plagued her since she was a teenager. I instantly felt as if I wanted to die, she said. I couldn't think of what else to do. Carol sought medical help and managed to control her depression with a combination of medication and a psychological treatment called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. However, she believes that a new, increasingly popular course called Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) - which primarily consists of meditation - brought about her full recovery. It is currently available in every county across the UK, and can be prescribed on the NHS. One of the pioneers of MBCT is Professor Mark Williams, from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Oxford. He helps to lead group courses which take place over a period of eight weeks. He describes the approach as 80% meditation, 20% cognitive therapy. New perspective He said: It teaches a way of looking at problems, observing them clearly but not necessarily trying to fix them or solve them. It suggests to people that they begin to see all their thoughts as just thoughts, whether they are positive, negative or neutral. MBCT is recommended for people who are not currently depressed, but who have had three or more bouts of depression in their lives. Trials suggest that the course reduces the likelihood of another attack of depression by over 50%. Professor Williams believes that more research is still needed. He said: It is becoming enormously popular quite quickly and in many ways we now need to collect the evidence to check that it really is being effective. However, in the meantime, meditation is being taken seriously as a means of tackling difficult and very modern challenges. Scientists are beginning to investigate how else meditation could be used, particularly for those at risk of suicide and people struggling with the effects of substance abuse. What is meditation? Meditation is difficult to define because it has so many different forms. By meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you can change your brain in ways that support that Dr Richard Davidson Broadly, it can be described as a mental practice in which you focus your attention on a particular subject or object. It has historically been associated with religion, but it can also be secular, and exactly what you focus your attention on is largely a matter of personal choice. It may be a mantra (repeated word or phrase), breathing patterns, or simply an awareness of being alive. Some of the more common forms of meditative practices include Buddhist Meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, and Zen Meditation. The claims made
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:08 AM, gruntlespam wrote: On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb- down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. While pilot-style research has been going on for years, really good research is just starting by and large. I haven't really seen any good research from the TMO, with controls, lack of bias, etc. There has however been some good independent research on TM since the heyday of the TMO, but it sadly reverses many of the specious claims of the TMO. And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. :-) But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. It was a major step forward for neuroplasticity as a real phenomenon. Some of the new research from that same lab is just astounding and seeing publication in major, highly reputed journals. Hold onto your seat as in the next two years you're going to be seeing the results of the most detailed research on meditation yet, with controls, excellent study design and no bias.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes, she may have asked to film the teaching or asked for a freebie... The fee would not have been an issue. The Beeb has deep pockets. Don't forget that the programme was pitched for the layman, although she touched on advanced topics. The tragedy is that the price structure and organisation in the UK is not capable of making the most of the event. What is Vedic City ? MIU? Is so, a bit pretentious. Anyway, where is your cathedral? Tell me it isn't the dome. Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? I heard that Lawrence Domash said to MMY about no-one knowing if consciousness was the UF and MMY said WE are the leaders of this field How far would any of them have got in the TMO if they'd put their foot down and said let's stick to the facts? And if I can tell his quantum physics of yogic flying and jyotish is a load of crap what do you think Stephen Hawking is going to say? Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. I've always thought his job is to hoodwink the party faithful by blinding them with little understood, but vaguely familiar, scientific concepts into thinking the knowledge is on stable ground. Even I know that quantum tunnelling has got nothing to do with astrology. Hell, my dog could probably work that out. There aren't even the right number of planets in the vedic horoscope! It's so awful I can't believe it. And its not like the rest of Hagelin's friends in the Ellis-Hagelin- Nanapolous collaboration on Flipped SU(5) were completely silent about consciousness and the unified field. For example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9510003v1 ON A POSSIBLE CONNECTION OF NON-CRITICAL STRINGS TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF QUANTUM BRAIN FUNCTION D.V. Nanopoulosa, (speaker) and N. E. Mavromatosb Lawson Fascinating paper, I'm familiar with this quantum microtubule theory of consciousness from Roger Penrose, most researchers into consciousness poo-poo the idea but I can't see the harm in speculating as the brain would obviously have exploited any physical system to give it an advantage in it's evolution. In fact most of the objections to this idea come from people who think it's unnecessary to involve the Planck level in the brain at the moment. As consciousness is so poorly understood why make it more complex than it needs to be just because you can cram the math in there somehow? But until they come up with an alternative explanation that obviates the need for it the possibility will remain as an intruiging idea. A scientific truth? Not yet, not by a long way. But unless my quick read through missed something it doesn't actually mention the unified field. Did I miss it? I think not as quantum events at the Planck scale are well understood and not remotely mysterious unlike the Vedic idea of reality which, lets face it, is what JH is trying to get us to believe, and without evidence. I think the idea that consciousness came before anything else is going to be tricky to fit into a theory of how the brain evolved to be conscious. It's a religious idea and I don't think many are ready to go there as not only is there no evidence but plenty of explanations that make consciousness redundant in collapsing waveforms which is how it got there in the first place. For instance, have you heard of David Deutsch? He leads a team at Oxford doing research into a new multiple universe theory. Treat yourself to the book; http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140146903/drdaviddeutsch It's a good one, mind-blowing actually. Just might be all you ever need to know. It's uphill all the way but he's a great communicator, the chapter on Youngs double slit theory kept me awake all night.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. See, for instance, posts #168345, #168474, and #168493 for more. The problems with the study have been discussed extensively here. Vaj is most definitely not an objective evaluator of TM research (note his phrase TM cult researchers above, just for an obvious and immediate example). He likes to pretend that all TM research has been *disproved*, but of course that isn't the case at all. It hasn't been confirmed either, but the point is that the jury is still out; no definitive verdict has been rendered.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always thought his job is to hoodwink the party faithful by blinding them with little understood, but vaguely familiar, scientific concepts into thinking the knowledge is on stable ground. Bingo. There is no need to sell this crap to the public. First, they wouldn't fall for it. Second, they don't pay the bills. The party faithful do. Even I know that quantum tunnelling has got nothing to do with astrology. Hell, my dog could probably work that out. There aren't even the right number of planets in the vedic horoscope! It's so awful I can't believe it. This is one of the reasons I'm actually looking forward to the book that King Tony said he's going to release -- whatever the heck it was. Something about relating the Ramayana to physi- ology? I'm looking forward to some fitting of physi- ological square pegs into Vedic round holes, myself. For example, if some complicated theory requires six arms of yoga, are we suddenly all going to have six arms? Personally, I'm looking forward to his explan- ation of the physiology of Krishna boinking all the gopis, and simultaneously. I suspect that Pfizer (maker of Viagra) will be interested, too. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research, but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. I heard that Lawrence Domash said to MMY about no-one knowing if consciousness was the UF and MMY said WE are the leaders of this field How far would any of them have got in the TMO if they'd put their foot down and said let's stick to the facts? What are you supposed to do if you have a new fact nobody else knows about yet? Discard it? snip Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. It was not known and shown in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be poor quality. The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. It was not known and shown in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be poor quality. The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. It was not known and shown in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be poor quality. The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Great summary links. Thanks. With all those descriptive parts directly written about other techniques in these papers, anyone in the dome probably ought to have their badges revoked immediately for just reading these papers. Worst than confusing, this material is outright corrupting to the security of the teaching. ..have you ever visited any research of other spiritual technologies? -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? It would be up to them to accept them or not, obviously. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. It was not known and shown in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be poor quality. The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? It would be up to them to accept them or not, obviously. P.S.: They didn't miss the two decades of later TM studies. They just made a decision to look only at the earlier ones.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? It would be up to them to accept them or not, obviously. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. It was not known and shown in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be poor quality. The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. And, true to APA form, these writers refer to each and every point they are making by a parenthetical citation. All others--in other different meditation studies--need not be included as they are quite able to cover all their assertions with what they are currently using. It makes no sense whatsoever to include studies for the sake of writing their names as references. And of course such strawman thinking does also not support your rather odd claim that 'because TM studies are omitted, they haven't read them'. They had all the citations needed. Of course if the actual purpose of the paper was to examine all TM studies, then they could be in error. But that is clearly not the case with this paper.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. We'd really need to examine the data closely as TM researchers in the past have been very clever at the way the hide things and deceive. Given a past history of fraudulent conclusions, how do we know they just haven't got trickier and found more clever ways to fudge their data and parse conclusion statements which are quickly pushed out the door as press releases? We'd need to closely look at the controls and really try to look at just simple relaxation by itself, with the same motivations as TMers, twice a day and see whether or not you see the same thing there. As per usual, the results they're touting aren't any big deal, although their spin sounds like 'wow, I need to try this'-- which is of course what any good marketer will do. What it highlights for me is that we live in a day and age where we can have biofeedback cults (Scientology) and science cults with research and pseudoscience as their obsessions (TM)--and often highly questionable research--and this is part and parcel of their new dogma, their belief system and comfort blanket. That's not to say that TM is necessarily bad or even harmful for many people. What it is saying is that it's really not that much different from anyone who decides to take some time out of their day and relax, 2 x 20, every day as part of their lifestyle. Rigorous independent research discovered this years ago, that there was no real difference (and it was replicated). There also have been studies which have shown how bad use of controls in TM can actually reverse the findings! There are many ways to fudge data. Such research on BP has already been done and replicated years ago, so if this study varies with previous independent research, it's probably suspect. What some TB's will often attempt to assert is 'there's new science and new technology and newer TM research' but the truth is, when studying blood pressure and common meditational research parameters, we've been able to measure them precisely for many years. It's also a way unscrupulous researchers from a scientific research cult can reshuffle the deck and let them re-throw the dice. In a scientific cult, they keep trying to re-throw the dice till they get one little positive thing--then they spin it. The more times they re- throw the dice, the more chances they get to tell you how great they think they are. IIRC correctly this particular study had one parameter which up-ticked positively, that's all. Again, another exaggeration. Perhaps when Ruth returns we can examine it more closely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? Angela, Vaj has apparently managed to confuse you thoroughly with his flimflam. The only issue here is that there is two decades' worth of TM research that the Buddhist authors of this so-called study completely ignored. Instead, they examined the *first* decade of TM research, when the studies were much cruder and more exploratory. The TM researchers got better at doing such research as they went along. If you're going to evaluate a body of research to see whether certain claims hold water, you look at the best and most recent studies, not the oldest ones. It's entirely possible that if these authors had looked at the more recent TM research, they'd have been equally as critical of it as of the older research--but we have no way of knowing that, because they didn't examine it. It's not necessary to know their evaluation criteria or the quality of the later studies vis-a-vis those criteria; that's *your* red herring. I never claimed to be knowledgeable enough to do that, but it's irrelevant anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. No, this is yet more disingenuity. One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored the two most recent decades' worth of published studies. That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with APA form, as you know, or any of the other red herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in. It would have made sense for them to have ignored the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the most recent ones that dealt with the topics they chose to discuss.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. We'd really need to examine the data closely as TM researchers in the past have been very clever at the way the hide things and deceive. Given a past history of fraudulent conclusions There is no such past history, as Vaj knows. That's *his* highly biased conclusion, not an established fact.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
well, then, I'd like an --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? Angela, Vaj has apparently managed to confuse you thoroughly with his flimflam. The only issue here is that there is two decades' worth of TM research that the Buddhist authors of this so-called study completely ignored. Instead, they examined the *first* decade of TM research, when the studies were much cruder and more exploratory. The TM researchers got better at doing such research as they went along. If you're going to evaluate a body of research to see whether certain claims hold water, you look at the best and most recent studies, not the oldest ones. It's entirely possible that if these authors had looked at the more recent TM research, they'd have been equally as critical of it as of the older research--but we have no way of knowing that, because they didn't examine it. It's not necessary to know their evaluation criteria or the quality of the later studies vis-a-vis those criteria; that's *your* red herring. I never claimed to be knowledgeable enough to do that, but it's irrelevant anyway. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent by accident before I finished typing it. So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an explanation for why they would just ignore twenty years worth of research. If true, that is suspect on the face of it. Whaddaya say, Vaj? --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? Angela, Vaj has apparently managed to confuse you thoroughly with his flimflam. The only issue here is that there is two decades' worth of TM research that the Buddhist authors of this so-called study completely ignored. Instead, they examined the *first* decade of TM research, when the studies were much cruder and more exploratory. The TM researchers got better at doing such research as they went along. If you're going to evaluate a body of research to see whether certain claims hold water, you look at the best and most recent studies, not the oldest ones. It's entirely possible that if these authors had looked at the more recent TM research, they'd have been equally as critical of it as of the older research--but we have no way of knowing that, because they didn't examine it. It's not necessary to know their evaluation criteria or the quality of the later studies vis-a-vis those criteria; that's *your* red herring. I never claimed to be knowledgeable enough to do that, but it's irrelevant anyway. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: Next monday on BBC2, a programme about meditation is being broadcast part of which was filmed at MIU http://open2.net/alternativetherapies/meditation.html Oops, just realised I will probably be the only one on here who will be able to watch it... Not so, these days. There are numerous electronic fandagoes that should allow anyone with an Internet connection (probably need broadband). Check out their web page. Uns This is the programme's web page: http://tinyurl.com/34fgwp I think you would need to download the BBC's IPlayer software which is free. There is a time difference of seven hours. Uns. Thanks for doing the research on this Uns, it saved me a job. I'll watch on the TV but as it's got Stephen Fry visiting Fairfield it should be interesting enough for anyone to have a look as the series has been fascinating so far.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? I had the same problem, using my Mac. Many suggestions came to my same question. I solved it by keeping sentences short by liberal use of the return key. I don't bother to count the length of lines, but someone suggested keeping each line under 70 spaces. Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation withMatthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds itamusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breathmeditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. How do you know they wouldn't have taught her? The problems are: 1) the course is 4 days long and she's supposed to make a time commitment to practice regularly at least during the days of instruction; 2) she would need at least a checking session or two to make sure she's got it; 3) the non-disclosure agreement probably puts off ANY reporter; 4) even assuming all of the above wasn't an issue and that they taught her for free, she'd need to learn TM at least 2 weeks prior to filming any part where she discussed her experience with it. Not practical, IMHO. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: [...] How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. How do you know they wouldn't have taught her? The problems are: 1) the course is 4 days long and she's supposed to make a time commitment to practice regularly at least during the days of instruction; 2) she would need at least a checking session or two to make sure she's got it; 3) the non-disclosure agreement probably puts off ANY reporter; 4) even assuming all of the above wasn't an issue and that they taught her for free, she'd need to learn TM at least 2 weeks prior to filming any part where she discussed her experience with it. Not practical, IMHO. Lawson Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. I don't think that she/the production team would have paid, even if it was practical as such. They weren't into comparing different types of meditation as such - once she had learn't one way, and got some results, that was the end of it it seemed. She never really seemed to be interested in what meditation really was in a deeper sense, plus she seemed to just feel that one type of meditation was the same as another. But possibly this was just a limitation of the show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. If you attend the David Lynch Weekend, you can get a scholarship for the $2500 to learn TM. I don't think that she/the production team would have paid, even if it was practical as such. They weren't into comparing different types of meditation as such - once she had learn't one way, and got some results, that was the end of it it seemed. See above. David Lynch might not be willing to foot the bill, but *someone* probably would be willing. She never really seemed to be interested in what meditation really was in a deeper sense, plus she seemed to just feel that one type of meditation was the same as another. But possibly this was just a limitation of the show. Or the show is a reflection of her own attitude. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. It's considered to be unethical by major newspapers to accept freebies or discounts, because this might bias the reporter's neutral point of view. The NYT makes reporters pay their own way (which is reimbursed by the newspaper): http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#paying They may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by their newsroom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Good synopsis and points. Actually the TM part seemed rather insubstantial and the general impression came across that all the scientific claims for TM (for cardiovascular effects, for instance) did not amount to much when properly reviewed. The following piece from BBC Health News is all about the programme and there is not even a mention of TM Scientists probe meditation secrets By Naomi Law Scientists are beginning to uncover evidence that meditation has a tangible effect on the brain. Sceptics argue that it is not a practical way to try to deal with the stresses of modern life. But the long years when adherents were unable to point to hard science to support their belief in the technique may finally be coming to an end. When Carol Cattley's husband died it triggered a relapse of the depression which had not plagued her since she was a teenager. I instantly felt as if I wanted to die, she said. I couldn't think of what else to do. Carol sought medical help and managed to control her depression with a combination of medication and a psychological treatment called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. However, she believes that a new, increasingly popular course called Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) - which primarily consists of meditation - brought about her full recovery. It is currently available in every county across the UK, and can be prescribed on the NHS. One of the pioneers of MBCT is Professor Mark Williams, from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Oxford. He helps to lead group courses which take place over a period of eight weeks. He describes the approach as 80% meditation, 20% cognitive therapy. New perspective He said: It teaches a way of looking at problems, observing them clearly but not necessarily trying to fix them or solve them. It suggests to people that they begin to see all their thoughts as just thoughts, whether they are positive, negative or neutral. MBCT is recommended for people who are not currently depressed, but who have had three or more bouts of depression in their lives. Trials suggest that the course reduces the likelihood of another attack of depression by over 50%. Professor Williams believes that more research is still needed. He said: It is becoming enormously popular quite quickly and in many ways we now need to collect the evidence to check that it really is being effective. However, in the meantime, meditation is being taken seriously as a means of tackling difficult and very modern challenges. Scientists are beginning to investigate how else meditation could be used, particularly for those at risk of suicide and people struggling with the effects of substance abuse. What is meditation? Meditation is difficult to define because it has so many different forms. By meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you can change your brain in ways that support that Dr Richard Davidson Broadly, it can be described as a mental practice in which you focus your attention on a particular subject or object. It has historically been associated with religion, but it can also be secular, and exactly what you focus your attention on is largely a matter of personal choice. It may be a mantra (repeated word or phrase), breathing patterns, or simply an awareness of being alive. Some of the more common forms of meditative practices include Buddhist Meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, and Zen Meditation. The claims made for meditation range from increasing immunity, improving asthma and increasing fertility through to reducing the effects of aging. Limited research Research into the health claims made for meditation has limitations and few conclusions can be reached, partly because meditation is rarely isolated - it is often practised alongside other lifestyle changes such as diet, or exercise, or as part of group therapy. So should we dismiss it as quackery? Studies from the field of neuroscience suggest not. It is a new area of research, but indications are intriguing and suggest that meditation may have a measurable impact on the brain. In Boston, Massachusetts, Dr Sara Lazar has used a technique called MRI scanning to analyse the brains of people who have been meditating for several years. She compared the brains of these experienced practitioners with people who had never meditated and found that there were differences in the thickness of certain areas of the brain's cortex, including areas involved in the processing of emotion. She is continuing research, but she believes that meditation had caused the brain to change physical shape. Buddhist monks In Madison, Wisconsin, Dr Richard Davidson has been carrying out studies on Buddhist monks for several years. His personal belief is that by meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you
