Epistemologically day to day.
Similarly, from our friend on campus: <paste> ",,,truth is an experience that occurs when our personal belief (s), be they individual or socially-consensual, intersect with our experience. My argument is not to say that what we believe is true at one moment in time is not extremely valuable. On the contrary, it is upon the foundation of apparent-truths that the entire relative world progress from. I therefore expect virtually everything I think I know to be true about the world to change. I also expect that, that change will become more and more frequent as we progress forward through time. As I said, I'm not really qualified academically to shed much light on whether alpha-waves coherence indicates higher states of consciousness. I don't believe that neuroscience has developed a significant enough understanding of the entire brain measurement process to make a definitive determination. However, my expectations based on personal experience, is that this measurement process is going to become more and more and more refined over time as new knowledge or "truths" are revealed. Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether we will ever be able to physically measure the mechanics of consciousness. I believe that at best we may hope to get some indicators which can be cross referenced with sufficient confidence to provide theoretical validity. Like many long term meditators I have experienced 'Being' beyond time-space. At that level of consciousness there is no relative world, no relative universe. How then, can a measurement be taken of the deepest level of consciousness when nothing physical like the brain exists to measure." <end paste> > > However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty > > muddy and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments > > all the time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a > > drug, do a meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions > > about the value to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better > > than 50:50 (if its a yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than > > random. We tend to muddle through this way. Did you start TM or any other > > methods because of the scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was > > trying it for yourself. If you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. > > Better or worse than what? your single subject self-controlled "past > > experience". > > > > I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single > > subject, even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group > > used widely in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a > > feel if the thing, idea, concept, has any juice to it. > > > > I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a > > preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or > > inspire more rigorous research. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > Dear Grate.swan, > > This is good. I'm glad you wrote this here. People evidently do have their > own experience with it around any of what is said. Any of this is easy to > dismiss or miss if you have no experience with it. And yet, absolutely if 2 > out of 3, or even 1 out of 3 of the TM studies are good then proly likely > that what is going on here is quite extraordinary and possibly significant. > & self-validation is some of the experience of folks here too and evidently > it can stand way more than some of the absolutism of the TM-hating as they > may say it. > > Jai Guru Dev, > > -Doug in FF > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting > > > and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The > > > problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure > > > with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of > > > hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this > > > "means" that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you > > > are "better" at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. > > > The politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either > > > deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding > > > the research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest > > > research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms > > > of ADHD. Even the TM "scientist" David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it > > > is just patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to > > > conclude this at all, primarily > > > because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there > > > own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study > > > essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x > > > amount of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening > > > occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded > > > because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why > > > he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that "caused" > > > these results when not a single variable has been controlled. > > > > > > > > > > Your points are well taken. And I cringe at sloppy research cast as > > something else. > > > > However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty > > muddy and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments > > all the time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a > > drug, do a meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions > > about the value to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better > > than 50:50 (if its a yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than > > random. We tend to muddle through this way. Did you start TM or any other > > methods because of the scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was > > trying it for yourself. If you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. > > Better or worse than what? your single subject self-controlled "past > > experience". > > > > I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single > > subject, even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group > > used widely in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a > > feel if the thing, idea, concept, has any juice to it. > > > > I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a > > preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or > > inspire more rigorous research. > > >
