On 8/6/2014 9:06 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
Why didn't you tell Buck that instead of me?
>
Why are you such a lazy top-poster? Go figure.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:45 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Science and the Meissner Effect of
Consciousness as Field
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote :
OK, one last time because I have said this before.
People on earth are stupid and gullible, but not all of them and all
of them are not COMPLETELY stupid. Ergo, IF the Marshy Effect was real
and as effective as Johnnie Hagelin claims then millions of people
around the world would have latched onto it.
This would be particularly true of all Third World countries. Most of
them may be run by utterly corrupt and venal individuals, some of them
totally selfish and cruel, but most of them are not completely stupid.
IF the Marshy Effect were as effective at stopping wars and
"preventing enemies to be born" every single Third World country would
mandate by law that every citizen and every visitor to the country
would have to practice TMSP twice each day. To not do so would be
insane. To do so would insure that no wars would occur, and no foreign
influence could take from the country what is rightfully theirs.
When the success of the Third World countries was obvious through
TMSP, all the developed countries would mandate the practice of TMSP
also and everyone would be a siddha or governor.
The fact that that has not happened is proof the ME is hawg shit, so
unless you boys can come up with better proof than "See! The crime
rate is 18% lower than it would have been if we had not been doin'
program! We have a vedic crystal ball that Marshy gave us before he
died that we can tell what the crime rate would-a been, so believe us
and give us more money!" then shut up cause its all made up bullshit.
Is there something missing in my DNA because I just don't care about
any of this one way or another. I don't care if people think there is
a ME, I don't care if it has been scientifically proven and I'm
certainly too disinterested to get into an actual discussion about it
let alone excited enough to argue about it all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2014 7:04 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Science and the Meissner Effect of
Consciousness as Field
Yes quite evidently you and the other anti-meditation anti-science
folks here are afraid of where the data is going. Your asserting no
data therefore no replication and therefore it can't be talked about
or researched. Asserting that it does not exist defies reality and
scientific process itself of data, observation, hypothesis and testing
. Lawson is looking at how to replicate given the practical
constraints of such a project given the data. You completely
miss-interpret to your own vile ends. You evidently don't want
anything to happen less it disturb your anti-meditation and
anti-spiritual grumblings. You contend the research can't be
replicated and shouldn't be, well talk about subterfuge and
anti-science anti-intellectualism. Next we'll hear from you that there
never was such a thing as darshan where obviously there is and then
you'll say it is not worth trying to look at for fear of what we might
find. Did you just renew your membership down at the local
conservative Anglican Church or something that you come on so
regressive like you do?
-Buck in the Dome
Thanks LEnglish5 very much for this more even-handed review of what is
current. It is refreshing in the face of all the anti-science and
allergy that so many have to TM and spirituality here on this board. -Buck
What are you talking about Buck? Lawson used to be the hard core
defender of ME research, it's only very recently he's come round to
the viewpoint I've held all along, that ME research doesn't show what
is claimed for it. So why are you calling me "anti-science"?
Criticismis science, that's how it works. Someone has an idea, they
collect evidence and publish it. The ME research doesn't show anything
beyond statistical manipulation, it sure as hell didn't show a huge
decrease in crime. So the ball is back in the court of the people who
claim its efficacy to prove it was a real effect.
Your problem is that you get all sensitive when someone criticises a
pet theory of yours when it's all part of the scientific process. If
the ME stands up someone will find a way of demonstrating it. It might
help if they had an explanation for how it might work in the first
place. Instead all they have is a bunch of wishy-washy new age terms
explained in the context of other wishy-washy new age terms. So why
should anyone take it seriously and go to the expense of testing it
when, as Lawson points out, there appears to be no evidence to try and
replicate?
LEnglish5 writes:
It may have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of true believers,
but not to the satisfaction of skeptics.
The problem with the ME research is that it is essentially not
replicatable on a large-scale. No two cities or groups of cities are
really alike, and even using the same city over and over again for a
study has many issues.
Fred Travis' thesis research on interpersonal EEG coherence (the ME
between two people) would be a better route to go, but he was forced
to use averages of EEG statistics over a period of many seconds, and
it turns out that there is a ceiling effect on that specific measure
which makes it unlikely to find the effect consistently.
So... what to do?
As I pointed out before, there's a more sophisticated way of analyzing
global EEG called "EEG microstates," where the average electrical
activation of the brain can be examined in tiny slices of time, down
to as low as 2-10 milliseconds per slice. That is easily 400x the
resolution that Fred used in his original study.
The people in charge of the TM organization are well aware of how the
ME research is viewed by most non-believers, but there's been no way
to satisfy genuine concerns like independent replication until now.
The DC experiment not only cost the TM organization several million to
conduct, but it required coordinating the lives of 4,000 Sidhas. This
is NOT something that can ever be replicated on a regular basis, no
matter what kind of resources you have and you can't expect the
average skeptical scientist to arrange to do such research, either.
When the upcoming EEG microstate research on TM is published, if it
turns out that there is a definite pattern associated with pure
consciousness, it may be possible to redo Fred Travis' original
research with as many as 400x the number of data points in a given TM
session. I don't know offhand, how much more sensitive this would make
a specific study, but I'm pretty sure it is a LOT more sensitive...
...tried just now to plug various values into online statistical
calculators, and it looks like having 400x as many data points roughly
makes a given simple experiment 400x as sensitive (sorta -there might
be a square-root in there, but it looks like it is a lot more than 20x
as sensitive so not sure)...
John Hagelin obviously realizes the points above. He was giving the
standard party line to me earlier this year about how the research
into the ME is reliable, etc., but when I started to point out that
there would be potentially 400x as many data points as was available
in Fred Travis' experiments and that this meant fully independent
skeptics could conduct their own very cheap experiments, he kinda got
excited and interrupted me about halfway through my spiel, saying he
would talk to Fred Travis about it.
Lawson
