--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course, I assume that intentional transcending is > > > > actually a different physical state than spontaneous > > > > transcending, and that the former is an illusion, > > > > while the latter is based on a simple physical change > > > > in how the brain processes information, as a for > > > > example of where I'm coming from. > > > > > > So you're saying, essentially, that the fundamental > > > assumption and bias you bring to any TM research that > > > you participate in is based on the idea of elitism, > > > that TM is unique and better than any other technique, > > > right? > > > > > > Again, thanks for being honest about the level of > > > your TM elitism, but I think that as a result we can > > > safely disregard anything you might "discover" in > > > conjunction with Fred as actually having anything > > > to do with science. > > > > IOW, if my elitism is supported, it can't be because I > > am right, but only because I'm biased. > > As you yourself have admitted, "scientists" have > a strong tendency to "find" what they expect to > find. You and people who think like you expect > to find positive results for TM and expect to > find not-as-positive results for other techniques > of meditation. Therefore you will "find" them. > > And you'll be surprised when no one believes you... >
That's whre independent investigatino comes in. No reseasonable researcher expects his pet theory to be taken seriously until its been tested by others. However, brain imaging files that are analyzied after-the-fact looking for a specific theoretical result are not subject to normal researcher biases. Deliberate bias, of course, but not projectiono f results due to expectations. What Fred is doing now is a time-honored way of checking to see if a hypothesis has legs: based on a new theory, what would certain details of already-existing data look like? If you can find those predicted details in the already-collected data, you then go on to design experiments and seek funding to perform them to create new data to analyze. From what Fred says, the pre-existing data supports the theory pretty darned well: brain imaging of TMers from other studies show measureable reductons of thalamic activity during TM. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
