From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Biofeedback for meditation training...
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:59:03 GMT

In article <malcolm.721337178@wrs.com>, malcolm@wrs.com (Malcolm Humes) writes:
|> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> 
|> >As to the claim that the "entrainment devices can force the brain into
|> >the traditional meditative patterns"--bunk!  First, there ain't no such
|> >animal as a 'meditative pattern,' 
|> 
|> IMHO your post was more full of bunk than any of the things you were
|> "debunking", unless you can support your claims with somthing more
|> substantial.
|>  
|> Sounds to me like a classic case of "you can't prove it doesn't exist and
|> I can't prove it exists". My only comment is to question why you are so 
|> convinced there isn't? Does this threaten your personal belief systems or
|> do you actually have some evidence that proves your claim? I thought it 
|> was well supported that there are brain patterns and frequencies associated 
|> with meditation. I can see the skepticism of entrainment devices as being
|> reasonable and I've already stated that I'm skeptical of them. But I'm
|> still willing to try entrainment devices so I can reach my own conclusions. 

Let's keep very clear on what I actually said.  I said there is no evidence
for a "meditative pattern" of EEGs.  I have studied psychology, read about
EEG's, alpha, and so on.  That is why I am convinced that there is no
such thing as a "meditative pattern".  It is easy for you to show me I am
incorrect:  show me evidence for such a thing.  

The crack about "threatening my personal belief systems" is an insult
an I resent it.  I made a statement based on careful examination of
the data.  You apparently are apparently totally ignorant of physiological 
psychology, so you didn't understand the basis of my remarks.  I'm
sorry I didn't make my position clear.

|> >and second there is no reason to think
|> >that any given blinking light or beeping tone is actually causing
|> >entrainment. 
|> 
|> If you're willing to believe that entrainment exists then I see no reason
|> not to believe a machine with sound and lights is capable of achieving
|> such an effect. From what I've read so far I haven't seen anyone deny 
|> that entrainment is possible. If there's research that proves entrainment
|> is bunk please offer a pointer to it.  

Think very carefully about what I said:  I said that there is no reason
to think that "any given" blinking light or beeping tone is "actually"
causing entrainment".  The fact that entrainment occurs under proper
conditions hardly means that entrainment occurs under any and all
conditions.  My point was that, unless someone has measured people's
EEG while they use a particular device, you shouldn't ASSUME that
that particular device is actually causing entrainment.


|> Also, as I had mentioned in a previous posting - even if any effect achieved 
|> is only a placebo effect, if it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling then I'm
|> happy with the result. If I can't distinguish between a placebo induced
|> relaxation and "the-real-thing" then what's the difference? Likewise, if
|> I can't distinguish between a state I reach during meditation and a state
|> I reach via entrainment, what's the difference?  
Did I argue with that?  If you like the feeling you get from the thing,
finae.  I disagreed with some of your claims about what it was doing 
and how it works.  

|> Seems to me that there's a judgement passed by many who meditate that 
|> meditation is something one has to learn and master (I believe this part),
|> and that it's impossible to take any shortcuts to get there through any
|> other means. Why are folks who've obviously never even tried entrainment 
|> devics so adamant that mind machines are worthless, or a cheaper or less 
|> fulfulling experience? I have heard comments only from one or two folks 
|> who've had experience in both areas.                                   

I don't know about "folks who've obviously never even tried entrainement
devices".   Physiological psychologists who are VERY well qualified to 
examine the question HAVE tested these devices.  The general conclusion
is that most do not cause entrainment, that the effects are due to 
placebo effects, and that the relaxation produced is equivalent to
taking a warm bath.  I never said they were worthless, but if a warm 
bath or a snuggle with a loved one would accomplish the same thing,
why bother with the silly lights and beeps?

|> >And thirdly, "entrainment" is not "biofeedback" and 
|> >vice versa.
|> 
|> I didn't claim that it was. In fact I posted a FAQ on entrainment devices
|> last week. Some other poster had asserted that they thought they were using 
|> their entrainment device as a crude biofeedback device. If you wish to argue 
|> that he was wrong you're probably better off quoting his comments - you're
|> the one who made this assumption that anyone claimed they were the same. I 
|> think if you read the original posts again you might find that someone was 
|> claiming that they were using an entrainment device in a way that they thought
|> was similar to biofeedback not that the terms have the same meaning. 
|> 
|>   - malcolm@wrs.com 
I agree with you that "you're probably better off quoting his comments",
as the orginal is no longer available to me and you have extracted my
comment out of context.  I was not "assuming" that someone claimed that,
I was directly responding to something that actually said that.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu