Talk:God helmet

message: Very long...
McReady suggested in his comment line that I ask why he reverted the infobox I stuck in, so I am.---CH 14:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Persinger's work was valid.  Of course, I don't know for sure.  Here are three links I found (among many), the third one says that his work was not replicated.  
 Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  suggestion: put links into the article where all may benefit. Just because we provide a link doesn't mean wikipedia endorses the content. As always, it is up to the reader to decide. I have added these links. GangofOne 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: it's mccready. the disputed science box could go on many many pages and doesn't help. How can a helmet be an idea??? Mccready 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mccready 

message: I am puzzled why there is a link to Kevin Warwick here. On that page there is a link back here but on neither page do I find any information to justify the linking. Had there been such pertinent information which has subsequently been deleted since the links were first made?--65.113.254.234 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also? 

message: If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "god", "-theology", "magnetic healing" and "placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! --Ollj 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quacks like a duck

message: I uploaded this on Youtube just for this case...
Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a verifiable source. However, there seems to be enough refs for me to take off the additional refs tag. Clubmarx (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody add this to reference? 

message: What's the difference?  Aren't those two descriptions of the same thing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwharvey (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: EMF emissions (which can even include visible light) are varieties of radiation, and/or electrons. Magnetic fields are neither radiation nor electrons. Electromagnetic radiation is composed of photons. Magnetic fields are not. Magnetic fields are not composed of the elementary particles than can interact with some organic compounds, nor are they composed of electrons, ions, or anything else encompassed by the word 'emission'.  Hamlet 2010a (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all rather pointless anyway, since the section (now removed) discussing EMF emissions doesn't explain why this distinction is causing "confusion" and who is getting "confused". Solenoids produce electromagnetic fields. So do TMS devices. So do fridge magnets. And the Earth, etc. I don't know why EMF emissions are even mentioned in this context. Famousdog (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Solenoids only produce electromagnetic fields when dV/dt is non-zero. In the case of the God Helmet, dV/dt is zero  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.100.111 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The apparatus uses magnetic fields, and not EMF emissions? 

message: The name "God helmet" seems to be a sensationalist name coined by journalists for the apparatus that is properly named after its inventor, Stan Koren.Wegesrand (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Koren Helmet" 

message: In keeping with Wikipedia policy, I would like to declare that, as  member of Persinger's research group, and as one who has co-published with him, I have an interest in the Koren Helmet (AKA "God Helmet").Hamlet 2010a (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Well this clear conflict of interest certainly puts your complaints about the lack of edit summaries (see below) in the shade... Famousdog (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia asks editors to "Briefly describe the changes (they) have made".  This appears to be a request for courtesy to other editors.  You and I are not the only ones who contribute to this page.  Edit summaries are good for all concerned.  As for my declaration of interest, it follows wikipedia guidelines (which point out that interested persons are often the ones most qualified to contribute).   Assuming an interest is equivalent to a conflict of interest in this case would disallow anyone who has worked with the God Helmet in it's original setting.  Hamlet 2010a 09:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Declaring interest

message: This page is about the God Helmet, but it seems to be slowly becoming a page about the debate between Persinger And Granqvist.  That is a separate subject.  One failed attempt to replicate does not mean that all such attempts will fail.  Further, the apparatus has been used in studies outside neurotheology.  If the Persinger/Granqvist debate is so important as to be mentioned multiple times on this page (and on other pages), it deserves it's own page, and such material should be moved from this page to that one.  Such an action would be more in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.  Several edits have been made to this page without any edit summaries, outside Wikipedia guidelines.  Reverting these edits would be an appropriate action.Hamlet 2010a 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a "separate subject". Its the very same subject. If the God helmet "works", find a reliable source (that isn't Persinger's own work), confirming his findings in a reliable manner. And stop wiki-lawyering about the absence of edit summaries. Reverting sensible edits on such flimsy foundations is just rude. Famousdog (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point about about whether the debate is a separate subject is not unreasonable, though I myself do not agree.  The opinions of other editors would be helpful.  A single failed replication study does not prove that replication is impossible.  Granqvist has not replied to Persinger's re-analysis of his data (published five years ago) , so that the debate appears not to have come to any decisive conclution.  References to Persinger's work remain valid.  As for the phrase 'wiki-lawyering', it seems to imply that there is something amiss with alluding to the guidelines.  I don't agree.  The opinions of other editors may be helpful on this point as well.  I have not reverted any edits because of the lack of an edit summary.  Hamlet 2010a 09:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  what's rude is not putting in edit summaries. complaining about the lack of edit summaraies is only "rude" to the offending person(s). at some point naysayers are going to have to deal with the fact that this helmet, as well as persinger's work, exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.34.183 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is about the "God Helmet"

message: Hi, I reverted several edits by LizardKitty and before we get into an edit war, would like to justify them here. The term "God helmet", whether you (or anybody else) like it or not, is the popular term for this apparatus. The fact that it was originally called the "Koren helmet" is mentioned, prominently, in the article. Secondly, this article is for a general audience. Talking about how the solenoids were controlled by DACs, the voltages of which were supplied by a vector of numbers, in addition to being fairly standard procedure, is a level of detail far removed from that appropriate for an encycopedia article. WP is first-and-foremost an encyclopedia. Please bear that in mind and write for the reader. Finally, the Manual of Style does not ban the use of "claim" or remove it from usage on WP. It simply says that it should be used carefully - and since his work has not been independently replicated in reliable sources, the wording "Persinger claims X" is entirely justified. Famousdog (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by LizardKitty 

message: As you requested an additional opinion above, I will try to offer one after coming to that page by chance. 
I agree with  Famousdogs assessment that the failure to replicate the experiment is one of the most important bits of information on this page, if not the singly most important one. In this view, the sentence "The Swedish group disagrees.[10]" (ref 10==) for their rebuttal on the criticism of their work seems a little bit on the short side and the whole section on their attempt to replicate the experiment seems much too short in comparison to the other sections in the article. 
Furthermore I was extremely astonished that someone who claimed to be member of a scientific group would try to define "interest" in the work of this scientific group via page-hits on a Wikipedia article or the number of people who watch it. Scientific interest is measured by citations in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Picking  the first cited paper of the article from 1990 (20 years time to cite this paper), this would be roughly this list (minus the non-journal/non-peer-review sources Google scholar includes). This indeed shows about 10 citations, 9 of which are papers, which Persinger is a co-author of. The remaining citation is a review () which lists, but does not comment on his work. (But could be potentially useful as other experiments listed along with it might help set it in perspective). Looking at other papers also reveals self-citations. I would hence deduce that interest is low (from the papers whose citations I checked, which were by far not all). 
As for a mini-review: I do not consider the section "Anecdotal reports" an improvement for the article. In absence of reproducable scientific evidence, any anecdotal reports are of no consequence. There could instead be a section "reception" (or whatever the appropriate name), though, as this section seems to suggests that there was reception in main-stream media... and possibly .. esoteric circles?
Similar is true for the section "treatment of depression" — as long there is doubt if an effect exists, publications of the same group on the usefulness of the effect in treatment are of very little interest. 
Another point to ponder (in July 2011) is maybe a curious editing-pattern of some people: . 
Apart from the problem of bias that I see in the room that different topics received I think you managed to have an article that is interesting to read.
Hope the outside-view helps
 
Cheers Iridos (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think this article very much needed looked at by a disinterested third party. I feel emboldened to continue editing. Famousdog (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify, my mentioning the number of watchers and page-hits was to refer to interest in the page by the readers, not by the scientific community.  The anecdotal reports are both verifiable and referenced.  The same goes for the section on depression. Hamlet 2010a 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the previous discussions 

message: Has anyone established a linkage between this work and that of Jaynes? Reference: The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpetrarca (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I happened to read Jaynes' book not long ago, and the central themes seem very similar to me. I'm adding a mention in the article. Even if there is no direct link (perhaps the idea was passed on second- or third-hand), I think it's a good idea to mention the precedent. Esn (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  connection to Julian Jaynes work? 

message: I have made some significant changes to the article, hoping to reduce it's length, remove jargon, remove speculative statements and enforce Wikipedia policy with regards medical claims. I have also tagged statements that need clarified or whose relevance is unclear. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on these changes. Famousdog (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Please clarify why relevant, sourced data such as "experiences of angels" was removed from the "Experiences" sub-heading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksirok (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of relevant data

message: Persinger does not correlate spirituality with temporal lobe epilepsy.  He has suggested evidence that temporal lobe lability exists along a continuum within the general population. This suggestion has both psychometric and electroencephalographic evidence.  He has also suggested that mystical experiences may occur in individuals with these propensities; however has he has never drawn a direct correlation between mystical experiences and temporal lobe epilepsy.  Unless there are references to the contrary, this shall be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksirok (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of his theories are based on the literature on temporal lobe epilepsy and hyper-religiosity. Several prominent academics have thrown cold water on this idea. If you can back up your claims (above) please provide RSs to the relevant sections of Persingers work. Famousdog  (c) 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporal lobe epilepsy

message: The "octopus" is clearly a very similar device originated by Persinger and colleagues and many of the claims made for it are the same. Discussion of it clearly belongs here as it is far less notable than the god helmet and doesn't deserve its own article. Famousdog  (c) 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a quote from the review by Aaen-Stockdale, not a quote from the Gendle study. Do check your facts. Famousdog  (c) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by Ksirok

message: Previously I created a section which discussed a Conflict of Interest directed towards Famousdog and their comments on the God helmet.  As per the protocol suggested by Wikipedia, which says to try and resolve the COI dispute on the relevant Talk Page, I posted the comments on this Talk Page.  Another Wikipedia rule is to demonstrate that the person in question has a conflict of interest.  Unfortunately, in trying to demonstrate the case for a COI, I may or may not have inadvertently revealed information that could have violated Famousdog's privacy.  I very sincerely apologize and have absolutely no objection to the removal of that information.  I assure that this action was not malicious, nor did I ever intend to 'out' the personal identity of this Wiki user.Ksirok (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Conflict of Interest Apology

message: This is copied from comments by Famousdog  on my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ksirok User Page]
"I have simply added other material (Granqvist et al, French et al, Gendle & McGrath and my own article) to "correct" what I have seen in the past as an unsceptical bias."
I have examined Famousdog's references with care, and I have found that there are issues that call for further editing.  I will be heeding the advice of Administrator Uzma Gamal and will be checking the God helmet page for the sources for negative information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksirok (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: God helmet changes

message: The Aaen-Stockdale article: "Neuroscience for the soul"  asserts that "the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within..."  and "[TMS] uses field strengths of around 1.5 Tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons..."  and "Magnetic fields must be strong enough to depolarise neurons, otherwise they cannot influence brain function..."
The idea that magnetic fields within microTesla range may not be compatible with influencing brain function may have its origins in the paper by Granqvist (et al.) on the God Helmet, which says: "Such weak fields are considered unable to induce currents strong enough to depolarize neurons. Thus, the mechanism through which weak complex field TMS may work remains obscure, but the waveformof the field has been suggested to be crucial".  Granqvist does not imply that the only way that magnetic fields can influence brain activity is by depolarizing neurons.  As we will see, the mechanism is not so obscure after all.
Magnetic fields far weaker than TMS have been used to influence brain function, in some cases, with exceedingly small percentages of the field strength used in TMS. Below are a few references for magnetic stimulation studies by other researchers beside Persinger.  No research group is included more than once, making eleven discrete corroborations that weak magnetic fields can and do influence brain function. A brief summary of each appears, along with the principle author's name, the year of publication, and a link to the study. These are not offered to explain how the God Helmet influences brain activity (which is a separate question), but rather to demonstrate that depolarization of neurons (which requires high field strengths) is not the only way that magnetic fields can influence the brain. The studies below are arranged in order of field strengths, with all units converted to milligauss for convenience and all of them compared to TMS. The mimimum field strength for neuron depolarization is actually one Tesla, two-thirds of the strength commonly used in TMS.
0) (for comparison)  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation  1 Tesla [T] = 10,000,000 Milligauss OR 100% of TMS.
1) Wieraszko A., 2000 2.5 millitesla = 25,000 mG  OR  0.25% of TMS
Magnetic fields exerted effects on spikes from hippocampal slices in vitro.
2)Dobson, (et al.) 2000  1.8 millitesla = 18,000 mG  OR  0.18% of TMS
Interictal epileptiform activity enhanced and supressed in temporal lobe epileptics.
3)Thomas (et al.), 2007  400 microtesla = 4000 milligauss  OR  0.04% of TMS
Pain reduction in patients with fibromyalgia.
4)Huesser, K. (et al.) .1 millitesla = 1000 mG  OR  0.01% of TMS
Caused changes in EEG parameters.
5)Marino (et al.), 2004 1 Gauss = 1000 mG  OR  0.01% of TMS
Changes in EEG during presentation of Magnetic fields.
6)Carrubba (et al.), 2008 1 Gauss = 1000 mG  OR  0.01% of TMS
Evoked potentials detected.
The same researcher has also found similar effects at two gauss or 0.02% of TMS.
7)Brendel, H. (et al.), 2000 86 microtesla = 860 mG  OR  0.0086% of TMS
Melatonin supression following in vitro pineal gland exposure to magnetic fields.
8)Bell (et al.) 2007 .78 Gauss = 780 mG  OR  0.0078% of TMS
Field_induced alterations in EEG
9)Vorobyov, (et al.), 1998 20.9 microtesla = 209 mG  OR  0.0029% of TMS
EEG differences in rats.
The same researcher has also found similar effects more recently.
10)Jacobson, 1994  5 picotesla = 0.00005 mG  OR  0.0000000000005% of TMS
Direct correlation of melatonin production with magnetic field stimulation.
11)Sandyk, R, 1999 "Picotesla range" (example:) 500 picotesla = 0.005 milligauss  OR  0.00000000005% of TMS
Magnetic fields improve olfactory function in Parkinson's disease.
Note: Sandyk has publised 23 case histories documenting the effects of picotesla range magnetic fields on humans, including MS and Parkinson's.
The very different field strengths used in the studies above suggest that there are several mechanisms by which weak magnetic fields can influence the brain.  Next, we are only concerned with how Persinger explains the effects he reports from his laboratory.
Persinger:
The model we use "is that the interaction between these weak magnetic fields and the electromagnetic substrates that mediate consciousness and mystical states, particularly the sensed presence and the out-of-body-experiences, are less related to direct current induction and more related to field-to-field interactions."
The process is similar to the interaction between the magnetic field of the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field. The typical field strength of the solar wind is about 10,000 times stronger than the geomagnetic field. Yet the region where the two fields meet mediates powerful effects throughout the geomagnetic field and are reflected by powerful changes deep within the earth's surface, cluminating, in some cases, in geomagnetic storms.
The convergence between the field strengths of God Helmet and those generated by the magnetic component of neuronal activity allow direct interaction between them in a manner similar to the interaction between the solar wind and the outer components of the magnetosphere of the earth.
In simpler terms, the God Helmet's magnetic fields affect the brain in much the same way that the sun's magnetic fields affects the earth's magnetic field.  When a magnetic field bearing information derived from the brain (through EEG) is applied to the brain, it increases the probability that the brain will begin producing the same signal on it's own through sympathetic resonance.  Because the God Helmet uses signals derived from the limbic system, its most labile area overall, applied above the temporal lobes, limbic responses appear naturally - if the experimental conditions are right.  Ksirok (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you haven't noticed, the brain is not a nuclear-powered ball of interstellar gas. Your analogy is therefore meaningless. The sources that you quote above, although interesting, do not directly support Persinger's theories. In the context of Wikipedia, they are also primary sources and using them to support Persinger's theories would constitute original research on your part and also inappropriate synthesis of published material. You have obviously done your research, but I suggest you write up that research (making a clearer argument for how it relates to Persinger's research), submit it to an academic journal with peer-review and get it published. Then, and only then, can it be added to this article. Famousdog  (c) 09:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness of weak-intensity magnetic fields