-did not know this-strange,because in my own life med.has helped in pain-What about the woman giving birth?I am only a man and will never know that pain-but i have seen,been with mothers who could focus or med.-Is this a religion?wait you did not say that.Might i say Science is a Religion?Why not-bound in rules etc.It seems odd to me that a "Seeker'of knowlege might have a prob.with the D.Lama just talking,but thats just me.

Yours,

S.Ed.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

This research maybe doesn't belong here:

MONKS ACTIVATE BRAIN THROUGH MEDITATION

When Tibetan monks meditate, their brains light up and do so significantly more then do the brains of novice meditators. That's one of the findings of Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin. This ongoing research program on the functional difference in the brain activity of experienced and novice meditators focuses especially on gamma waves, some of the highest-frequency and most important electrical brain impulses. Davidson had two groups of meditators meditate ... (to make the story short) ... soon after beginning meditation, the experienced monks showed dramatic increases in gamma-wave activity. The novice meditators, however, showed little increase in such activity. Moreover, the monks demonstrated a high level of integrated, synergistic gamma activity throughout the brain, while that evidenced in the novices was more chaotic.

Dr.Davidson believes his research shows that mediation over a long period of time restructures the way the brain functions.

Otherwise i'd agree with M.Rusty. Or maybe they have canclled it for certain protocol issues ...

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

''The real question though, is what does that mean?''

Freediver, i don't know what does that mean. It doesn't have to mean anything really. Like you said, it may just be interesting. What was the purpose of Richard Davidson to make such research ?? Maybe it is just to show 'the benefits' or 'the difference' between long and short term efects of meditation. Or, just to prove that there ARE efects.

How would this knowledge be of benifit at the neurological clinic? (am not too familliar with gamma rays). The articles are too short ... just to intrigue the reader, i agree.

So, i choose to believe, there is no meaning to it, just stating the obvious/common knowledge, lol.

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

And the research has got all attributes to relate with:

'Science and the Open Mind'

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

being a neuro pt, former rn, and student of neuro-psy, i have to agree that the fda and pharm companies would be out of business if we learned the true power of the brains chemistry over our bodies. research has shown through pet scans, mris, blood work, etc... that while people are meditating, praying, laughing, using imagary, chemicals are released into the body that do everything from lowering cholesterol to allevating pain even healing terminal illness. the studies do not get the attention they deserve because of big business esp in u.s. most studies are actually done in other countries such as sweden. so the Dali Lama scares the u no what out of them folks.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

practitioner ?

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

What about rn ?

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Patient !!

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

rn - registered nurse

practitioner - doctor

patient - the people waiting in triage

 [ send green star]

Pt and RN=Patient and Registered Nurse.

Meditation has helped me through childbirth, cancer, and anxiety. It's helped my son with MS symptoms. The power of the brain is amazing. It's much more effective then chemicals, and no nasty side effects. 

It also kept me from killing my ex.

 [ accepted]

''oh by the way does my being blonde help excuse my lack of thoughtfullness''

Yes, that explains it then, lol.

p.s.: just kidding Ann, English is not my 1st language, so, sometimes i get lost in abvs.

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

to get back on track here, i believe it is impossible to seperate spirituality from physical science. as humans we emit energy which can be traced in ekgs(electrocardiograms),eegs(electrical output of brains). now i have been out of school along time and laws of physics may have changed ( more like it my brain has changed)  but it seems to me that electrity is matter and is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes forms. (i find it very interesting that our hearts and brains are the traceable electrical currents). these theories lead me to believe we have always been and always will be. just in different forms.

please keep in mind my blondness/greyness, i can't remember the sixties and was there, and been out of college along time. so if things have changed i will gladly invite a physics course. just keep it simple please.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/4-2/Smith.pdf

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

How does the following fit in with your thoughts, Ann ?

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A11a.html

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Hi there, newbie here!

I'm a great "fan" of the Dalai Lama and of Buddhism, so I really can't understand why all the fuss.

And I agree with what you're talking about pharmaceuthical industries having a problem with that. Here in Europe we have the same problem. There is a general belief that every time you're not the happiest person on Earth (and surroundings), you don't need to talk with someone or go for a walk: you need a pill! And that belief is caused a) because of the intense advertising, or should I say "brainwashing" by pharmaceutical companies; b) because doctors are being pressed by (a) to prescribe drugs to every problem, and because there are so many patients that they simple don't have the time to try anything else; ans specially c) because we live in a world where people want a quick and easy solution to everything, and they don't care that nothing worthwhile ever is easy, so if someone tells them there is such a solution, they buy it (literally BUY it).

Being a medical student myself, I see every day in the hospital dozens of people with no apparent psychiatric disorder taking 5 different types of psychoactive drugs every day, and I keep thinking "what for?"

Doctors, and the public in general, have a real problem in distinguishing a real chronical disease from a simple "the day didn't go so well" moment. So if a person is feeling nervous because he/she is having an exam tomorrow, they take an anxiolytic and feel calm and relaxed (and of course, the next day they are still a little sedated so they end up failing the exam and not knowing why - try to convince them it was because of the drug or that they didn't sleep enough and they'll kill you!); if a person is feeling down because the day didn't go as well as they had expected, just "take a Prozac and you'll be living happilly ever after!" Both of these of course, as well as most other similar problems, could easily be solved by a friendly voice letting these people know they are not alone.

It is widely proven that any drug administered continuously eventually desensibilizes the body receptors, and this is especially true for neural messengers. So here you have a trojan horse: a person is feeling down for some reason; a simple talk might do the trick, but instead the person takes, or worst, is prescribed, an anti-depressive; with time, it desensibilizes the receptors, causing a need to increase the frequency and/or dosage; you get in a vicious circle, which ends up causing a chronical depression on a PREVIOUSLY SANE person, and this time the person cannot survive without drugs; final result is, pharm companies have gained a customer for life, while the depression level only increases and will keep on sucking the life out of that person day after day. See the trojan horse here?

The same could be said about anxiolytics, or even tobacco (which btw is a brain stimulator, so when people feel anxious they smoke to calm down, but nicotine stimulates the brain, causing more anxiety which causes them to smoke more - people who stop smoking, after a few days the nicotine levels drop and they don't feel so anxious as when they actually WERE smoking): they're all trojan horses designed to keep you addicted!

Now what people don't know, but researchers will find out in 10/15 years:

1) you're using substances that are strange to the body, or in concentrations the body isn't used to;

2) you're not using them anywhere, you're using them AT THE BRAIN, which is a very vulnurable part of your body, since it is extremely sensitive to slight changes in the amounts of specific substances;

3) you're activating neurones at times they are not supposed to be active, or deactivating them at times when their work is needed. That desregulation of brain functioning ends up causing what is called "oxidative stress", which basically means that a cell (e.g. neurone) works so hard that it dies out of fatigue. That cell destuction is related to neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson, etc.

NOTE: Of course, the last part is speculation, you can believe it or not, but we will be talking again in a decade or so. As a former Portuguese Prime Minister (and hopefully future President) once said: I am never wrong and I hardly ever have doubts.

Anyway, here are my 2 cents for this discussion (more like a quarter LOL)

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Sorry, I got so carried away I didn't realise how much I had written!

And I forgot what I also wanted to say: I'm a great admirer (the word "fan" might be a little displaced, it's not like they're a football team!), of Buddhism and the way they use meditation to purchase interior happiness.

And the research you were talking about only proves what we already knew: meditation and laughter stimulate the brain, while sadness and negative thinking inhibits it. That can easily be tested: start smiling or even laughing right now for no apparent reason and you can see you're feeling a lot better; on the other hand, make a sad and lonely expression and you will see the effect as well.

I'm thinking of taking brain research after I finish college, and that is precisely one of the issues I'd like to investigate. Just think of what it would mean if a lot of people's problems could be solved simply with a few basic techniques instead of all that brain poison they're trying to impose on us...

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Yes, I had a similar experience, only with a pocket knife where I "thrust" it into a piece of wood, and it closed on me (nearly severing my little finger).  I felt only a blunt pain, as if I had bumped it, not the sharp pain of a cut.

  This may or may not be attributable to "shock"; where the brain shuts down "feeling" the pain sent to it when it becomes overwhelming. Electro-chemical reactions that protect themselves from being overwhelmed by too much "input"?

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Yep...when I feel onto something sharp and metallic as a child (I believe it was fencing) I didn't cry at first.  Then I saw the gaping wound it left on my left calf.  I still have a scar from that one. 

 [ send green star]

If illness or injury follows, the glands may not be able to produce enough cortisone to keep one from going into shock. A slow reduction in the flow of steroids allows the adrenal glands to regain their ability to manufacture natural cortisone.

   I once pushed a screwdriver into the palm of my hand, severing skin, vessels, and tendons.  The pain I felt was tantamont to having struck that part of my hand with the handle of the screwdriver, instead of the blade, as I had done.

   I was informed that the condition I experienced is a mild form of shock because of the intensity and suddeness of what I had done. Pain is not a "correct" condition, it signals something is wrong. When the threshold is exceeded, and each person is a little different, it can be blocked out, just as the opposite, ghost pain, can be felt after a limb that is long healed and long gone, suddenly starts to "hurt" again.  If severing a nerve stops the pain however, I would think that any cut would be pretty much painless. Clean cuts are sometimes, but lacerations that are not caused by a very sharp object (like a razor) can be very painful.

   After initial shock wears off, the pain signalling that something is still wrong, returns, thus it is with any burn, includeing 3rd degree.

 Extreem shock occurs when the blood pressure drops to dangerous levels.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Thanks for the invite Freediver   ~renee

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

Thanks very much, Freediver, for inviting me to join. I already feel more at home here than I did in the group I recently left (you know which one). I'm going to take my time in checking all of your threads. As far as the Dalai Lama's attendance is concerned: I believe it's a question of a lot of money. If millions of people would meditate instead of popping pills, it would cost the pharmaceutical industry billions: anti-depressiva, beta-blockers, ADHD medication, etc.  would no longer have to be prescribed in such enormous quantities.  

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

One of the more cool-headed I've read in a while. 

I tend to see the semantics issue with most communication, so I'll bring up one on the word, "Science".  Am I correct in assuming that what most people are referring to on this board, when they say 'science', they are referring to, 'western secular scientific method'-Science?

OM Shanti

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

actually the term secular referred to the science, not neccessarily the scientists.

Anyway, I just wanted to be certain I was making the appropriate assumptions...

OM Shanti

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

It is rude to answer a question with a question.

I forgot to mention - they are all very recent changes, with the word grey inserted in a similar manner, from people who are very active posters.

 [ send green star]

I changed my name when I saw one person use Grey, and thought to myself, I am old and grey too, and then I added it in, honest.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Did anyone see Sunday morning on CBS last week?  Mika B did a story on meditation, school children (who, by the way, excelled at seemingly everything from sports to drama and academics because for 15 minutes twice a day they meditate to calm their mind, to focus and to eliminate stress)and a NIH study researching meditations effect on cancer patients.  I'm interested to know if y'all out there are still discussing the meditation topic.  Seems to be kind of quiet.

MaryB

PS Let me know if I am doing this posting thing wrong.  I'm a newbie and I have to do this for a class I am taking. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

That's fine, you are doing it right. Is there a published paper on the schoolchildren who meditate. There is another thread about a study of prayer - I would be interested to see the effects in this context.

 [ send green star]

After your post I went searching for more information about schoolchildren and meditation and found lots of interesting sites out there in webland.  I ran across an article that was published in Business Weekly in March of '04 and came across another school (this one in Great Britan) that advocates meditation as part of their curriculum.  They say it helps students to focus, to help calm them which in turn alleviates stress.  In our go-get'um society, children as well as adults need to be able to retreat and refresh.  I think there are more research entities studying the link between meditation and how the brain works now than there ever have been.  I'd be interested to hear from other members of this group about this subject.

Mary B

PS: Freediver, what is the origin of your tag name.  Just curious.  I'm thinking it has something to do with diving without scuba gear.  Am I right or am I wrong?

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Right. Breathhold diving is called freediving.

Can you post a link to the Business Weekly article? Do you know how to post links?

 [ send green star]

Here is the link to the article in Businessweek that I mentioned.  It's called "Meditation for Moppets."  The link following the first is also an article about school children and meditation in a school in Augusta, GA.  Let me know if the links don't work for some reason. I searched the Netscape site for them and then copied the link. 

MaryB

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_13/b3876141_mz070.htm

http://www.lifetimefitness.com/magazine/index.cfm?strWebAction=article_detail&intArticleId=288

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

I have lived a long time, so something that I'm doing must be pretty successful. 

• I have done meditation and was definitely cured that way of a mild concussion.
• I take drugs for a hormonal deficiency and have no particular intention to stop because no matter how many other people and hamsters it doesn't work for, it works for me.
• I don't believe in taking any medicine otherwise unless I feel terrible for a long time.  (Though Imodium is pretty handy once in a while).
• If I know of something cheap and handy, I will use that - like vinegar for an insect bite, comfrey for a muscular strain, peppermint tea for indigestion etc.
• I have had crystal therapy, homeopathy, laying on of hands and they all work very well.

I have noticed that pharmaceutical companies are particularly unscrupulous in their business methods, as are many other commercial organisations, so it is as well to disbelieve their claims to efficacy unless the evidence is overwhelming.

Would I trust Novo or the Dalai Lama? Isn't that a no-brainer!

Meditation has no side effects, and you can do it for a while.  If you don't feel any better, you can go for alternative therapies until you are sure you need something else.  You can still find an allopathic practitioner (Western medical scientific) for a diagnosis and treatment.  I think we know in ourselves what we need.  I'm sure I do. 

When I have had backache, I have been interested to find that although other people seem to have to wear weird apparatus and lie flat on their backs for a long time, a couple of hours digging in the garden seems to cure me.  I don't get the sympathy and understanding that medics give, but I am back in my life functioning as before. 

I am capable of self- pity like everyone else, but try to curb it.  Maybe I am just lucky to be healthy, but a positive outlook helps.  I work quite hard at being happy with what I have, and if I am asked to do something, I try always to say yes if it fits in with my ethical profile. 

Science has its place, and one should try to be objective if one is going to apply a new idea to curing a disease or solving a problem.  It is vital then to see if it is going to work properly, and cause no unintended effect.  It is vital to see if the right problem is being addressed.  It is important to see if people can afford to buy it, after the money it costs to create and test it to destruction has been found. 

I think that if we could cure ourselves of rich people's illnesses, the pharmaceutical companies would then only be able to work on curing the illnesses of the poor.  Such application of scientific technique would then also be subject to economic tests and only affordable remedies would be produced.  They would not need to produce cures for the side effects of their other drugs.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I also am glad that this thread came back around because I would love to add my humble opinion. I am a neuroscientist and a meditator. There are two stumbling blocks that often prevent scientists from living up to them definition of the term. One is the magic jump of assumption that if something hasn't yet been fully explored it doesn't exist. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." To automatically assume that higher orders of consciousness do not exist because that doesn't fit your model of the world is not being scientific. Second, in science, we put tremendous faith in Ockham's razor: the simplest explanation is the only acceptable one. I ask you, when have we ever encountered a situation that is not more complex than originally thought when it is explored in depth. It is also interesting to note that William of Ockham was not a scientist but a 14^th century Franciscan monk that basically had a problem with how longwinded many theologians of the time were. The atom was the smallest and indivisible particle. Then it turned out that there were electrons, protons and neutrons and these were the smallest particles. Then we get into quarks and so it goes with everything. The simplest explanation is rarely the most accurate.

With regard to His Holiness the Dali Lama, he has put forth a hypothesis that consciousness is not a function of the brain. Clearly the brain plays a critical role in allowing that raw sense of being to receive information from the physical level and to control the body's capability to interact with the external environment. But the question of the location of the "viewer' and its neural networks have not been defined. Needless to say this subject does not easily lend itself to scientific experimentation. While from a scientific viewpoint, I can offer no evidence in support of his hypothesis, I personally have adopted it as my working hypothesis. It seems to better fit the experiences of my life than the purely physical hypothesis of consciousness which is so commonly accepted.

Edwin

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Hello, my name is Melody and I am a scientist at Texas Tech University.  I have worked in 7 research labs and I've done several studies for the department of defense.  Presently, I am a graduate student in Technical Communications and have switched from classic cell biology, using histopathology and many techniques in immunofluorescent cytochemistry, to Virology.  I am pursuing a career in science writing, and am completing a minor in Biology along with my graduate work.  I was also a Biology teacher in the public schools here in Texas.

What I've come across with high incidence and frequency is that the definition of SCIENCE is unknown, and for a real understanding of science and it's issue, we all need to go back to fundamentals.  (It is also this most fundamental information that PhD candidates most often blunder on in their qualifiers...and if I has said this in a professional journal, I'd have to have a reference for it.)  The definition of science according to a scientist is "Answering questions by measuring observatons in a manner that is repeatable." (reference needed)  We are limited, then, by what we can measure and therefore quantify.  Many, many things can't be measured or quantified, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  It just means science can't measure and quantify it, so it isn't science (yet?).  This doesn't seem like an open mind, but if you are talking about something that can't be measured with an instrument, then you have changed the subject to something other than science.  So Science has limitations on what it can accomplish.  It is fascinating none-the-less. 

Also, among science researchers, medine is not considered science.  For medicine to be considered science, all tests and procedures we have done that render results would have to be repeated 3 times minimum to be statistically significant with the average of the results given as the answer.

My current studies are in Virology and are focused on HPV.  Fascinating things, viruses.  We humans think we rule the world, but science reveals that bacteria and viruses are the real rulers (reference needed.)

I hope this is going to be a fun group. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I disagree. Objectivity is not the goal. Knowledge, understanding and power is. Nor is individual objectivity even required in the long run. Plenty of scientists have been very biased towards one particular view. Objectivity is the inevitable emergent property of the community that restricts itself to the scientific method.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

There is also no requirement for science to be quantifiable or for an experiment to be repeated a certain number of times before it becomes scientific. It merely has to be a meaningful experiment and it has to be possible to repeat it indefinitely.

 [ send green star]

Hello, thanks for your response.  The website you refer to is a political, not scientific website.  And as a published scientist who is now working in the humanities, and studying and performing qualitative studies professionally, it is my experience that there is a vast difference between the many different scientific studies, all quantifiable, I did in 7 different labs and the qualitative studies I am doing now.

The definitions I have given you are from the fields of Science.  Stating that the goal of science is objectivity infers to close readers that objectivity may not be possible at all.  If a scientist is not pursuing the goal of objectivity, then they aren't a scientist performing science.  They are doing something besides science, even if they are calling it science.

What scientific studies have you done that have led you to your conclusions?

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

As a new member of this group, a member of Care2 since 1999, a group owner, etc., I find it interesting that my first post to this group illicits a response that seems close-minded, and somewhat of an attack.

According to Foucault, post-modernist philosopher, objectivity is not possible and everyone, including scienctists, is biased.  That's why I said the goal of science is objectivity.  As a real scientist, I can ascertain that objectivity has always been the goal of all research scientists I have every worked with, including scientists who had big fat grants from NIH and the DoD.  And until you actually participate in anything and get some experience, all you can really do is hypothesize (guess).

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

The website you refer to is a political, not scientific website.

Are you saying the two are mutually exclusive? Since when was it even possible to take politics out of science?

it is my experience that there is a vast difference between the many different scientific studies, all quantifiable, I did in 7 different labs and the qualitative studies I am doing now

That doesn't necessarily mean that some are scientific and some aren't.

The definitions I have given you are from the fields of Science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying there is some kind of consensus I am unaware of?

What scientific studies have you done that have led you to your conclusions?

"What is the nature of scientific enquiry" is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Participating in science does not give you any authority to define it. According to Thomas Kuhn, it is not even necessary, at least during periods of 'normal science', for msot scientists to even know what science is.

I find it interesting that my first post to this group illicits a response that seems close-minded, and somewhat of an attack

It's because I have discussed this issue and researched it a lot.

According to Foucault, post-modernist philosopher, objectivity is not possible and everyone, including scienctists, is biased.  That's why I said the goal of science is objectivity.

Are you tring to say that it should be the goal of science? The fact that everyone is biased is not evidence that the goal of science actually is objectivity.

 [ send green star]

I dont think its possible to do theory with objectivity. Descriptive science yes, if thats your bag.

There are many explanations for any set of facts. To make a proper choice you need to go for elegence. Else you will get stuck in all kinds of absurdity.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]