EEG coherence in meditation: has James Randi just brought confusion on the subject?

Question

I just read "Flim-Flam!" from James Randi. James Randi is a famous debunker of the paranormal. In the book, he says that it is not even clear what we mean by EEG coherence between different parts of the brain during meditation. He says that it is an illusion created by defective apparatus, etc.

I checked Google Scholar on the subject (in connection with the Dalai Lama because he a popular figure) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=eeg+coherence+meditation+Dalai+Lama&btnG=Search and it seems well defined and well studied, etc., not even close to the paranormal. Similar research was done with Transcendental Meditation, which is also very well known.

Why does Randi, a debunker of the paranormal, claimed so strongly that it is an "illusion", etc. Anyway, what EEG coherence should has to do with the paranormal? Has James Randi just brought confusion instead of useful information? I have no recent reference for his claims. Did he change his opinion?

T R: What is important in my question is the fact that this phenomenon in meditation is a well established fact. There is no doubt that it is also present in transcendental meditation. The contrary would be surprising.

So, why Randi classified it as an illusion, something that is necessarily the outcomes of defective apparatus, etc? Isn't it a little bit whowho to do that?

There is a strong tendency amongst the whowhos to look at the "big picture" without looking enough at the details. EEG coherence in meditation, which has been extensively studied in transcendental meditation in particular, should not be disregarded just because we think the big picture is "so obvious". Actually, maybe if we carefully study the details, the big picture that was "so obvious" will become less obvious.

But if you are a whowho kind of guy, you will not understand what I mean.

Renaissance Man: I don't know if you are aware but there are some scientists, but also magicians, etc. that devote their entire career in rejecting any phenomena that seems revolutionary. They call themselves the skeptics, the debunkers, etc. Unfortunately, they are biased by their blind commitment, and they aren't scientific when they do their debunking. They only show up in TV shows, etc.

Admittedly, some research on meditation is a lot revolutionary, no doubt about it. Everyone understands that it means that we should be careful about this kind of research, but a normal scientific, not these skeptics, also understands that we should not reject this research so easily especially when we deal with an old and respectable tradition of knowledge, which also brought mathematics, etc. to the world. These skeptics just bring confusion on the subject. They have their own jargon, and whowho is part of it, and I deliberately returned it against them.

To T. R. : Susan Blackmore http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ explains that she had unwarranted beliefs in the paranormal before she decided to join the skeptics. Unfortunately, she seems to have kept her non scientific attitude. For example, when she refers to the effect of MUM, a university where students practice TM, on the violent crimes in Fairfield, the host city, she says that the reduction in violent crimes could be explained by the closing of the previous school. This explanation doesn't work because (1) the reduced rate after MUM arrival was much smaller than the average rate in other small towns in the US and (2) the rate was just normal before MUM arrival. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/FairfieldCrime/index.cfm
Also, she says that this study was not replicated, which is ridiculous. Similar and even more rigorous studies were published in many peer reviewed scientific journals.

Oops. I think that in their jargon the skeptics use "woowoo", not "whowho", but maybe "whoswho" is fine because one normally wonders who is who in these stories and amongst the skeptics.

To Peter D: My question was honest. In particular, in the original details, it is clear that I had no great opinion of Randi. I simply did not want to polarize the question between the truth of revolutionary research and the credibility of Randi. Perhaps you felt that it was not honest, after T R attacked TM and I defended it.

Clearly, much of what is potentially revolutionary in research is wrong, but in no way this implies that Randi is not biased. So, I felt that such a polarization would only bring confusion on the issue. The problem is that people who do not want to support potentially or seemingly, if you already made up your mind, revolutionary research would prefer to move on Randi's side no matter how biased Randi could be simply because they don't want to be attached with the other side in general. So, the original question avoided this polarization. For example, I considered the Dalai Lama because he does not propose any revolutionary research on meditation.

Answer 1

You cant prove or disprove any of Randi's tests. That is the trick.
No matter how good you do, it won't be good enough because he gets to say what evidence is acceptable.
Of course he or anyone else wouldn't put out such a bet if they didn't know they would never have to pay. and not because he wins, he just wont let anyone else win.
It is the same as if I said. A million dollars to the person who can prove the universe is infinite. You know it is, but what proof would be acceptable to convince someone who didn't think so?
It is like the get a free drink bet. The person offering the deal, makes sure he can't lose.
So what I am saying is it has nothing at all to do with the subject matter being true, It just has to be unprovable.

Answer 2

I am not qualified to answer this question, but I do know that Randi usually doesn't get involved unless paranormalists are making some claim. For example, I've seen it stated that a person can control his EEG "vibration" and by doing so he becomes able to do magical things. I wish I had more on this. Sorry.

EDIT: You said the following: "I don't know if you are aware but there are some scientists, but also magicians, etc. that devote their entire career in rejecting any phenomena that seems revolutionary. They call themselves the skeptics, the debunkers, etc. Unfortunately, they are biased by their blind commitment, and they aren't scientific when they do their debunking. They only show up in TV shows, etc."

I thought your original question was honest, but now I see you were just looking for an opportunity to attack Randi. His career, like Penn and Teller, Houdini and a few other skeptics is that of an illusionist. He tricks people for a living. That's why he and the others are so adept at picking up on the BS that frauds and true believers in the paranormal try to pass off as real. They research extraordinary claims (which you call seemingly revolutionary) and will call it out as BS when they see something that isn't what it purports to be. (Do you think Uri Gellar can really bend spoons with his mind?)

They are not biased. Their conclusions are based on evidence, which they arrive at scientifically. If anyone is biased, it's those who want desperately to believe that magic exists. True believers in magic keep people like Randi pretty busy. If he shows up on TV it's only as a token skeptic who is given a smidgen of time to provide the illusion of balance in a show whose purpose it is to invariably support the idea that the world is magical--because this is much better for ratings.

Answer 3

Frederick Travis, Ph.D., during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research,reported that the regular practice of transcendental meditation leads to enduring neuropsychological changes that are evident in brain-wave patterns,These neuropsychological changes are evident in participants not only during the meditation period but, more importantly, during waking cognitive activity

Answer 4

Randi's investigations of this topic surround the claims of practitioners of Transcendental Meditaion that meditation can effect everything from the effects of gravity, to the weather, to the crime rate. Transcendental Meditation (TM) is said to produce an EEG coherence in the brain. There have been scientific studies that have concluded that meditation (Trancendental or not) can effect the electrical patterns detected in the brain. The studies show an increased level of coordination in the activity in discreet areas of the brain. That much has been studied scientifically. The claims that some sort of external psychic influence comes from this state of mind has not been proven.

In fact, Randi has challenged claims by TM leaders and found alternative explanations for the events they attribute to meditation. TM leaders claim meditation will enable "yogic flying", and that TM has contributed to a lower crime rate in Iowa. Randi has challenged these extreme claims.

Randi's challenge of EEG coherence is directly related to his objection to the extreme claims of TM leaders. His dismissal of the entire phenomenon of EEG coherence is presented entirely in support of his thesis that the TM claims are false. In reality, he is only confusing the issue.

EEG coherence is an observed phenomenon that has been well tested and documented scientifically. In this case, Randi just plain has the facts wrong. Meditation may not enable flying, but it definitely can cause a symbiotic balance of energy flowing in the brain. This energy flow is detectable using EEG devices and it is described as EEG coherence.

Answer 5

I challenge anyone in the world to prove that there is no paranormal for a million dollars.
You just pick some subject that cannot be proven or disproved and make a big noise about it.
That way you confuse most of the people into believing in the side you are promoting.

Answer 6

Dingo d is wrong.In this day and age of a lawyer on every corner.If anyone could do anything.Put a feather in a jar and move it.Are you going to say they won't get their money?This kind of statement just rationalizes why no ones collected that $1,000,000.I don't believe you read the entire book.

Answer 7

I believe he is addressing what certain paranormalists claim EEG coherence means based on "research" done by the transcendental meditation (TM) woowoos, not on actual research by neurologists.

Answer 8

I don't understand you. What is a whowho?

Answer 9

I don't know what to tell you; there will always be oppositions to any opinion.

Answer 10

I wish to ask the same question as the op.