Cochrane on meditation: Yes or No - Page 3

Ducky · 28th March 2006, 10:44 PM

Delphi, that syllogism is strikingly familiar to one I've heard before...

Oh right, Ionesco's Rhinoceros. Quote the Logician:

"All cats die.
Socrates is dead.
therefore Soctrates is a cat."

Both Humphrey's and the Logician's syllogism have the same amount of logical standing.

(that would be none)

delphi_ote · 28th March 2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

Delphi, that syllogism is strikingly familiar to one I've heard before...

Oh right, Ionesco's Rhinoceros. Quote the Logician:

"All cats die.
Socrates is dead.
therefore Soctrates is a cat."

Both Humphrey's and the Logician's syllogism have the same amount of logical standing.

(that would be none)

The problem isn't in the logic. It's in the assumptions. It's also not Humphrey's syllogism. It's mine.

ETA, I'll clarify more just in case. That syllogism is demonstrates that logically Humphrey has to conclude from his two assumptions that meditation is not mundane. If he doesn't, his assumptions contradict one another.

Humphreys · 29th March 2006, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

I have no idea what that would even mean. You seem to be grasping at straws.

It's quite simple. How would you study whether dreams are really occuring, in a lab? Dreams could be faulty memories.

So, I have a personal experience of dreaming, now it's my job to head to the lab to prove the existence of dreams, right?

I can't see how that would be feasible. Even when matching REM with dreaming the subjects have to be woken up and asked what their personal experiences were.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Let's try this again. From the thesaurus:
"exceptional, extraordinary, infrequent, rare, uncommon, unusual" or "celestial, divine, ethereal, heavenly, spiritual."

I am certainly amazed (astonished and affected with great wonder) at things having exceptional, extraordinary, infrequent, rare, uncommon, and unusual properties.

Something not mundane has to match one of those descriptions, not all of them. When read like this it makes far less sense:

"I am certainly amazed, astonished and affected with great wonder at things that are infrequent, uncommon, and unusual."

Well, you're sure going to be astonished an awful lot then.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

My logic goes something like this:
Things which are mundane cannot reduce stress (your assumption.)
Meditation can reduce stress (your assumption.)
Therefore, meditation is not mundane.

I'll ask again. What makes you think that meditation is not mundane?

What is the syllogism supposed to prove? I admitted that meditation was not mundane, but that it wasn't also "amazing", or "astonishing".

Now, we've been over this already.

How about we start taking a look at the studies posted and linked to in this thread, that on the surface, seem to imply that meditation is far from mundane.

What do you think of the studies?

Humphreys · 29th March 2006, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

That syllogism is demonstrates that logically Humphrey has to conclude from his two assumptions that meditation is not mundane. If he doesn't, his assumptions contradict one another.

Since I never denied that, what was the point?

delphi_ote · 29th March 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

Since I never denied that, what was the point?

Clarifying for fowlsound. Not everything is about you.

Hardenbergh · 29th March 2006, 12:31 PM

Roy Masters' Be Still and Know meditation can be downloaded for free by going to the homepage of the FHU website. It's also available on CD and cassette:

www.fhu.com

Humphreys · 29th March 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Clarifying for fowlsound. Not everything is about you.

You originally posted the syllogism to me. I usually take things posted to me as being comments meant for me.

What was the whole syllogism charade in aid of?

delphi_ote · 29th March 2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

It's quite simple. How would you study whether dreams are really occuring, in a lab? Dreams could be faulty memories.

Clearly something is happening. We have hooked people up to MRI machines, and we do know that something actually is occuring when someone starts dreaming. This is precisely how we figure such things out.

Originally Posted by Humphreys

Something not mundane has to match one of those descriptions, not all of them.

I never implied it did.

Originally Posted by Humphreys

"I am certainly amazed, astonished and affected with great wonder at things that are infrequent, uncommon, and unusual."
Well, you're sure going to be astonished an awful lot then.

Actually, not often at all by the very definitions of all of those three words.

Originally Posted by Humphreys

What is the syllogism supposed to prove?

To make sure I was clear on why I assumed you meant that meditation was not mundane in response to your first post. I was trying to show my work, as it were.

Originally Posted by Humphreys

How about we start taking a look at the studies posted and linked to in this thread, that on the surface, seem to imply that meditation is far from mundane.

Are you conceding that you need scientific evidence to back up a claim, and that personal experience is not sufficient? Because I'm not going to persue this issue further if we don't agree on that.

delphi_ote · 29th March 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

You originally posted the syllogism to me. I usually take things posted to me as being comments meant for me.

What was the whole syllogism charade in aid of?

Yes. The original post was to you. I've outlined why I posted it in the immediately preivous post.

Why would you think it was a pretense? You're starting to sound a little paranoid.

Humphreys · 29th March 2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Clearly something is happening. We have hooked people up to MRI machines, and we do know that something actually is occuring when someone starts dreaming. This is precisely how we figure such things out.

We still have to ask the person whether they were dreaming or not when we wake them during REM. We have no other way of knowing whether the person was dreaming or not. Otherwise, all we'd have is rapid eye movements which are not indicative of dreaming by themselves.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Actually, not often at all by the very definitions of all of those three words.

You're wrong. There could be billion of different things that are all uncommon, infrequent, and unusual.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Are you conceding that you need scientific evidence to back up a claim, and that personal experience is not sufficient? Because I'm not going to persue this issue further if we don't agree on that.

Sufficient for what? To be proof to anyone else? I don't concede that, because I never claimed that it should be. I even said "for what it's worth".

Personal experience, in this instance, where the mind is concerned, is certainly good enough evidence for me, however, and the personal experiences of so many meditators should also be indicative of something from the perspective of everyone else.

Now, people keep asking for studies, and now I've offered some.

Does anyone care to critique them?

delphi_ote · 29th March 2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

Sufficient for what? To be proof to anyone else? I don't concede that, because I never claimed that it should be. I even said "for what it's worth".

Personal experience, in this instance, where the mind is concerned, is certainly good enough evidence for me, however, and the personal experiences of so many meditators should also be indicative of something from the perspective of everyone else.

In that case, no. I'd rather not discuss these studies with you, because we can't agree what constitutes evidence. The rest of the conversation would be pointless.

Humphreys · 30th March 2006, 12:48 AM

We agree what evidence is as far as science is concerned, delphi.

I'm really surprised. All this fuss, and no one will even look at the studies.

Ducky · 30th March 2006, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

We agree what evidence is as far as science is concerned, delphi.

I'm really surprised. All this fuss, and no one will even look at the studies.

It has been explained why the studies you linked were not the issue.

Humphreys · 30th March 2006, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

It has been explained why the studies you linked were not the issue.

We've progressed passed that now. Studies were requested, and studies were offered. I'd really like to know, for my own benefit as well as others, how reliable they are.

For example, if they are reliable stidues, if in future I make the claim that "meditation is very good at reducing anxiety, among other things", I'll be able to link the scientific studies as evidence, rather than relying on evidence that very scientific minded people are going to reject.

Ducky · 30th March 2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Humphreys

We've progressed passed that now. Studies were requested, and studies were offered. I'd really like to know, for my own benefit as well as others, how reliable they are.

For example, if they are reliable stidues, if in future I make the claim that "meditation is very good at reducing anxiety, among other things", I'll be able to link the scientific studies as evidence, rather than relying on evidence that very scientific minded people are going to reject.

That's a fair enough request. If I were a PhD I would have something to critique those studies with. As is, I don't think the opinion of a sound engineer and musician goes far with the very scientific minded unless we're discussing whether vacuum tube generated distortions are superior to transistor generated distortions or the myths surrounding how digital sampling works.

Edit: why does it seem the email notifacations on topics skips for a few posts?

pchams · 30th March 2006, 02:18 PM

Isn't the original question a logical fallacy (false dilemma)?
What about at least a third option:
3. Don't know

delphi_ote · 30th March 2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by pchams

Isn't the original question a logical fallacy (false dilemma)?
What about at least a third option:
3. Don't know

Indeed. yrreg is a big fan of that fallacy.

28th March 2006, 11:49 PM	#82
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by fowlsound Delphi, that syllogism is strikingly familiar to one I've heard before... Oh right, Ionesco's Rhinoceros. Quote the Logician: "All cats die. Socrates is dead. therefore Soctrates is a cat." Both Humphrey's and the Logician's syllogism have the same amount of logical standing. (that would be none) The problem isn't in the logic. It's in the assumptions. It's also not Humphrey's syllogism. It's mine. ETA, I'll clarify more just in case. That syllogism is demonstrates that logically Humphrey has to conclude from his two assumptions that meditation is not mundane. If he doesn't, his assumptions contradict one another.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Last edited by delphi_ote; 28th March 2006 at 11:58 PM.

29th March 2006, 12:47 AM	#83
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	Originally Posted by delphi_ote I have no idea what that would even mean. You seem to be grasping at straws. It's quite simple. How would you study whether dreams are really occuring, in a lab? Dreams could be faulty memories. So, I have a personal experience of dreaming, now it's my job to head to the lab to prove the existence of dreams, right? I can't see how that would be feasible. Even when matching REM with dreaming the subjects have to be woken up and asked what their personal experiences were. Originally Posted by delphi_ote Let's try this again. From the thesaurus: "exceptional, extraordinary, infrequent, rare, uncommon, unusual" or "celestial, divine, ethereal, heavenly, spiritual." I am certainly amazed (astonished and affected with great wonder) at things having exceptional, extraordinary, infrequent, rare, uncommon, and unusual properties. Something not mundane has to match one of those descriptions, not all of them. When read like this it makes far less sense: "I am certainly amazed, astonished and affected with great wonder at things that are infrequent, uncommon, and unusual." Well, you're sure going to be astonished an awful lot then. Originally Posted by delphi_ote My logic goes something like this: Things which are mundane cannot reduce stress (your assumption.) Meditation can reduce stress (your assumption.) Therefore, meditation is not mundane. I'll ask again. What makes you think that meditation is not mundane? What is the syllogism supposed to prove? I admitted that meditation was not mundane, but that it wasn't also "amazing", or "astonishing". Now, we've been over this already. How about we start taking a look at the studies posted and linked to in this thread, that on the surface, seem to imply that meditation is far from mundane. What do you think of the studies?
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

29th March 2006, 12:48 AM	#84
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	Originally Posted by delphi_ote That syllogism is demonstrates that logically Humphrey has to conclude from his two assumptions that meditation is not mundane. If he doesn't, his assumptions contradict one another. Since I never denied that, what was the point?
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

29th March 2006, 10:56 AM	#85
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by Humphreys Since I never denied that, what was the point? Clarifying for fowlsound. Not everything is about you.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

29th March 2006, 12:37 PM	#87
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	Originally Posted by delphi_ote Clarifying for fowlsound. Not everything is about you. You originally posted the syllogism to me. I usually take things posted to me as being comments meant for me. What was the whole syllogism charade in aid of?
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

28th March 2006, 10:44 PM	#81
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Delphi, that syllogism is strikingly familiar to one I've heard before... Oh right, Ionesco's Rhinoceros. Quote the Logician: "All cats die. Socrates is dead. therefore Soctrates is a cat." Both Humphrey's and the Logician's syllogism have the same amount of logical standing. (that would be none)

29th March 2006, 12:31 PM	#86
Hardenbergh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,077	Roy Masters' Be Still and Know meditation can be downloaded for free by going to the homepage of the FHU website. It's also available on CD and cassette: www.fhu.com

29th March 2006, 01:28 PM	#88
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by Humphreys It's quite simple. How would you study whether dreams are really occuring, in a lab? Dreams could be faulty memories. Clearly something is happening. We have hooked people up to MRI machines, and we do know that something actually is occuring when someone starts dreaming. This is precisely how we figure such things out. Originally Posted by Humphreys Something not mundane has to match one of those descriptions, not all of them. I never implied it did. Originally Posted by Humphreys "I am certainly amazed, astonished and affected with great wonder at things that are infrequent, uncommon, and unusual." Well, you're sure going to be astonished an awful lot then. Actually, not often at all by the very definitions of all of those three words. Originally Posted by Humphreys What is the syllogism supposed to prove? To make sure I was clear on why I assumed you meant that meditation was not mundane in response to your first post. I was trying to show my work, as it were. Originally Posted by Humphreys How about we start taking a look at the studies posted and linked to in this thread, that on the surface, seem to imply that meditation is far from mundane. Are you conceding that you need scientific evidence to back up a claim, and that personal experience is not sufficient? Because I'm not going to persue this issue further if we don't agree on that.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

29th March 2006, 01:30 PM	#89
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by Humphreys You originally posted the syllogism to me. I usually take things posted to me as being comments meant for me. What was the whole syllogism charade in aid of? Yes. The original post was to you. I've outlined why I posted it in the immediately preivous post. Why would you think it was a pretense? You're starting to sound a little paranoid.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

29th March 2006, 02:38 PM	#90
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	Originally Posted by delphi_ote Clearly something is happening. We have hooked people up to MRI machines, and we do know that something actually is occuring when someone starts dreaming. This is precisely how we figure such things out. We still have to ask the person whether they were dreaming or not when we wake them during REM. We have no other way of knowing whether the person was dreaming or not. Otherwise, all we'd have is rapid eye movements which are not indicative of dreaming by themselves. Originally Posted by delphi_ote Actually, not often at all by the very definitions of all of those three words. You're wrong. There could be billion of different things that are all uncommon, infrequent, and unusual. Originally Posted by delphi_ote Are you conceding that you need scientific evidence to back up a claim, and that personal experience is not sufficient? Because I'm not going to persue this issue further if we don't agree on that. Sufficient for what? To be proof to anyone else? I don't concede that, because I never claimed that it should be. I even said "for what it's worth". Personal experience, in this instance, where the mind is concerned, is certainly good enough evidence for me, however, and the personal experiences of so many meditators should also be indicative of something from the perspective of everyone else. Now, people keep asking for studies, and now I've offered some. Does anyone care to critique them?
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

29th March 2006, 06:36 PM	#91
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by Humphreys Sufficient for what? To be proof to anyone else? I don't concede that, because I never claimed that it should be. I even said "for what it's worth". Personal experience, in this instance, where the mind is concerned, is certainly good enough evidence for me, however, and the personal experiences of so many meditators should also be indicative of something from the perspective of everyone else. In that case, no. I'd rather not discuss these studies with you, because we can't agree what constitutes evidence. The rest of the conversation would be pointless.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

30th March 2006, 12:48 AM	#92
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	We agree what evidence is as far as science is concerned, delphi. I'm really surprised. All this fuss, and no one will even look at the studies.
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

30th March 2006, 12:50 AM	#93
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by Humphreys We agree what evidence is as far as science is concerned, delphi. I'm really surprised. All this fuss, and no one will even look at the studies. It has been explained why the studies you linked were not the issue.

30th March 2006, 01:04 AM	#94
Humphreys Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Above some Mexicans. Posts: 1,613	Originally Posted by fowlsound It has been explained why the studies you linked were not the issue. We've progressed passed that now. Studies were requested, and studies were offered. I'd really like to know, for my own benefit as well as others, how reliable they are. For example, if they are reliable stidues, if in future I make the claim that "meditation is very good at reducing anxiety, among other things", I'll be able to link the scientific studies as evidence, rather than relying on evidence that very scientific minded people are going to reject.
	__________________ Silence nerd! Prepare for a moon spanking.

30th March 2006, 01:06 AM	#95
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by Humphreys We've progressed passed that now. Studies were requested, and studies were offered. I'd really like to know, for my own benefit as well as others, how reliable they are. For example, if they are reliable stidues, if in future I make the claim that "meditation is very good at reducing anxiety, among other things", I'll be able to link the scientific studies as evidence, rather than relying on evidence that very scientific minded people are going to reject. That's a fair enough request. If I were a PhD I would have something to critique those studies with. As is, I don't think the opinion of a sound engineer and musician goes far with the very scientific minded unless we're discussing whether vacuum tube generated distortions are superior to transistor generated distortions or the myths surrounding how digital sampling works. Edit: why does it seem the email notifacations on topics skips for a few posts?

30th March 2006, 02:18 PM	#96
pchams Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 804	Isn't the original question a logical fallacy (false dilemma)? What about at least a third option: 3. Don't know
pchams Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 804

30th March 2006, 09:16 PM	#97
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	Originally Posted by pchams Isn't the original question a logical fallacy (false dilemma)? What about at least a third option: 3. Don't know Indeed. yrreg is a big fan of that fallacy.
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.