Differential EEG - RETRACTION - Clarification

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Mar 12 16:07:50 EST 2004


Clarification, below.

"ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nSn4c.35020$aT1.30022 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> RETRACTION, below.
>
> "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:MEh4c.16594$%06.14801 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:009723c2e8fce0ac395a4d399811a2ce at news.teranews.com...
> > > NMH: My challenge for you and anyone
> > > is the following: If externally applied
> > > magnetic fields cannot effect behavioral
> > > processes (such as consciousness), then
> > > explain why when appropriate controls
> > > are presented (i.e. sham- no field) the
> > > effects are not there? The effect is only
> > > present when individuals are exposed to
> > > the magnetic field and not to the sham (no
> > > field) condition. For example, my colleagues
> > > Cook et al., (1999) have shown that
> > > the application of 10 mT counterclockwise
> > > but not clockwise circumcerebrally rotating
> > > and phase-shifting magnetic field in the
> > > horizontal plane can intefere with subjective
> > > time estimations in humans. If the individual
> > > is exposed to either sham condition or a
> > > clockwise configuration of the same circum-
> > > cerebral rotating phase-shifting magnetic field,
> > > the effect was no longer present (i.e. no sub-
> > > jective change in time estimation). Obviously
> > > the pattern and direction of the field were the
> > > crucial parameters mediating the effects. (This
> > > finding has been replicated, so it is not a spurious
> > > result).
> > >
> > > GS: The crucial sentence is the last one - the
> > > one in parentheses. First, have there been any
> > > failures to replicate? Second, you haven't de-
> > > scribed the procedure(s) and there are a number
> > > of variables that could be relevant - but I under-
> > > stand why you wouldn't go into details....don't
> > > get me wrong. But still, as controversial as this
> > > sounds to me, one has to be skeptical.
> > >
> > > If you really wish to demonstrate the effect, ex-
> > > pose each of four subjects to all of the conditions,
> > > multiple times. If you can get the effect repeatedly
> > > in individual subjects, then you've got something.
>
> I RETRACT my comments below.
>
> > He's got exactly Nothing but a 'blunt-instrument',
> > applied in absence-of-understanding.

He, eventually, had an experiment that was in need of
an explanation.

If what's transpired has been in any way Connected to
the upcoming Templeton Prize announcement, then, Sir
John, I ask you to pass me by, because that means that
there's 'Difficult' stuff that remains needing doing, and it's
best that you 'stand-clear'.

If there's no Connection, then, if you choose me, I'll take
it as a Loan, and return it to you after I've been able to
present my work Publicly. It's the only way, because
I've, formerly, given my Word. One's Word, once given,
binds one.

k. p. collins

> > > "NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:vh44c.28230$hG.350952 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > [...]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list