Raf

Been keeping my eye on the poll. It looks like a vote changed. Am I right? Anyone else keeping track? No need to step forward. I just didn't know you could change votes.

I don't mean to be critical of Newberg's study. I'm only pointing out its severely limited applicability to the discussion we're having (an opinion supported by the evidence that I am stating as a perceived fact).

That would be pretty long term. Newberg apparently compared the brain scans of his subjects to themselves, not to each other. In other words, the scan of Subject A with the understanding was compared to the scan of Subject A while speaking in tongues. It does not appear the scan of Subject A was compared to the scan of Subject B in either state. That would mean the beginning jazz musician would have to be compared to himself before and after he developed a bit of expertise in improv. Not sure how practical that is. Come to think of it, that also makes it problematic to compare an admittedly fake SIT to a presumed real one. Unless the same person were performing both activities. And that would be problematic for a host of different reasons.

I could see where TIP could be compared to the improve in rap music that they showed in that video. Again, there is a challenge there. The rappers are deliberately trying to rhyme. A creative juice is flowing that is not present in TIP. Could that show up in the brain scan? Is there a way to isolate and correct for that? Who knows? But a study would be interesting.

I'll take your word for it, but I would bet the complex creative juices that work in musical improvisation are distinct from the more fundamental creativity of free vocalization, and that difference can be picked up in a brain scan. That's my bet. I have no evidence because no one has compared the two. A hypothesis for Newberg to consider in his next study?

I agree. We're just talking on different scales. I'll bet a lot of Jazz musicians are GREAT at improv. I'll bet most people are lousy at it. I'll bet a beginning jazz musician is not as good at it as one whose played for a significant period of time. We are in agreement, really, but I understand how you read what I said.

A significant problem with musical improvisation compared to what we've been calling free vocalization is the fact that musical improv, done well, requires the exercising of a (normally) developed talent, where free vocalizing merely requires the exercising of a common and ubiquitous human ability: to produce sounds. So I would expect the brain scans to be substantially different. The musical improviser first has to think of what sound could come next, make a lightning-quick decision as to whether that sound follows harmoniously or melodically, rule it in or out on that basis, and then hurry up and play it. Would that affect the frontal lobe? We know it affects the creative center of the brain. We can see that in the video and it is, predictably, different from anything described in the SIT study. But would a comparison teach us anything useful to this conversation? I don't know. I suspect it's an apples and oranges comparison, in ways that make a brain-scan comparison problematic. All interesting stuff, no doubt.

I like the redundant ones. :)

Why are you dragging me into this? I'm not Word Wolf. That was a joke.

Most people performing musical improvisation would be really bad at it. Now and then you get someone who's good. Rarely is someone great at it. But whether you're bad at it or great at it, it's all you. To presume spirit must be involved is quite a presumption. There is nothing that is produced that is not consistent with natural human ability. Now, if someone improvised on the piano and somehow came up with "Prelude/Angry Young Man" without ever having practiced or heard it before, THAT would be evidence of spiritual activity. I mean, you can't come up with THAT at random. Well, you can, but the odds against it are prohibitive and can't be taken seriously. But to merely produce music that sounds good, even great? Nothing miraculous there. Impressive, yes. But not miraculous. Similarly, a beginning glossolalist might produce a limited range of sounds. The more he does it, the better he gets at it. Excellor sessions might help with that, developing "fluency," as it were. What were excellor sessions if they were not efforts to make comparatively "bad" glossolalia sound like better glossolalia? Producing a glossa that sounds really impressive is not, in and of itself, miraculous. Impressive, yes, but not miraculous. Producing a known human language you've never practiced or learned? That would be miraculous. But there it is.

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Hmm. A decent summary of the raw data. Some really good analysis of the psychoanalytic history of glossolalia (much of it reflecting the issues I just raised in going over his hypotheses. Well done). First hypothesis predicted a decrease in frontal lobe activity from singing (with the understanding) to glossolalia. That prediction was validated (big shock. Speaking with the understanding uses the frontal lobe. Speaking without it does not). What distinguishes it from non-spiritual fakery? The study doesn't consider that question. (Can I say free vocalization again? Or is that going to get challenged every time I bring it up?) Second hypothesis predicted a difference between glossolalia and meditation. That difference was confirmed. I'm confident that if he had sought a difference between glossolalia and a monastic intonation of the Lord's Prayer, he would have found that too. This should surprise no one. Third hypothesis predicted an increase in thalamic activity based on SIT being a "highly active state." This was not confirmed. He goes into some detail about what he DID find, and there's a bit more work to be done. But interesting that I found a problem with the hypothesis as it was stated, and that he evidently failed to confirm the hypothesis, no? I may have overstated that last line. You really need to read it in the original. And the last hypothesis did confirm an increased emotional state. But that could very well be because the subjects were emotional. I'm sure five TWI followers at their third fellowship of the day might have shown different results. But whatever. *** So what do we learn, definitively, from Newberg? Well, it does appear that when you're speaking in tongues, you're not pre-thinking the sounds coming out. Duh. No one said we were. This study says NOTHING about fakery, nothing about distinguishing between an actual lack of control and a perceived lack of control (whatever either term means). You know what would have been interesting? Brain scans of people interpreting and prophesying, and comparing it to those same people discussing the Word or merely praising God with their understanding, extemporaneously, no pre-planning involved. I wonder if there would be decreased frontal lobe activity then? And if so, what would it prove? My overall point is that Newberg's study is interesting, but hardly applicable to the subject we're discussing. I made that observation earlier based on news accounts, and now, with his actual study in hand, I repeat that observation.

Interesting observation. Directly contradicted by our experience. He makes a casual observation about the phonemic structure of the glossolalia, pretty much matching Samarin (and any other respectful observer). We've already noted on this thread that phonemic structure proves nothing more than the fact that the person speaks, pauses, stops, etc., just like we do when we're speaking our native language. To paraphrase another poster's review of another study: Duh. Now, onto the good stuff...

I'm looking over the Newberg paper to see if he addresses any of the issues I raised when we reviewed the same study (we already did this, oodles of pages ago) off news accounts. After all, who trusts the media to get it right? We have a peer-reviewed research paper here! The first thing that amused me is that the very first expert he cited in connection with glossolalia was Samarin. I wonder if he knows what a shoddy researcher Samarin was. He should have relied on Landry! Next thing to note is that none of the hypotheses Newberg tested involved any comparison of genuine SIT to admitted fakery. He lists his hypotheses at the end of page one and beginning of page two. In his first hypothesis, he takes for granted that there is a loss of intentional control. Depending on exactly what he means by that, it could be problematic. TWI's version of SIT did not involve a "loss of control" per se, but it did involve a surrender of control over the specific string of sounds uttered (the Sspirit gives the utterance, we control the body). So "loss of intentional control" might be a sound presumption, if that's what Newberg means. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to proceed without worrying too much about whether that wording poses a problem. Hypothesis 2: He expects glossolalia to demonstrate different mental changes compared to meditation. I don't see why this would not be the case. They're very different activities, in enough ways to expect a different outcome. No problem there. Hypothesis 3: He calls SIT "a highly active state." Again, we have a potential terminology issue. I don't think SIT as practiced in TWI can be described by a layman as "highly active." But maybe Newberg's definition is different from a layman's. We proceed, as in hypothesis 1, with some concern, but not nearly enough to dismiss the results. Hypothesis 4: He calls SIT "a very emotional state." In three of the four hypotheses, Newberg describes SIT in terms that, as laypeople, we can all directly challenge, if not contradict. Again, what does he mean by emotional? What does he mean by very emotional? Would he have had different results if all his study subjects were TWI glossolalists? I don't know. I'm inclined to believe he could. But I'm also inclined to believe it could not affect his test results. It could go either way. "Emotional" can mean different things to different people. It's hard to measure. Newberg acknowledges this. By the way... so does Samarin. To summarize: In none of Newberg's hypotheses do we see any attempt to validate or invalidate SIT. We merely see attempts to describe it and to see what it looks like to the brain performing it. Fair enough. Let's go!

So wait: a rational and honest train of thought is not pursued in part because no one around you is pursuing it, so you accept something you question in your gut that you might otherwise have challenged? Why, one might call it socially reinforced self-delusion. But Wierwille could never get away with that. Not without laying some groundwork first. Naaaaah.

Oh no! Not my Warn Status! Will that go on my permanent record? I'll never get into Morgan Prep now. My mom's gonna be soooo mad. *** Editing instead of a new post: Incidentally, I became a mod in 2006, LONG after GS started and, if I'm not mistaken, some time after the Mike wars. My specific purpose was making sure the site didn't run afoul of copyright and plagiarism laws and rules. Not a lawyer, but tried to develop a site policy that allows us to quote sources without going overboard and pasting entire articles. I did try moderating a few politics threads at one point, but really struggled between participating and observing, so I ended up withdrawing from both: I stopped posting in politics, stopped moderating there, and haven't looked back. I do not recall the last time I moderated anything before the last couple of months. There was a request for assistance with a few lengthy quotes, and I stepped in and moderated those in rather clear accordance with the fair use policy (still pinned to the top of the Open Forum) even though I blew my stack against the same poster as Raf. I did that with the full knowledge of other mods. Any one of us could have done it, but it was a specific infraction on unrelated threads that had nothing to do with our argument and was as clear a violation of a published policy as anyone could imagine. It was modcat5's turf. This is the only time I've "abused" mod authority, and I have repeatedly said I think most people would agree with the decision to lock down the thread temporarily -- if another mod had done it. The conflict of interest was glaring and acting on my own was a colossal blunder. I continue to think if you separate the action from the actor, you can't really argue with the lockdown. In fact, a fair case can be made that it was long overdue. My thanks to all, especially Chockfull, for understanding and putting it in perspective. And to the other mods: it won't happen again.

Ok, things are a lot more calm than they were 24 hours ago. Thank you all. I keep saying I've run out of patience, and I keep allowing myself to get drawn back in to answer just one more thing. But the just one more thing is invariably something that's already been answered. We're now just finding new ways to answer the same old questions, rehashed, repackaged, and most certainly reheated. In the most recent substantive post, chockfull asks a bunch of questions and makes a bunch of the same old accusations. At one point this argument was moving in circles. Which, I guess, is fine if you like merry go rounds. Now I get the sense we are not moving at all. It's not a constructive use of anyone's time. Please, it's not that I can't refute the last post. It's that on the majority of points made, I've already addressed or refuted them. Just because the questions keep getting asked doesn't mean they haven't been answered. I submit neither of us will persuade another person either way. So, ok. God won't participate in a satanic study. The linguists are incompetent. They don't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. Free vocalization doesn't exist. The term "innate human ability" doesn't matter. Stating an opinion as fact is a bad, bad thing. When Raf does it. Perfectly ok when Chockfull does. Samarin was an incompetent hack who conducted shoddy research that gets quoted as an authority on the subject by everyone studying glossolalia to this day. Shoddy shoddy shoddy. But Matthew C. Landry, a geologist who was a college student minoring in religious studies when he wrote a class paper that clearly took sides on the issue and was more biased than a Rush Limbaugh radio program, a paper that quoted Samarin so far out of context it made Samarin look like he was saying the 180 degrees opposite of what we know he concludes-- Landry deserves protection from any criticism. Noting that he was a college student is an ad hominem attack. Renouncing Samarin's findings because he's not born again is not an ad hominem attack. No, that's spiritually astute. You know what? Enough. It is impossible to argue with someone when the common ground shifts every 5-10 posts. No mas. I've said my peace. I've presented the only evidence I have access to at this time. If I learn more, I'll present more. But to paraphrase the Monty Python crew, we haven't been having an argument. We've just been having contradictions. No, we haven't? Yes, we have. Count me out. Peace.

You misread my post. I know, shocking, right? Here, let me use smaller words. You keep saying, as fact, that Samarin had languages in front of him but failed to detect them. This is not a fact. It is your speculation. I am not obliged to account for your speculation. And what is it about "a glossa is never a human language" that you don't understand? Last thing for the night: are we going to just act like this is the first time anyone's mentioned Newberg's study, like we never demonstrated why it doesn't address this thread like dozens of pages ago? Because I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. Newberg did not consider the question of fakery. Does the frontal lobe activity of a person faking it look any different from a person doing it for real? Can those differences, if they exist, be accounted for by intent of the speaker ( the emotions would presumably be different). Can one person be compared to another? Or can a subject only be compared to himself during a different activity. Newberg's study IS interesting. But it doesn't address the first thing about this thread. Nor, I suspect, can it. I think I know how much I'm going to need to post tomorrow.

Halloween. See you guys tomorrow. Will decide then how much of Chockfull's latest post is safe to answer. Will try to limit myself to not rehashing. By the way, I've lost count of the number of times he stated his opinion (Samarin failed to recognize languages, for which Chockfull has ZERO evidence) as fact. Considering that he's been ripping me to shreds and whining about it every other post, I think I am entitled to point out the continued hypocrisy.

Ok, I must have a bad connection. Not seeing how Newberg relates to Chockfull's point.

If AHAT wants to jump in, I'll put my clue on hold. We skipped his turn earlier this week.

This thread was quickly derailed and no longer seems to be reflecting what Socks intended. Socks, how would you like to handle it?

Traxx Shadoe Stevens just kidding. Anna Chancellor. :huh:

Considering all else, very kind of you to say.