Sebern:

Email and discussion forums hold great potential but they also have limitations.
Being a
form of "mail" anyone can receive and read the messages at any time they choose
to do
so; however, the potential for dialogue is largely lost, replaced by a literal
correspondence
that takes time to move to integration, esp when there are differing viewpoints,
assumptions and experience bases involved. Holding a discussion like this via
email is
challenging and that's important to recognize as we continue to try to talk with
and to
each other about very important ideas.

My fundamental orientation is non-duality psychology so the idea that "all it's
about is..."
really doesn't fit with what I do, teach or the software the Sue and I have
developed. That
would — from my perspective — be a reductionism which is really quite different
from how
we think about and present neurofeedback — and transformative psychological
practices
in general. I think it's fundamentally clear that technology makes a profound
difference —
one can, for instance, have psychotherapy sessions at a distance, over the
phone, when
time and space limit the possibility for direct contact but exigency demand an
immediate
response. This is a great demonstration of your point about technology being in
the
service of "devotional presence" and how transformative that can be. The phone
itself is
not transformative for the individual without the profound connection with the
other.

In that regard I would say that the technological advances in neurofeedback
systems make
meaningful contact and connection between people more profound — when the
trainer
doesn't have to "figure out what to do" moment to moment, they can be wholly
present to
the other and not be distracted by the technology and its quirks. NeuroCARE is
designed
so as to enhance those possibilities and allow for even greater connection.

But there is another point. In the old days — when the CapScan Prism V was
around — it
was almost impossible to train yourself, by yourself. Simply doing the hookup —
four
channels, total impedance less than 40K (measured by hand) at each sensor site —
made it
virtually impossible. Even running the software essentially required full-time
attention on
its own once the hookup was done. In addition, the lack of comprehensive
targeting and
high precision filtering — as well as prevailing beliefs about how therapy and
neurofeedback SHOULD be done — meant that it was highly likely that 3 and 5 Hz
activity
would spike haphazardly and the trainee would re-immerse into discomfort, fear
and
trauma rather than releasing into a transformative practice. The situation is
VASTLY
different today and this means, among many, many other things that it is now
possible for
an individual to hook themselves up and train on their own. Depending on the
system
they use that is easier, more difficult or still actually almost impossible with
certain
systems. But there are no options available that simply didn't exist before,
and that's
important IMO to acknowledge and accommodate.

There are also several other points but I'll only mention one more at this time.
Our
premier "training" event now is the Immersive. People come to spend five days
receiving
and giving neurofeedback training to each other in a "large" group experience of
30 or so
participants. The connection that develops in that environment is, quite
simply, profound.
It is no less than incarnating a transformative community or sangha in the
traditional
buddhist term. Many participants have taken to continuing with this kind of
group
practice after returning home when the Immersive is completed by engaging in
intentional
neurofeedback training at the same time each week — even though separated by
distance
our participants report a profound sense of connection, support and
transformation. And
many who participate in this way are separated physically from the others and
are training
themselves — alone but not lonely, alone but interconnected, alone and sharing
their
presence, joy and energy.

No, it isn't ONLY about the technology but technology does profoundly change
what is
possible and how those possibilities can manifest.

val


--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Sebern Fisher" <sebern.fisher@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Val,
>
>
>
> I really don't think there can be any comparison to personal computers,
> IPods or the like in the discussion of neurofeedback, except in the very
> limited realm of engineering and accessibility. The implicit frame of your
> argument seems to be that all we need in this venture is better software -
> that the venture itself is about a single brain making itself "better". If
> this is your assumption, I don't share it. To me, the most important thing
> that neurofeedback can do is to enhance our capacity to relate to one
> another. I think the most significant contribution that neurofeedback makes
> in this regard is the reduction of fear. When you drain the fear out,
> everything changes. If you fail to do this the consequences are equally
> profound. There really has to be an other there, the one who is monitoring,
> caring, understanding and interpreting the changes. As a friend of mine put
> it, "a devotional presence." We are always working within the universe of at
> least two brains.
>
> So to me, neurofeedback is so profoundly not about the technology. In the
> realms that I think are most profound, increasing access has its hazards. I
> think it is important to recognize that. That being said, I have no doubt
> that we will advance technologically much faster than we do interpersonally.
> It seems the human way. It is just that this technology, unlike any other,
> allows us, potentially, to keep pace. We only have a shot at this if we
> recognize this particular potential of neurofeedback.
>
>
>
> People will, no doubt, have increasing access to brain training technology.
> Will this lead them/us to more access to each other? That, to me, is the
> most important question.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sebern