Thank you Sebern, that was beautifully put and I agree whole
heartedly also.


Meg





--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, David Granoff
<dr.granoff@...> wrote:
>
> Sebern,
>
> I hope to meet you at some point. I could not agree more
wholeheartedly with what you wrote.
>
> David Granoff
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:29 PM
> To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Recent Events in Neurofeedback
>
>
> I've been reviewing some of the recent "events" in the
field of neurofeedback and thought
> that I might post a few observations. Some would say it's a rant
but, then again, some
> want to say that whatever I say is a rant. Certainly I'm up on a
soap box a bit so....
>
> I noticed a recent posting concerning neurofeedback and the "need"
for highly trained
> professional involvement in home training. It's an interesting
position to take -- one very
> reminescent of the stance taken by IT professionals in the early
days of PCs. Nowdays, of
> course, the PC you're using to read this post is likely to be x100
more poweful than what
> those antiquated IT professionals used. We now have GPS, VOIP, data
mining and
> Googling with virtually unlimited access to the accumulated
knowledge of researchers
> around the world -- and it's available at the touch of a button,
drag of a mouse.
>
> Putting such power in the hands of "ordinary citizens" was
essentially unthinkable -- and
> terrifying! to those who DID think about it --not even 15 years
ago. Now, it's as ho-hum
> as firing up your iPod or dialing the telephone. Technology changes
everything and that's
> especially true in a technological intensive field like
neurofeedback. The reality is that,
> with the right system, one doesn't need to be an "expert" -- this
is true in terms of GPS
> navigation, trip planning, financial matters and many, many other
areas. It is really only
> some very backwards thinking that leads people to believe
otherwise. Well that, and the
> kinds of trainings systems that they use. If you use a limited
system it may very well
> require a lot of knowledge, expertise and training before it can be
used well. Newer, well
> designed systems -- like NeuroCARE -- are just easier to use, more
comprehensive and
> fault-tolerant. It's like the difference between DOS and Vista or
other GUI-intensive
> computer systems.
>
> The better and more complete the system, the less expertise and
knowledge is required of
> the typical user -- it's really quite simple in that regard.
>
> However, the discussions in and around this field continue to
support the belief in the
> necessity and intrinsic value in professional-intensive services
like QEEG,
> neuropsychological assessment, etc in order to provide "effective
and safe" neurofeedback.
> It's really quite amazing to watch -- esp when those same
discussions are peppered with
> (very low key) acknowledgements that the expert-driven systems do
not give increased,
> incremental effectiveness when compared amongst themselves -- or
even when
> contrasted with non-expert driven approaches.
>
> Now does that mean that experts and expertise won't be useful in
the future? Of course
> note -- even though typical home users systems dwarf the
capabilities of the NSA of 25
> years ago, the realm for expertise continues to expand. It's just
not needed for the day to
> day, typical uses of computers. And that's the point. The
technology should make
> training more accessible to more people with lessened need for
specialization so that,
> when useful, specialized expertise can be fruitfully brought to
bear. You no longer need
> an IT specialist to setup your home network, connect to the
internet and have access to
> virtually unlimited knowledge and possibilities.
>
> Why should it be different re: neurofeedback?
>
> And while we're using the term neurofeedback, let's clarify
something. Neurofeedback
> requires the use of FEEDBACK -- ie a "real-time" monitoring of some
system parameter(s)
> the value(s) of which can be "fed back" to the system that
generates those values with the
> feedback being able to MODIFY the CURRENT status of the system. If
there is no "real-
> time" monitoring occurring, then no matter how useful or
interesting the process involved,
> it can't be neurofeedback because it doesn't involve any possible
FEEDBACK.
>
> We need to be clear that using the term neurofeedback to describe
or refer to approaches
> like pROSHI or LENS is simply inaccurate and misleading. This is
not to say that those
> system aren't being used by many with good success. This is simply
clarifying
> terminology so we all can talk together. No real-time monitoring,
no feedback -- it can't
> be neuroFEEDBACK. Perhaps neuroTHERAPY is more apt, but
neurofeedback is clearly
> wrong.
>
> Terminology is important because it links us to other domains,
other communities and
> other sources of knowledge and perspective. For this reason I
continue to observe that
> the term "disentrainment" (used to describe pROSHI and LENS among
others) is an
> oxymoron. The proper term is "entrain and migrate" where
entrainment is what is done (ie
> a specific crafting of the non-feedback stimulus in terms of
frequency, amplitude, phase,
> intensity, etc) and migration is the intended effect (ie moving the
system from where it is
> currently "parked"). "Entrainment and Migration" is a well
understood phenomenon in the
> world of Non-linear Dynamical engineering and it really behooves us
IMO and IME to not
> only be aware of that literature but to utilize many of the
concepts, terms and processes
> developed within that literature to better understand and provide
neurofeedback training.
>
> OK, I'm coming down off the soap box now.
>