- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Who believes in auras?
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:Hi all
I've been studying the use of complementary therapies in palliative care for a research project at Uni. I've been looking at how these often clinically unproven therapies are being integrated into conventional medical care for the dying, the reasons for it and the benefits of it e.t.c.
One of the things I've been up to is watching a therapist give reiki treatments to patients. I started talking to the therapist afterwards about the 'energy body' and if she can see it. She says she just feels the energy, but cannot see it.
I personally would like to believe that we each have an aura or 'energy body', but at the same time I don't like buying into things without a healthy dose of scepticism also. So I was wondering what you guys all think...
If anyone also wants to argue for or against auras, or give their personal experiences with 'energy', I'm interested in whatever you guys have to say.
Cheers.
I've been studying the use of complementary therapies in palliative care for a research project at Uni. I've been looking at how these often clinically unproven therapies are being integrated into conventional medical care for the dying, the reasons for it and the benefits of it e.t.c.
One of the things I've been up to is watching a therapist give reiki treatments to patients. I started talking to the therapist afterwards about the 'energy body' and if she can see it. She says she just feels the energy, but cannot see it.
I personally would like to believe that we each have an aura or 'energy body', but at the same time I don't like buying into things without a healthy dose of scepticism also. So I was wondering what you guys all think...
If anyone also wants to argue for or against auras, or give their personal experiences with 'energy', I'm interested in whatever you guys have to say.
Cheers.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
Posted:ok fair enough but im hardly the first not to get a joke 
and you didn't answer the question you didn't even talk about any of the points i made or try to answer them why not??
and i would like to point out that i didn't say they were all frauds i said some have been shown to be frauds. why did you conclude that from the set of facts i gave you that they were all frauds??
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166388218)
and you didn't answer the question you didn't even talk about any of the points i made or try to answer them why not??
and i would like to point out that i didn't say they were all frauds i said some have been shown to be frauds. why did you conclude that from the set of facts i gave you that they were all frauds??
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166388218)
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:Rob you still have not developed your test...
I could not possibily be convinced by your argument until you at least demonstrated that you have a good hypothesis and test to work with, and then took the time to follow it all through. And scientists trying to understand a phenomena dont just do one study, they keep at it, often for decades and decades of research and refinement.
Who defined aura reading as a "special" ability? How do you know that? It could be a natural skill present in all people, but more developed in some people than others, useful at some times not others etc etc as already stated. Or not, maybe a brain mutation or defect or??? only present in a small percentage of the population. Is it considered special if everyone could do it but simply are not?
Magicians create illusions that mimic the effects all sorts of natural already scientificaly verified forces, such as gravity. Would you use that arguement to suggest gravity does not exist?
Generally speaking I would be suspicious of people that set themselves up in a position to be famous, and not particularly surprised to find they were unethical in their presentation of various abilities. I have no doubt that there are abundant real examples of people lying about their ability to do many things; perceiving auras is just one of many.
I could not possibily be convinced by your argument until you at least demonstrated that you have a good hypothesis and test to work with, and then took the time to follow it all through. And scientists trying to understand a phenomena dont just do one study, they keep at it, often for decades and decades of research and refinement.
Who defined aura reading as a "special" ability? How do you know that? It could be a natural skill present in all people, but more developed in some people than others, useful at some times not others etc etc as already stated. Or not, maybe a brain mutation or defect or??? only present in a small percentage of the population. Is it considered special if everyone could do it but simply are not?
Magicians create illusions that mimic the effects all sorts of natural already scientificaly verified forces, such as gravity. Would you use that arguement to suggest gravity does not exist?
Generally speaking I would be suspicious of people that set themselves up in a position to be famous, and not particularly surprised to find they were unethical in their presentation of various abilities. I have no doubt that there are abundant real examples of people lying about their ability to do many things; perceiving auras is just one of many.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:if you look at my posts i've been trying to develop a test for most of this thread, however i've found it increaseingly difficult for the simple reason that no one not even the aura readers them selfs seem to have any idea what abilitys they actualy have. until someone can give me a defintion of what abillitys aura readers have i can't produce a test.
for example a defination of kelikenesis might be
i am able to excert a force on objects without physicly influencing them so long as i am within 10m of them.
for useing the magicans argument to disprove gravity. no i wouldn't for the following reason gravity can be tested scientificly in repeatable verifiable tests and has over and over again. the same is not true of phycic powers.
and let me say again if this is a natural ability it shouldn't be a problem to demonstrate this useing scientific testing. that is exacly what scientific testing is designed to detect natural effects.
again everyone seems to be avoiding the very odvious point that no one in entire of recored humman history has ever managed to demonstrate that they arn't just useing simple magic tricks to do these things. if they had i and the scientific comunity wouldn't dout that these powers were real.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166389950)
for example a defination of kelikenesis might be
i am able to excert a force on objects without physicly influencing them so long as i am within 10m of them.
for useing the magicans argument to disprove gravity. no i wouldn't for the following reason gravity can be tested scientificly in repeatable verifiable tests and has over and over again. the same is not true of phycic powers.
and let me say again if this is a natural ability it shouldn't be a problem to demonstrate this useing scientific testing. that is exacly what scientific testing is designed to detect natural effects.
again everyone seems to be avoiding the very odvious point that no one in entire of recored humman history has ever managed to demonstrate that they arn't just useing simple magic tricks to do these things. if they had i and the scientific comunity wouldn't dout that these powers were real.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166389950)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:It would be redundant to go into it more here cause most of my response is within the big long posts I did previously-- about how you could get start collecting the understanding and information you need to start setting up a test.
I agree that you need the people who read auras to discuss their abilities more so you can form a definition and subsequent hypothesis. Unfortunately, the thread tone managed to alienate the people you need to help you with this, I suspect so you will have to look elsewhere for participation.Maybe approach it differently next time, so people will want to be involved.
Good luck!
I agree that you need the people who read auras to discuss their abilities more so you can form a definition and subsequent hypothesis. Unfortunately, the thread tone managed to alienate the people you need to help you with this, I suspect so you will have to look elsewhere for participation.Maybe approach it differently next time, so people will want to be involved.
Good luck!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:Thank fully this debate has been going for a long time and people many people have already tested this many times before below is one of the most famous cases. mainly becuase the person been tested was widely regarded as one of the best aura readers in the westen world.
A Scientific test of aura reading performed 10 years ago on telivision
the best aura reader in the West was tested before a live television audience. The Berkeley Psychic Institute (BPI) sent their top aura reader for a chance to win $10,000 if she could prove her powers. She agreed that the devised test was a fair and accurate. The test was televised on a program hosted by Bill Bixby. James Randi put up the $10,000. The psychic was presented with about twenty people on stage and was asked if she could see their auras. She said that she could see the auras, they all had one and they emanated at least a foot or two above each person's head. The twenty aura-wearing people then went offstage. A curtain was lifted, revealing a number of partitions behind which only some of the twenty people were standing. Thus, Bixby and the psychic were looking at twenty partitions but only several of them had a person behind it. The psychic was asked if she could see any auras creeping up above the partitions. She said she could. To get her ten grand all she had to do was correctly identify each partition that had a person behind it. She was to do this by seeing each person's aura above the partition. The audience was given an aerial camera view of the proceeding. Well, the psychic claimed that she saw an aura above all the partitions and that there was a person behind each partition. The partitions were removed, revealing about 6 people behind the partitions. The psychic didn't even seem surprised. She might console herself that 6 out of 20 is not bad in a hostile arena.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166391689)
A Scientific test of aura reading performed 10 years ago on telivision
the best aura reader in the West was tested before a live television audience. The Berkeley Psychic Institute (BPI) sent their top aura reader for a chance to win $10,000 if she could prove her powers. She agreed that the devised test was a fair and accurate. The test was televised on a program hosted by Bill Bixby. James Randi put up the $10,000. The psychic was presented with about twenty people on stage and was asked if she could see their auras. She said that she could see the auras, they all had one and they emanated at least a foot or two above each person's head. The twenty aura-wearing people then went offstage. A curtain was lifted, revealing a number of partitions behind which only some of the twenty people were standing. Thus, Bixby and the psychic were looking at twenty partitions but only several of them had a person behind it. The psychic was asked if she could see any auras creeping up above the partitions. She said she could. To get her ten grand all she had to do was correctly identify each partition that had a person behind it. She was to do this by seeing each person's aura above the partition. The audience was given an aerial camera view of the proceeding. Well, the psychic claimed that she saw an aura above all the partitions and that there was a person behind each partition. The partitions were removed, revealing about 6 people behind the partitions. The psychic didn't even seem surprised. She might console herself that 6 out of 20 is not bad in a hostile arena.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166391689)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:On auras and testing
It's the fact that the abilities to see and read auras are being referred to as a gift that leads me to believe that this is to be considered a "special" ability. I've yet to run across a scientist who denys the existance of gravity, or one who claims to know just how gravity works, but then, gravity isn't a subjective topic that refuses to be tested.
It's the fact that the abilities to see and read auras are being referred to as a gift that leads me to believe that this is to be considered a "special" ability. I've yet to run across a scientist who denys the existance of gravity, or one who claims to know just how gravity works, but then, gravity isn't a subjective topic that refuses to be tested.
Delete
Posted:My point was that stating that a magician can create am illusion that appears to be the same something else, in no way is offers any definitive information about the existence, or not, of the force they imitate. They can create an illusion around a scientifically validated force, or one that is similar to descriptions of a "supernatural" force( using Robs words) . So what? It is a flawed, illogical argument whether used in favour, or against.
Gift is a traditional term, bears no relationship to whether the ability is "special" in a scientific sense.
Gift is a traditional term, bears no relationship to whether the ability is "special" in a scientific sense.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:The first link is so ridiculous in its use of "supposedly" and other negatively loaded vocabulary , full of biase and assumption as to be unreadable. Consider the source! What was your intent in introducing that article? Did I miss something? It is certainly not contributing anything new to the subject as far as I can tell.
The second, appears very interesting, and I will enjoy settling down to give it a good thorough read later, thanks!
The second, appears very interesting, and I will enjoy settling down to give it a good thorough read later, thanks!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:That test is mentioned previously, and still not all that relevant or interesting. I think I made some points n that subject earlier, or was that another thread? At any rate, that test, under those circumstances, and someone calls that science? Dont think so. Science would not have a prize associated anyways, and there are so many others reasons why that experiment is not reflective of much of anything.
But who's is actually out there calling themselves the "best " aura readers? How did they determine that? Why would you find that a convincing detail? Rare for the people I know that do healing work with auras to even to think in those terms, never mind reach any consensus on it.
Rob, are you saying that you are satisfied that auras have been researched and studied to the degree they need to be?
If yes, then well guess thats that. You are convinced, end of subject for you.
But I thought you were interested in finding out more on
auras, in which case it does not look like enough research has been done to make any definitive conclusions.
If it makes you more comfortable to just accept that they dont exist,on the basis of whatever information you consider relevant, fine. You could still shift your focus to the exploration of why so many people persist in thinking they d, and how they go about using something that does not exist ...
Yet you seem to continue going back to black and white posturing, focusing on simplistic versions of prove and disprove. Science encompasses a lot more than that!
But who's is actually out there calling themselves the "best " aura readers? How did they determine that? Why would you find that a convincing detail? Rare for the people I know that do healing work with auras to even to think in those terms, never mind reach any consensus on it.
Rob, are you saying that you are satisfied that auras have been researched and studied to the degree they need to be?
If yes, then well guess thats that. You are convinced, end of subject for you.
But I thought you were interested in finding out more on
auras, in which case it does not look like enough research has been done to make any definitive conclusions.
If it makes you more comfortable to just accept that they dont exist,on the basis of whatever information you consider relevant, fine. You could still shift your focus to the exploration of why so many people persist in thinking they d, and how they go about using something that does not exist ...
Yet you seem to continue going back to black and white posturing, focusing on simplistic versions of prove and disprove. Science encompasses a lot more than that!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:Actually, the study as summarized, appears pretty soft science. small, with lots of assumptions. I'd have to go to the full study to know more about its structure,and conclusions, but it did not inspire me to do that.
It does return us to the concept synthesia, which is the most interesting avenue of exploration raised so far...
It does return us to the concept synthesia, which is the most interesting avenue of exploration raised so far...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:Yes, the skeptic's dictionary is biased, but that's to be expected. Sigh, I suppose it would be so much easier if we skeptics just believed anecdotal evidence and acknowledged that we somehow aren't gifted by the natural forces and are doomed to live unenlightened lives, but we're not going to.
If I just let it slip that IRL, I was John Travolta, would you believe me ? Of course not. You'd want some sort of proof, and not proof that can easily be faked, you'd want something you could believe.
I want something I can believe too.
Not one of the skeptics in this thread has denied anyones seeing auras, just questioned whether what they were seeing and experiencing was indeed a supernatural, or paranormal, phemenon. The only problem that I can see with a medium entertaining the idea that what they're experiencing may not be any sort of special insight is that it compromises their role as a healer. At least with magicians, you know you're watching a trick.
Like I said previously, I have no problems with people and their beliefs ( unless they have a negative impact on my life,,,super rare IRL, IMO ) but when they try to cross the line into the world of science and try to prove their abilities, like in the alpha project , then their science should be credible, rather than simply faking it.
Gift in this context, implies something special, no ? And by special, I mean few people have the ability do do what we're talking about here.
Anyone notice that nobody's trotted out that old chestnut "You really only use 10% of your brain" that used to be so popular amongst believers, maybe science did have an impact after all.
If I just let it slip that IRL, I was John Travolta, would you believe me ? Of course not. You'd want some sort of proof, and not proof that can easily be faked, you'd want something you could believe.
I want something I can believe too.
Not one of the skeptics in this thread has denied anyones seeing auras, just questioned whether what they were seeing and experiencing was indeed a supernatural, or paranormal, phemenon. The only problem that I can see with a medium entertaining the idea that what they're experiencing may not be any sort of special insight is that it compromises their role as a healer. At least with magicians, you know you're watching a trick.
Like I said previously, I have no problems with people and their beliefs ( unless they have a negative impact on my life,,,super rare IRL, IMO ) but when they try to cross the line into the world of science and try to prove their abilities, like in the alpha project , then their science should be credible, rather than simply faking it.
Gift in this context, implies something special, no ? And by special, I mean few people have the ability do do what we're talking about here.
Anyone notice that nobody's trotted out that old chestnut "You really only use 10% of your brain" that used to be so popular amongst believers, maybe science did have an impact after all.
Delete
Posted:Stout, I dont think anyone has here has claimed that their experience is supernatural, or paranormal. I think most people have been questioning and exploring possibilities, not making claims about what they are in scientific terms, or even about what they can do, in scientific terms.
No one who has stated that they perceive auras has asked anyone to believe any huge generalizations about auras. They just related their personal experiences with such things. And then stopped when people became rude and the conversation stopped being a conversation, and became a somewhat absurd and ineffectual attempt to prove or disprove.. .
i'll repeat: We dont know if everyone has the ability to do it- and don't for some reason. Maybe some people use sections of the brain that others do not? (There, just to make you happy!
) It could be a " sense' we all have access too, and dont use. Or it could be something that only certain people have use of, like a mutation, special gene etc. First option would make the ability a general one that is undeveloped. The second would be " a special" trait.
I dont think anyone here has made a claim one way or the other on that subject. " Gift" in scientific context has no meaning whatsoever. In a historical or anthropological context it is a very interesting and revealing cultural term.
One of the things I have found interesting and frustrating about this thread is that the people proposing the use of science to investigate things have not actually presented much if any credible science, and have presented arguements that are illogical( in the sense of logic as a form of structuring a hypothesis, or persuasive accurate argument).They seem to want the non scientist to be like scientists- but they are not even using it consistently and rigorously as a tool themselves.
If you want to look at understanding auras by scientific methodology, fine, no one is stopping you. But be prepared to do the work, and not underestimate the subject or call it simple. Many natural phenomenon are very complex and difficult to study.
Stout, Why do you want something you can believe too?
If that is the case, have you dedicated any time and effort to developing the ability by practicing methods used by people that work with "energy'? ( Using it non- scientifically here to refer to practices such as reiki, acupressure, etc) The unscientificaly validated but remarkabley thorough methods developed over thousands of years by people who do things like balancing chakras and auras for healing and insight? Maybe there is some studying and work to be done so you can have that experience for yourself, or even properly determine if it is one that you do or do not have access to.
Perhaps waiting for science to validate it for you is not the best approach in this case. Or would having the stamp of scientific approval motivate you to do the work? I doubt it.The motivation for such rigorous endeavors is usually more internal. Still, it is worth considering that maybe , in this area, dedicatedly cultivating direct experience could offer you better results. That too takes a commitment and a lot of work though.As much or more as developing a scientific study would.
Also, A healer that uses auras is not necessarily compromised by the fact that what they are doing may not be a "special gift". They would, however, be compromised if what they are doing has no effect on the patient, as determined by the patient.( The patient would not return, etc.) Even if what they are doing is pure placebo effect,or something as nebulous as well being generated just through the comfort of anothers caring contact-- if the patient is feeling better through their care, most patients and healers feel that is a reasonable outcome.
i remember laughing when my mom, who has rheumatoid arthritis, asked her doctor for a massage therapy referral. Her doctor said No, that massage is not shown in studies to cure or effectively treat arthritis, it would just make her feel better. My mom, snapped back at the doctor with" now dear, wouldn't that be the entire point? Feeling better?"
Lots we dont know about healing. Look how long it took people to understand the mechanism behind why a baby grows more, faster and healthier when simply touched on a regular basis...
Sadly, for the skeptics at any rate, who seem to like fighting paper tigers-- no one really cares about whether the skeptics are, or get, enlightened or not. No one asks you to believe anything, Stout--it would not really make much of anything easier, as far as I can see. I am content to have you just as you are my friend!
No one who has stated that they perceive auras has asked anyone to believe any huge generalizations about auras. They just related their personal experiences with such things. And then stopped when people became rude and the conversation stopped being a conversation, and became a somewhat absurd and ineffectual attempt to prove or disprove.. .
i'll repeat: We dont know if everyone has the ability to do it- and don't for some reason. Maybe some people use sections of the brain that others do not? (There, just to make you happy!
) It could be a " sense' we all have access too, and dont use. Or it could be something that only certain people have use of, like a mutation, special gene etc. First option would make the ability a general one that is undeveloped. The second would be " a special" trait.I dont think anyone here has made a claim one way or the other on that subject. " Gift" in scientific context has no meaning whatsoever. In a historical or anthropological context it is a very interesting and revealing cultural term.
One of the things I have found interesting and frustrating about this thread is that the people proposing the use of science to investigate things have not actually presented much if any credible science, and have presented arguements that are illogical( in the sense of logic as a form of structuring a hypothesis, or persuasive accurate argument).They seem to want the non scientist to be like scientists- but they are not even using it consistently and rigorously as a tool themselves.
If you want to look at understanding auras by scientific methodology, fine, no one is stopping you. But be prepared to do the work, and not underestimate the subject or call it simple. Many natural phenomenon are very complex and difficult to study.
Stout, Why do you want something you can believe too?
If that is the case, have you dedicated any time and effort to developing the ability by practicing methods used by people that work with "energy'? ( Using it non- scientifically here to refer to practices such as reiki, acupressure, etc) The unscientificaly validated but remarkabley thorough methods developed over thousands of years by people who do things like balancing chakras and auras for healing and insight? Maybe there is some studying and work to be done so you can have that experience for yourself, or even properly determine if it is one that you do or do not have access to.
Perhaps waiting for science to validate it for you is not the best approach in this case. Or would having the stamp of scientific approval motivate you to do the work? I doubt it.The motivation for such rigorous endeavors is usually more internal. Still, it is worth considering that maybe , in this area, dedicatedly cultivating direct experience could offer you better results. That too takes a commitment and a lot of work though.As much or more as developing a scientific study would.
Also, A healer that uses auras is not necessarily compromised by the fact that what they are doing may not be a "special gift". They would, however, be compromised if what they are doing has no effect on the patient, as determined by the patient.( The patient would not return, etc.) Even if what they are doing is pure placebo effect,or something as nebulous as well being generated just through the comfort of anothers caring contact-- if the patient is feeling better through their care, most patients and healers feel that is a reasonable outcome.
i remember laughing when my mom, who has rheumatoid arthritis, asked her doctor for a massage therapy referral. Her doctor said No, that massage is not shown in studies to cure or effectively treat arthritis, it would just make her feel better. My mom, snapped back at the doctor with" now dear, wouldn't that be the entire point? Feeling better?"
Lots we dont know about healing. Look how long it took people to understand the mechanism behind why a baby grows more, faster and healthier when simply touched on a regular basis...
Sadly, for the skeptics at any rate, who seem to like fighting paper tigers-- no one really cares about whether the skeptics are, or get, enlightened or not. No one asks you to believe anything, Stout--it would not really make much of anything easier, as far as I can see. I am content to have you just as you are my friend!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
Delete
Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted: Written by: Stout
Anyone notice that nobody's trotted out that old chestnut "You really only use 10% of your brain" that used to be so popular amongst believers, maybe science did have an impact after all.
Nope, but what about "Junk DNA" and Zipf's Law?
Nice and Basic so hopefully everyone can understand
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1166441884)
Anyone notice that nobody's trotted out that old chestnut "You really only use 10% of your brain" that used to be so popular amongst believers, maybe science did have an impact after all.
Nope, but what about "Junk DNA" and Zipf's Law?
Nice and Basic so hopefully everyone can understand
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1166441884)
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Posted:If you feel our arguements are illogical can you please point out our logical errors for us.
also what do you think aura readers can actualy do? if your are willing to accept they just have synathesia wouln't that put you in the skeptic camp?
and finaly what would it take to prove to you that aura readers didn't possess the abilitys they calme what kind of proof or scientific evidence? (i would like to note this has been asked many times times now without geting an answer and is a very important question)
finaly about the 10% of the brain bit actualy we, we do only 10% of our brain however this statement is missleading. a more acurate statement would be on average we only use 10% of our brain at a time. this is because the brain is extreamly energy efficent to acheave this parts of the brain that are not needed are turned off when not in use.
yes zipf's law is intresting but its not just pressent in dna its also present in the patterns of earthquakes, music, speach, city size vs frequency. its one of those weird mathmatical rules that pops up all over the place. and as intresting as it is im not quite sure of the relivence any chance of clarifying abit
also has any one else notised there seems to be a strong female belever, male skeptic. corilation in this thread by no meens is it 100% but its definatly there?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166445358)
also what do you think aura readers can actualy do? if your are willing to accept they just have synathesia wouln't that put you in the skeptic camp?
and finaly what would it take to prove to you that aura readers didn't possess the abilitys they calme what kind of proof or scientific evidence? (i would like to note this has been asked many times times now without geting an answer and is a very important question)
finaly about the 10% of the brain bit actualy we, we do only 10% of our brain however this statement is missleading. a more acurate statement would be on average we only use 10% of our brain at a time. this is because the brain is extreamly energy efficent to acheave this parts of the brain that are not needed are turned off when not in use.
yes zipf's law is intresting but its not just pressent in dna its also present in the patterns of earthquakes, music, speach, city size vs frequency. its one of those weird mathmatical rules that pops up all over the place. and as intresting as it is im not quite sure of the relivence any chance of clarifying abit
also has any one else notised there seems to be a strong female belever, male skeptic. corilation in this thread by no meens is it 100% but its definatly there?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166445358)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:Banshee Cat, I don't mean to sound flippant, but....been there, done that. I spent several years ( in the 80's ) exploring ( if paranormal or supernatural won't do ) metaphysical phemenenon, with the ideal that I too could devellop my ( apparently ) latent abilities in this field....I failed miserably.
Maybe I was just being a rebel, and rejecting my Christian upbringing by looking to the alternative, maybe I was rejecting the "norm" in favour of the " alternative" or maybe I was just plain interested, but fact is I did it. Did I mention that I failed ?
I went through the whole gamut, I won't bore you with a list, but suffice to say the only emotion I experienced during these explorations was disappointment. well, the net emotion anyway.
Now I'll admit ( from a scientific perspective ) that I'm in no way qualified to run a respectable scientific experiment, but that's really beside the point, seeing as how others have, and made their findings public here on the internet, so I read those.
Here's a case in point....firewalking. Now for years I believed that firewalking involved specially training your mind to overcome certain physical realities, like red hot coals won't burn me because I've entered a "special" mindset. Along comes the discovery channel with an explanation that mindset has nothing to do with it, and gives me an explanation just as to how and why firewalking works, suddenly, I'm a believer. Not in the way I had to originally wanted to believe, but in a way that I could understand.
I believe, now, that I can walk on fire, due to the science of the whole thing, but unfortunatly not due to the original way that I wanted to believe. Point is, science made me a believer in my abilities to firewalk,,and I'm hoping it could do the same for my ability to see auras. So far,,it can't.
Andrea, you made a comment about something, and I can't remember what it was over on another thread about this something that had healing properties and you claimed that even if the healing properties were due to the placebo effect, it doesn't matter. And truer words were never spoken. Really who cares how some of this stuff works, and if it works by comforting someone , or making them feel better, then great, after all, as Firespirit said a couple of pages back, that's what it's all about.
It's my belief that comfort and reassurance is what the metaphysical is all about, hence my lumping it in as spirituality. Simplistic ? maybe.
I could make an arguement as to how people are "asking" me to belive something, but I won't, I'll just say that, on a daily basis, I'm exposed to several different belief systems and I'm genuinely curious as to how those people come to the conclusion that the belief system that they subscribe to is the correct one. I'll accept "it works for me" as an answer.
I really don't think any minds are going to be changed by this thread, but it sure makes for an interesting read with my morning coffee.
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
Maybe I was just being a rebel, and rejecting my Christian upbringing by looking to the alternative, maybe I was rejecting the "norm" in favour of the " alternative" or maybe I was just plain interested, but fact is I did it. Did I mention that I failed ?
I went through the whole gamut, I won't bore you with a list, but suffice to say the only emotion I experienced during these explorations was disappointment. well, the net emotion anyway.
Now I'll admit ( from a scientific perspective ) that I'm in no way qualified to run a respectable scientific experiment, but that's really beside the point, seeing as how others have, and made their findings public here on the internet, so I read those.
Here's a case in point....firewalking. Now for years I believed that firewalking involved specially training your mind to overcome certain physical realities, like red hot coals won't burn me because I've entered a "special" mindset. Along comes the discovery channel with an explanation that mindset has nothing to do with it, and gives me an explanation just as to how and why firewalking works, suddenly, I'm a believer. Not in the way I had to originally wanted to believe, but in a way that I could understand.
I believe, now, that I can walk on fire, due to the science of the whole thing, but unfortunatly not due to the original way that I wanted to believe. Point is, science made me a believer in my abilities to firewalk,,and I'm hoping it could do the same for my ability to see auras. So far,,it can't.
Andrea, you made a comment about something, and I can't remember what it was over on another thread about this something that had healing properties and you claimed that even if the healing properties were due to the placebo effect, it doesn't matter. And truer words were never spoken. Really who cares how some of this stuff works, and if it works by comforting someone , or making them feel better, then great, after all, as Firespirit said a couple of pages back, that's what it's all about.
It's my belief that comfort and reassurance is what the metaphysical is all about, hence my lumping it in as spirituality. Simplistic ? maybe.
I could make an arguement as to how people are "asking" me to belive something, but I won't, I'll just say that, on a daily basis, I'm exposed to several different belief systems and I'm genuinely curious as to how those people come to the conclusion that the belief system that they subscribe to is the correct one. I'll accept "it works for me" as an answer.
I really don't think any minds are going to be changed by this thread, but it sure makes for an interesting read with my morning coffee.
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
Delete
Posted:Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166463553)
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166463553)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:Stout, my question for you was sincere, and thanks for answering. If you have really done that kind of work, and still dont have the experience of auras, than I would suggest just letting it gently go for yourself, at any rate. Why worry about it or push against your own set of experiences? You dont need anyone elses...
Robnunchucks, I am in the curious camp, not sceptics or believers. My camp is more like a happy little party of adventurers really, we like to consider things in all sorts of different ways and are always prepared to flow in a variety of directions.
I have had a number of experiences, some private some shared that definitely do not fit in with our current scientific understandings of what is possible.So when I need a different explanation to help me process those awarenesses, I go to other sources of information.I value and respect many kinds of knowledge and wisdom. To me it is all just a set of systems, toys and tools for exploration of our environment; internal, external, and how they relate.
**Where I thought it useful I did point out illogical arguments... When people were trying to use logical as an "argument".
I have no problem with illogic when it surfaces within the context of just sharing perceptions, awareness, experience-they are often illogical.
But if you want to use science, or logic, it serves us well to try and use it properly. You learn more that way, I think.
PS-
The Island I live on has a gazillion male reiki/aura healers!!!! it would certainly make you question a gender hypothesis...
Robnunchucks, I am in the curious camp, not sceptics or believers. My camp is more like a happy little party of adventurers really, we like to consider things in all sorts of different ways and are always prepared to flow in a variety of directions.
I have had a number of experiences, some private some shared that definitely do not fit in with our current scientific understandings of what is possible.So when I need a different explanation to help me process those awarenesses, I go to other sources of information.I value and respect many kinds of knowledge and wisdom. To me it is all just a set of systems, toys and tools for exploration of our environment; internal, external, and how they relate.
**Where I thought it useful I did point out illogical arguments... When people were trying to use logical as an "argument".
I have no problem with illogic when it surfaces within the context of just sharing perceptions, awareness, experience-they are often illogical.
But if you want to use science, or logic, it serves us well to try and use it properly. You learn more that way, I think.
PS-
The Island I live on has a gazillion male reiki/aura healers!!!! it would certainly make you question a gender hypothesis...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeleteRouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted: Written by: robnunchucks
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
I'm trying to give you scientific examples of where science admit that they currently can't explain everything.
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
I'm trying to give you scientific examples of where science admit that they currently can't explain everything.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Posted:Scientists will always admit that they can't explain everything. Explaining everything is an unattainable goal. Only a fool or a madman would claim to know everything.
In the future we will almost certainly discover the reason for "Junk DNA", already there are several theories out there being tested and subjected to scrutiny. When we discover this there will be some other hole in our understanding. The fact that we cannot explain everthing through science should not be a good reason for wild speculation. When lighting was unexplained it was no doubt considered the wrath of the gods.
There is a word for the position that everything currently not understood by science is magic/supernatural/God, "God of the Gaps". The theory that everything we don't understand can be attributed to God or supernatural forces.
In the future we will almost certainly discover the reason for "Junk DNA", already there are several theories out there being tested and subjected to scrutiny. When we discover this there will be some other hole in our understanding. The fact that we cannot explain everthing through science should not be a good reason for wild speculation. When lighting was unexplained it was no doubt considered the wrath of the gods.
There is a word for the position that everything currently not understood by science is magic/supernatural/God, "God of the Gaps". The theory that everything we don't understand can be attributed to God or supernatural forces.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
DeletePosted:The Island I live on has a gazillion male reiki/aura healers!!!! it would certainly make you question a gender hypothesis.
it wasn't i hypthoisis it was more of a random museing something i found intresting as it didn't fit with what i would have expected thats all maby i shouldn't have used the word phenomion at the very most its a phenomion that only exists on hop
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
lol ok fair enough well first off i'ed like to say of course scientists dont understand everything if they did we wouldn't need science any more so i agree with you totaly on that point. but they do understand some things auras phycics etc have been studys alot and the studys (when they've been done) have always show that phycics and aura readers simply can't do what they say they can in experiments. and show no evidence that they are any diffrent from the rest of us. so while scientists can't explain everything in this case the problem is theres nothing to explain in the first place. if there was something there that needed explaining science would be all over it thats what sicence does works on the unexplained
also the example you gave is a poor one as it is actualy understod zipf's law represents systems that store information. junk DNA isn't random its DNA that was once used but isn't any more hence why its has an informational representation still in it.
a better example would be that scientists still can't explain what would happen at the center of a black hole because reltivity and quantum mechanics both only work in there respective fields the very big and the very small when you have something thats very big and very small they brake down
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166537010)
it wasn't i hypthoisis it was more of a random museing something i found intresting as it didn't fit with what i would have expected thats all maby i shouldn't have used the word phenomion at the very most its a phenomion that only exists on hop
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
lol ok fair enough well first off i'ed like to say of course scientists dont understand everything if they did we wouldn't need science any more so i agree with you totaly on that point. but they do understand some things auras phycics etc have been studys alot and the studys (when they've been done) have always show that phycics and aura readers simply can't do what they say they can in experiments. and show no evidence that they are any diffrent from the rest of us. so while scientists can't explain everything in this case the problem is theres nothing to explain in the first place. if there was something there that needed explaining science would be all over it thats what sicence does works on the unexplained
also the example you gave is a poor one as it is actualy understod zipf's law represents systems that store information. junk DNA isn't random its DNA that was once used but isn't any more hence why its has an informational representation still in it.
a better example would be that scientists still can't explain what would happen at the center of a black hole because reltivity and quantum mechanics both only work in there respective fields the very big and the very small when you have something thats very big and very small they brake down
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166537010)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted: Written by: Rouge Dragon
Written by: robnunchucks
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
I think that's a sexist oversimplification. Women can very quickly form hierarchys, and ignore the opinions of others. Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
Written by: Rouge Dragon
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
I'm trying to give you scientific examples of where science admit that they currently can't explain everything.
No one has ever claimed they could explain everything. It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, since there have been no relevant unexplained phenomenon raised so far outside of anecdotes.
Written by: robnunchucks
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
I think that's a sexist oversimplification. Women can very quickly form hierarchys, and ignore the opinions of others. Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
Written by: Rouge Dragon
And yes, Zipf's Law appears in many places, but it can't be explained other than a "phenomenon". Why can't other things also be unexplained phenomenons? The relevance is that there is unexplained 97% of our dna that scientists, don't understand and it is a pattern repeated in mathematics and nature.
I'm trying to give you scientific examples of where science admit that they currently can't explain everything.
No one has ever claimed they could explain everything. It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, since there have been no relevant unexplained phenomenon raised so far outside of anecdotes.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:To, me, part of the appeal of science is the willingness to admit holes in "the knowledge"
What is the nature of light? is it a wave? or a particle ? well we have arguments supporting both ideas, and I've never heard of a scientist blindly accepting one theory while outright rejecting the other, sure, the scientist may have a preference, but he can't deny the validity of the other.
What is the nature of light? is it a wave? or a particle ? well we have arguments supporting both ideas, and I've never heard of a scientist blindly accepting one theory while outright rejecting the other, sure, the scientist may have a preference, but he can't deny the validity of the other.
Delete
Posted:infact thanks to the wonder of quantum mechanics its both just depends wether your watching it or not
just depends wether your watching it or not My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted: Written by: jeff
Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
Love is the law.
DeletePosted:what ever you may think about jeff ado he has lissen hes just not agreed with whats been said.
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted:I happen to like Jeff, Rob. I wouldnt describe him as patient though.
Sorry for reffering to you in the third person Jeff.
Sorry for reffering to you in the third person Jeff.
Love is the law.
DeletePosted:lol ok fair enough man sorry for jumping to conclusions
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166545998)
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166545998)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Rouge Dragon
Written by: robnunchucks
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
I think that's a sexist oversimplification. Women can very quickly form hierarchys, and ignore the opinions of others. Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
you use the research and papers you learn in science class in here. I'll use the ones I use in linguistics class and in linguistics papers. Unless of course linguistics isn't cool enough for you either. And i am yet to hear you listen patiently to others.
Talk about zipf's law later. i have to get to class.
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1166588804)
Written by: Rouge Dragon
Written by: robnunchucks
Rob, yes I noticed the male/female ratio, but all I can infer from it is that the male believers and female skeptics don't want to come out and play.
ether that or females are more inclinded to beleave and males are more inclinded to be sceptical ether way its an intresting phenominon
It could possibly be the "mother" instinct and female connection with the world (look at the many animistic religions). Or the nature of men vs women in the nature they communicate; women talk and discuss with everyone as equals and heard, but men are more blunt with a heirachy established in their speech.
I think that's a sexist oversimplification. Women can very quickly form hierarchys, and ignore the opinions of others. Conversely most of the men I know, including myself, will patiently listen to everyone.
you use the research and papers you learn in science class in here. I'll use the ones I use in linguistics class and in linguistics papers. Unless of course linguistics isn't cool enough for you either. And i am yet to hear you listen patiently to others.
Talk about zipf's law later. i have to get to class.
EDITED_BY: Rouge Dragon (1166588804)
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted: Written by: rob
also the example you gave is a poor one as it is actualy understod zipf's law represents systems that store information. junk DNA isn't random its DNA that was once used but isn't any more hence why its has an informational representation still in it.
I deliberately provided a simple example as I wanted to provide an example that everyone could understand, not just the science buffs. I am sorry if you feel that it was "poor" simply because it provided science in laymans terms.
dna that was once used? so youre saying that because it is no longer used it can no longer be relevant at all? step outside your modern science box.
Written by: jeff
No one has ever claimed they could explain everything. It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, since there have been no relevant unexplained phenomenon raised so far outside of anecdotes.
no one? sorry, but listening to you i'd think that science could explain everything! no unexplained phenomenon outside anecdotes? you count them as irrelivant cos your precious science cant explain them! and i think that you're saying what i'm trying to bring up as irrellevant because its science which doesnt support your argument. Because what am i? i'm not a science student! Therefore how dare I even suggest that i might know some things about science and bring them into an argument?
also the example you gave is a poor one as it is actualy understod zipf's law represents systems that store information. junk DNA isn't random its DNA that was once used but isn't any more hence why its has an informational representation still in it.
I deliberately provided a simple example as I wanted to provide an example that everyone could understand, not just the science buffs. I am sorry if you feel that it was "poor" simply because it provided science in laymans terms.
dna that was once used? so youre saying that because it is no longer used it can no longer be relevant at all? step outside your modern science box.
Written by: jeff
No one has ever claimed they could explain everything. It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, since there have been no relevant unexplained phenomenon raised so far outside of anecdotes.
no one? sorry, but listening to you i'd think that science could explain everything! no unexplained phenomenon outside anecdotes? you count them as irrelivant cos your precious science cant explain them! and i think that you're saying what i'm trying to bring up as irrellevant because its science which doesnt support your argument. Because what am i? i'm not a science student! Therefore how dare I even suggest that i might know some things about science and bring them into an argument?
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [believe* aura*] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Spirituality, sceptiscism and imposing your world on others [47 replies]
2. Forums > Who believes in auras? [470 replies]
3. Learn > Fire Training > Fire training and safety > Quick FIRE history *help/resource
4. Forums > The silly things that we are told as chidren! [67 replies]
5. Forums > current poll Auras [7 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.