Page: ...
The Tea FairySILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...


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.

Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan


ValuraSILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
jeff, I have done my best to be polite to you, and even extended the olive branch at Dave's request giving you the information you asked for.
You insist on being rude and condescending, you have again alienated another hopper.

I shall not post on here again.

*walks away shaking head in disappointment*

TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"


Kathain_BowenGood Ol' Yarn For Hair
422 posts
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire


well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life



One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.

The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"

"So long and thanks for all the fish."


polaritySILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom


Posted:
Test conditions will affect the emotional and physiological state of the person who is being tested.



The awareness of another person's emotional and physiological state via any method is tied into ones own, as a relative set of values.



Science cannot control a sufficient number of variables in the tests for the results not to be biased by the test environment's affect on the subject. The human mind is simply too complex to have a base emotional state to work from for test purposes.





The complexity of the human brain goes far beyond any man made device (in the context of this thread in particular, those devices for detecting phenomena in our universe), and it is understood very little. It is entirely possible that within it's structure are mechanisms for the detection of phenomena that no man made device is capable of, due to their relative simplicity. It is entirely possible that the brain has senses built into it's structure, in addition to those that are on the outside of the body. Like any sense or response, acuity will be developed through use and focus on these sensations.



From a purely scientific standpoint these abilities can be explained.



In modern computer systems, a great deal of work must be undertaken to reduce the amount of radio frequency interference emanating from the processing devices withing the computer, as this interference can be picked up by other devices in the environment. This is why computers have metal cases to absorb the huge majority of radiated energy. Also the electrical pathways must be intertwined so that sources of radiated energy are placed next to pathways for the energy to be grounded and dispersed.



The entire system is several orders of magnitude simpler than a brain, yet operates on similar - electrical - priciples.



It is entirely possible that brains are capable of picking up on the radiated electrical energy from another body. There are no apparent measures taken to reduce energy radiated from the electrical functioning of the brain, and the structure is sufficiently complex that it easily surpasses that of man made brain scanning techniques.



Using processing within the brain, similar to that used to enhance the data available to us from limited visual information to produce our experience of sight, this seemingly random interference could be processed into usable data, and percieved in differing ways, depending on the focus of the individual. The sensing of the phenomena as colors within the visual field would be an obvious way for the mind to present information, as this is our most highly developed sense, and provides the majority of data that our minds process.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


Posted:
super interesting post, thanks Polarity!

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Kathain_Bowen


 Written by: faithinfire


well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life



One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.

The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"




not seeing how that applies in context

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


Kathain_BowenGood Ol' Yarn For Hair
422 posts
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire


not seeing how that applies in context



Mildly tangental joke referring to the inherent difficulty of humans to accurately convey abstract terms to one another. Sorry. Somehow, in my broken mind, the joke fit. In retrospect.... not so much. I have these total mental hiccups every now and again. Very sorry. redface

"So long and thanks for all the fish."


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
next time string us along on the tangent so we can all get it

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
Kathain_Bowen i thought it was funny smile and i know how you feel



word to the wise though you gota be carfull on this thread some people are on edge because there beleafes are been questioned. not the best audiance for jokes biggrin



polarity ok a fair point there are afew problems with what your saying mainly regarding the relitive volatages of a computer and the human brain. but i see the point your trying to make.



in reply i'ed like to say that i would execept such a situation asumeing that was what testing supported as the cause but my point is your jumping the gun before we begin trying to explain why a phenominon occures we need to first estabilish if there is a phenominon to explain in the first place. As of yet no scientific test anyware thoughout human history has found any evidence that these abilitys exist. before we start trying to explain something i feel it would be prudent to demonstrate it exists at all.



as for the Test conditions affecting the emotional and physiological state of the person who is being tested. this is the purpose of the control group of non readers as both will be tested both will be effected equaly by the conditions. by rateing the performence of the readers relitive to a control group we can remove the results of this effect. this is why sicentific experiments routeenly use control groups.



regarding the experiment not been valid ok i see where your going with it so i would like to ask



what can aura readers do with there ability?



if someone can answer the above question we can design an experiment to test for that.



i would also like to prempt any suggestions that these abilitys for some reason can't be tested if something or its effects can be seen smelt touched heard etc. it can be tested. and if it can't be seen smelt touched heard etc or detected in anyway what so ever in what way can it be said to exist?



also though i can't speek for everyone as with most words they meen diffrent things to diffrent people. when i say supernatural i meen any beleaf that isn't supported by evidence.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166314986)

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


Kathain_BowenGood Ol' Yarn For Hair
422 posts
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire


next time string us along on the tangent so we can all get it



*grinning sheepishly*

Yeah.... sorry about that. Sometimes, my mind makes these logic jumps that, when I look back later, are like staring across the Grand Canyon. This could explain why I couldn't make a truly coherent thought to go along with that.

So, to try to bring both myself and everyone else down the tangental trail I took, I started with thinking very clearly about what the aura is which we are questioning. And, in a sense, it is a vaguely tangible and visible thing (that is to say, some people feel it and see it, but others don't,)

Why?

The constant theory seems to be that auras are just something which some people percieve and others don't. And that word hit me. Percieve. Reality itself is dictated by human perception of things. Before the discovery of microscopic organisms in the maginification of a water droplet, before the discovery of the electromagnetic specturm, the human mind counted things which we now know to be facts as matters of the imagination and nothing more. Wouldn't the aura fall into that category of things which, due to a lack of perception of some people, be something which could potentially be miscategorized by a failure of perception?

So, then, I started to think about perception some more. While thinking about it, I saw my PMS-books. No jokes. PMS is Pantone Matching System. These are books which call out colors by specific ink formulas printed directly to the paper. Monitors, CMYK printers, and even the human eye can distort color perception so much that the only way to accurately convey to another human the abstract concept of exact colors, that Pantone created these books to be a specific color selection. So what you see is PRECISELY what you get when you print. Case in point, the color orange is exceptionally difficult and almost impossible to accurately reproduce on CYMK printers and generally has to be added as a spot color. It's still orange as a composite CMYK color, but it's not the same, exact orange as a spot color.

Valura, for example, could explain all day what auras are like, just like I could explain all day what the color red is like, and we might get an idea of what each other is talking about, but not exactly. However, in my case, I can reference the wavelengths of light that produce red, and I produce a list of various PMS numbers that are considered to be in the red family. I have something to point to like apples and firetrucks. In the case of auras, there isn't really a concrete thing to reference, hence why we are basing things off of perception of a subjective thing.

"God is in the details" is just a quip addressing the differences in perception of aesthetic things. Where I saw annoyance in tweaking tiny nuances of design and the subtle aspects of kerning, my teacher saw the measure of a designer in their finesse and control of the tiny, almost imperceptable aspects of type and layout. We were still looking at exactly the same thing, but our perceptions of it were just so vastly different. I just made the jump to "God is in the Details" too fast.

That being said, for everyone who is a true believer, I hope you can maintain your belief and your faith; they are powerful things. For everyone who is skeptical, I hope you can find your own measurement system to better understand this subjective concept. Me, I'm going to continue to teeter on the fence and hope I don't fall on my face. But, for all, I hope we can all just get alone, enjoy a nice hug at the end of this thread/discussion, and get on well! hug



.... on behalf of the Kathain Bowen's Brain Tour Group, we hope you enjoyed your tour of KB's logic jump and ask that you be careful as you step off the tram. biggrin

"So long and thanks for all the fish."


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
it sounds like one of my tangents

it seems as though our ability to prove or disprove auras as something people see and how this perception happens is limited by our scientific knowledge

by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...and even when science and testing began to prove it, the proofs were considered questionable
because it was so removed from what the general population believed
the earth was flat because that is what people saw...auras don't exist because that is what people see

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


Kathain_BowenGood Ol' Yarn For Hair
422 posts
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire


by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...



Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.

Relative perception is a fun and somewhat tricky thing (*and gets worse, to my understanding of an explanation I got, if you try to factor in superimposition)


Now, to the case of Valura and to others who see auras, their relative perception is that auras exist because they have experienced them (*using the color analogy, they have seen apples, firetrucks, or christmas ornaments.)

In the skeptics, their relative perception is that auras do not exist because they have no experienced them to say for certain, nor do they have a quanitative proof to believe that auras exist the way believers state they do (the designer searching for red in the measureable and definite bounds of a specific ink formula or CMYK composite).

When both relative perceptions get on the same page, then, we can all agree whether the aura is something of a divine and other worldly nature, or if it is a sort of trick of the mind, and illusion to a mental process we just don't happen to understand yet.

This is why I've been enjoying sitting on the fence for a while. I've seen things that dictate, based off of my relative perception and experience, that the aura *should* exist. However, in my studies and research, I've also experienced data that proves that they do not function in such ways. My relative perception is contradictory, and, as such, I'm just doing my best to stay on the fence.

"So long and thanks for all the fish."


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Nice one! I like your wording smile

Is the only difference between TODAY and BACK THEN that our communicational/ rhetorical skills and methods get more sophisticated?

Guess the content is pretty much the same, no? Luckily those who see Auras and dare to tell don't get burnt anymore - that might be another progression...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Kathain_Bowen



 Written by: faithinfire



by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...





Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.





fine that is what we understand now-that is not what we understood then...because of limited knowledge and because of relative perception

our knowledge can grow and prove our relative perception wrong about auras too

therefore same thing





valura is galileo or copernicus
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166375191)

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
valura is galileo or copernicus



hardly galileo was a scientist and baised is beleafes on messurement, repeatable tests and the scientific method. if you had read his publication the dialog you would see that his reasoning was baised on very strong logic and evidence. his theorys also produces predictions about the movements of the planets that were extreamly acurate. its is a far cry from valura who has out right refused to perform such testing.



this is not an argument between compeating scientific theorys where there is evidence supporting both sides. everyone repeately seems to avoid the point that there is no evidence at all for auras. doesn't this seem odd to anyone?



doesn't it strike anyone as strange that the abiltiys and skills aura readers clame to have can all be performed just as well by magicans who have no special powers what so ever. and that whenever they are tested under conditions that would prevent a magican from working they strangely disapear. also doesn't it concern anyone that some of the worlds most famous spiritualists have been revealed to be frauds. meening that it is definatly posiable to do this by fraudulent meens and that people have done as such. isn't it very odd that when we develop tests to distingush between genuin phycics and fakes everyone ether refuses to take the test or fails them out right? do these things not make you wonder about the validity of such clames. how do you acount for all these things?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166388340)

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
so now they're frauds...
if you followed the conversation the galileo comment was a JOKE from firetom's comment

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
ok fair enough but im hardly the first not to get a joke smile



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 biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


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.

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
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)

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


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!

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
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)

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


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.

BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


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.

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


Posted:
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!

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


Posted:
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!

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


Posted:
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...

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
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.

BansheeCatBRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada


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! wink) 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..."


ado-pGOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland


Posted:
clap

Love is the law.


Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


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)

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...


robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


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 smile



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 biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches


Page: ...

Similar Topics No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...