Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#221

Post by anbende » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

nprateem wrote: post #155

Really there are only 2 positions here: 1. All this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit 2. It's real While it's fashionable to think 1 is correct, it is just possible that 2 is in fact our reality. I mean quantum physics shows us the universe is weird. Not bothering to try to find evidence of 2 and dismissing it out of hand is as counterproductive as people who blindly accept 2 with no evidence. No doubt some of…

Okay, I'll bite. The problem with "it's real" is that it's unclear WHAT is real. In science, we may start with "does it work", but the aim is to progress to "why it works" and follow the rabbit hole down to underlying principles.

"Reiki works" means what exactly? That people report feeling better? That it reduces measurable symptoms in a disorder? I think there's some evidence to support both of those claims. But now if we dig deeper, does it have anything to do with Reiki or is the underlying principle belief, human contact, or something of this nature?

If the mechanism is belief/social contact/etc the tendency is to just toss it out. But from a therapeutic perspective, we would then look at whether it does anything better or different than therapy, hypnosis, or some other evidence supported treatments, of which there are many.

Honestly "all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit" is not very useful either. "What parts of it are supported and unsupported?" would be more useful and avoid the false dichotomy you've set up here.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#222

Post by hosh » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

conjectures wrote: post #178

gerbilly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?

It's extraordinary in the sense that there is no known mechanism for it to work. E.g. soap kills viruses by dissolving them, some painkillers work by blocking transmission of signals along nerves, radiotherapy kills cells in the blast zone. Other than through establishing a psychological effect around 'someone cares', there's simply no known way of positive thoughts in one person's head being transmitted down through…

There are known mechanisms, but they are recorded and discussed among the mystics and esotericists. There are long, though obscure, documentation on these different phenomena. They are outside what is accepted by the mainstream consensus, so I can see why you would consider those mechanisms as being "unknown".

I probably should have explained this part better. I wrote in a different comment, but let me make this clear:

1. What I mean about "subtle energy" is not the same as the "energy" of physicists.

2. Subtle energy is experienced by some people. Not everyone is aware of how various forms of subtle energy affects people and non-living things.

3. Not all forms of subtle energy is the same

4. Subtle energy is responsive to will and intent.

5. The problem is that, what we experience as consciousness, is in turn influenced and agitated by subtle energy.

6. Subtle energy carries information: emotions, concepts, awareness, sentience. Some forms have higher "content" than others.

6. Reiki is a specific form of subtle energy, but no one actually knows where it comes from or why attunement works. Attunement is supposed to tune a consciousness to the source of reiki, but no one has luck finding out what that source is. If they have, they are not talking. My friends (I am not attuned myself) who were attuned had tried, but not luck finding out about it.

7. At best, the characteristics we found out about it is that it is universal (rather than personal), non-local, is not qi (despite the name), is not emotional, or elemental, or fluidic. It is very "light", without much substance (compared to some other forms of subtle energy). We were trying to understand this in order to distinguish it from secondary effects that _do_ have locality, or are experiences of side effects that are personal. (In other words: what are the experiences a practitioner have to know that what they are doing is working?)

As far as how it effects disease, there are a lot of literature on that. Again, not in the mainstream consensus.

It isn't just regular "energy". Some people have tried to copy subtle energy and play it back en mass. The mechanism they use is similar to that of homeopathy. How effective it is ... I have my doubts, but maybe it works. Since we (people who practices Reiki) don't actually know the Reiki source, I also have doubts we can copy it mechanistically.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#223

Post by mcv » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #74

hyko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These two responses are not equal, as every claim made by anyone should fall into category 1 until proven otherwise. Response 2 admits the possibility of better theories about the world being possible, while refusing to do the actual science that would prove their existence. Claims about alternative medicine don't even get to start from this generous position because the field has produced reams upon reams of utter-a…

Nobody is able to practice 2 while holding 1 as belief. The opposite is ironically possible.

2 is not a practice, it's a belief. It's still possible to practice something without believing it works, or without believing some theory behind the practice.

People used to navigate by the stars because they believed the stars were fixed points on a dome that covered the Earth. The belief was wrong, but the practice worked.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#224

Post by mcv » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #219

learnstats2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Placebo is known to be good! It's reasonable that Reiki should be compared with no intervention, which is the realistic alternative.

Reasonable if evaluating your treatment options, and those are the only two available to you. Not reasonable if you are trying to determine the best treatment options and others exist, such as "anything with actual clinical trials that show it more effective than placebo", which is hardly an unrealistic alternative.

The article emphasises that Reike should only be used in combination with actual proven clinical treatment, and not as a replacement of those (which is obvious and dangerous quackery). So compare clinical treatment with Reiki on the side to clinical treatment without Reiki. And maybe also clinical treatment with a more conventional placebo on the side.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#225

Post by jlokier » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

thawaway1837 wrote: post #186

gerbilly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?

Energy is well defined. There is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can. So someone making a claim about the realness of reiki energy needs to either prove it and explain its properties in ways that are true of other forms of energy, or possibly more easily, they need to change their terminology. The problem is that the reiki and homeopathy, etc practitioners deliberately abuse scie…

The word "energy" in this domain is not being used to refer to the same thing as "energy" in science and engineering.

And by the way, the word "energy" did not originate in science and engineering.

So statements like "there is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can" are incorrect, because they are meaningless when applied to homonyms.

They are just artefacts of people talking past one another.

I think the commenter who explained that "subtle energy" is best understood as an atomic language term that means something different from "energy" has it about right.

It would be helpful if people would stop trying to be "scientific" while actually ignoring the meanings of things being talked about by each other.

That goes for the practitioners applying an unsupported veneer of scientific credibility to claims, but it also goes for armchair scientist types applying an unsupported veneer of knowledge about a subject they have chosen to not really study.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#226

Post by mcv » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

nprateem wrote: post #155

Really there are only 2 positions here: 1. All this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit 2. It's real While it's fashionable to think 1 is correct, it is just possible that 2 is in fact our reality. I mean quantum physics shows us the universe is weird. Not bothering to try to find evidence of 2 and dismissing it out of hand is as counterproductive as people who blindly accept 2 with no evidence. No doubt some of…

There's a middle ground: the spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit, but the treatment still works because of the touching, the patient taking time for this to relax, and maybe the patient believing that something is being done about their pain or other feelings of unease. It's possible that the theory is wrong but the practice still works.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#227

Post by hosh » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

thawaway1837 wrote: post #186

gerbilly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?

Energy is well defined. There is no known form of energy that can do what the commenter is claiming it can. So someone making a claim about the realness of reiki energy needs to either prove it and explain its properties in ways that are true of other forms of energy, or possibly more easily, they need to change their terminology. The problem is that the reiki and homeopathy, etc practitioners deliberately abuse scie…

I never claimed that "subtle energy" is the same kind of energy that is well-defined by the science of physics.

I use that term because it behaves a lot like physical energy. It has intensity. The more of it there is, the more things become active. It keeps being used as a term because for those who experience it, the concept of energy describes it very well.

But one of the characteristic it has that is not described by physics is that it carries information: emotions, concepts, awareness, sentience.

For example, there are two forms of subtle energy that can be described as "electric" and "magnetic". It is similar enough that people use those terms for it. The Theosophists of the early 20th century popularized that notion ... but the actual experience of the "electric" energy is more like living, liquid, luminous lightning (electric). It is not electricity.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#228

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #115

normalnorm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit subjective, which is well-being. The "economic reasons" are just the preferences of the rich & powerful. Resources could be allocated in other ways. It is just that those that call the shots are not interested. In the US, they also managed to convince a large part…

> I dream of an economic system that serves human beings instead > of the numerical abstractions behind which the rich and > powerful hide their extreme selfishness. So did Gene Roddenberry. Most of his work is based on that premise.

I've heard this before .. in his books so the senior officers get luxurious quarters as they did in the TV series? That seems to be a contrast with basic egalitarianism?

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#229

Post by mcv » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

balfirevic wrote: post #147

nprateem wrote: post #122

I've been attuned to level 2 reiki. I've also received it a few times both in person and from a distance. And stone me, but I felt stuff every time. The first time I had it from a master on my crown it was like something pouring down through my body. It felt electrical and great. I've no idea how the distance stuff works, although I've been told how to do it. Well, I've been given explanations about the 'all-is-one,…

If you can reliably distinguish whether the distant practitioner is doing anything to you or not, you should be able to get yourself a million dollars [0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...

It's entirely possible that he can still hear the distant practitioner, and that the practitioner's words are enough to trigger the effect.

If it even works without hearing the distant practitioner, then yes, go win that million dollars.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#230

Post by gnramires » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #93

gnramires wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is can that basic concept work without the mumbojumbo I used to think like that too, but I'm more open that sometimes a story, any story, allegory can be helpful in many contexts, by creating an identity, an aesthetic quality of the thing; help us conceptualize it. Since this in particular is about psychological phenomenon, I think it perhaps shouldn't be discarded. The question would be (if the story…

Surely there's a way to believe something important and true with the right emotional valence. Consider the story I laid out in a nearby comment: "A competent, trusted person loves you and is laying hands on you in a kindly way to heal you. When this happened to our ancestors, they were in a safe position and their bodies needed healing; under these circumstances, there was no risk of further injury and no need to wo…

I guess it could be analogous to watching say a circus (say Cirque du Soleil) presentation with a story and a presentation without a story -- one with just actors doing impressive stunts, the other with a narrative, clothings, a coherent aesthetic, but still centered on doing impressive stunts, movements, etc. The story-free might be interesting, some would feel there is something missing (I would), the stunts themselves not as remarkable as they could be.

There is always a story and an aesthetic -- if you chose to tell no story, you'll simply be clinging to the aesthetic of modern hospitals (with innocuous minimalist environments), hospital or casual clothing, etc. It just may not be sufficiently captivating, at least not for everyone.

At least it's worth research and experimentation instead of dismissal as "unscientific" or "woo woo".

To give other examples, imagine hospital clowns (hired for kids) without clown clothes or being identified as 'clowns', but rather 'entertainment therapists'. Possibly lame, just not the same.