Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new science of meditation

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#161

Post by galaxyLogic »

crazygringo wrote: post #27
mohave529 wrote: post #5

"Along a less-traveled route, meditation remains what it long was: a deeply transformative pursuit, a devoted metamorphosis of the mind toward increasingly enlightened states." This pretty much lines up with what meditation has done for me. However, the pursuit of "states" can be a trap in of itself. As my practice has gotten deeper, I've started to reframe meditation for myself as the process of unrelenting inquiry…

Could you give an example of beliefs/ideas you've let go of, or discovered can't be known to be true? I've been trying to understand the pros/cons of psychotherapy vs meditation, as both of them seem to involve letting go of false beliefs. But while there are a lot of examples of this in psychotherapy and the mechanisms are well-documented, it's hard to find first-person accounts regarding meditation that aren't just…

> trying to understand the pros/cons of psychotherapy vs meditation, as both of them seem to involve letting go of false beliefs.

I think mediation is more about getting rid of all beliefs temporarily.

Beliefs are just language playing around in the echo-chamber of your mind. Having too much noise in an echo-chamber can be distracting and stressful and can make you not hear what you should be hearing.

Meditation stops (or slows down) your thoughts. Then you realize you are just fine even if you don't repeat certain thoughts or variations of them in your brain.

Imagine you are a soldier. Enemy-attack is eminent. It can make you fearful. But that is only because you are imagining the different possible terrible effects of the enemy attack on you.

It is unlikely that all the bad things you imagine about will happen. But imagining them has a detrimental effect of your mind. Mediation helps counter that.

But you shouldn't stay in meditation forever you're supposed to come out of it so you can tackle the real life problems with a well rested mind which is better equipped to perceive the world as is, than a person in an echo-chamber would.

Re: The new science of meditation

#162

Post by fluoridation »

waterheater wrote: post #108
jules22 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A group in the US Army performed a serious analysis of the Gateway Hemisync process, concluding that "there is a sound, rational basis in terms of physical science parameters for considering Gateway to be plausible in terms of its essential objectives", which include "out-of-body movement", "terrestrial information gathering trips", and "possible encounters with intelligent, non-corporal energy forms when time-spac…

Ah, you are referring to the SRI experiments, though I'm not sure who "they" are. You should, however, be aware that the Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume: 64, Issue: 10, October 1976) contain a paper presenting the results of a remote-viewing experiment with n=36 and p=0.0000006 [1]. Many people who purport to "love science" set aside how much of one's understanding of the universe is axiomatic. Now, I've never direct…

A paper from 1976 claims to have detected ESP in its participants. The paper appears to have only been cited twice since, both in 1979, one to explain the 1976 results as experimental bias, and the other to report failure to reproduce. I wouldn't throw out my walkie-talkie just yet.

>If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it.

Okay. What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?

Re: The new science of meditation

#163

Post by Pannoniae »

d3ckard wrote: post #53
epiccoleman wrote: post #2

> Given that wealthy countries like the US aren’t exactly riding trend lines toward new peaks of mental health (depression rates in American adults are at an all-time high, while young people appear in the grips of a mental health crisis), scalable ways of not just mindfully soothing, but completely re-creating psychological experiences for the better should set off sirens of general, scientific, and funding intrigue…

I agree. I personally think it's about the world becoming more and more uncertain. Everybody is supposed to switch careers a bunch of times during lifetime, everybody is expected to push their limits, everybody is expected to stay on top ever changing social norms. It's just too much pressure. There is very little average Joe can do to have a fairly sure good living. While the system has a lot of opportunities for ta…

Yup, I've pretty much become a hermit because I can't be bothered to keep up with the ever-changing social norms (which if you breach, you get the harshest consequences including social exclusion, public shaming and "consequences"), ever-changing popular culture and ever-changing everything.

Re: The new science of meditation

#164

Post by dottjt »

I think a key point that a lot of people miss is that meditation is just a single practice. The goal is mindfulness.

This is to say that you can meditate mindlessly, as you can meditate mindfully. You can also be mindful without meditation, although it's a lot more difficult to do so.

Re: The new science of meditation

#165

Post by yldedly »

2bitencryption wrote: post #46

A few years ago I tried the very first Headspace meditation courses, back when Headspace was pretty new. It was great! I loved it. I really felt like the narrator was knowledgeable and had something to teach me. His explanations for the process actually made sense, and weren't woo-woo mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it is all placebo effect, but even if so, the effect worked for me perfectly. The problem is, as the industry exp…

The Brightmind app is excellent, and you can adjust the duration of the guided meditations.

Re: The new science of meditation

#166

Post by swayvil »

Meh. We don't need a science. The last thing we need is a bunch of fine models and discussion.

What we need is some basic, dead-simple experiments that anybody can do. Experiments that show you that there's something there.

And then, after you see a bit, you are inspired to take another step.

Re: The new science of meditation

#167

Post by nuancebydefault »

haswell wrote: post #89
johndhi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you just have a different definition of 'religious' than I do. Why are you so anti-religion?

That’s possible! But that’s also why I’m calling attention to it here. Religiosity is a negative signal for many folks, and I think it’s important to debunk the need for religious thinking to gain the benefits of meditation. My stance comes from growing up in an extreme fundamentalist religious bubble. It set me up for a lifetime of unwinding unhealthy beliefs and patterns of thought, not the least of which was deep…

Thanks for sharing this. It reminds me about a documentary I saw about Sinead o'Connor's life.

Re: The new science of meditation

#168

Post by jules22 »

DrThunder wrote: post #86
jules22 wrote: post #56

Whenever someone talks enthusiastically about meditation, I remind myself that all the popular meditation gurus I see on Youtube talk nonsense, pseudoscience, lack common sense and use manipulative psychological tricks. None of them admit any errors and ironically are quite conceited for those who claim to have conquered ego. I am sure meditative states must feel nice. But all I see beyond that are cults and none of…

There are multiple scientific studies show the positive affects of meditation and a myriad of health benefits.... I'm not sure what "gurus" you're seeing but it's not really relevant to objective studies that show it works and makes changes in the brain. I'm sure they are making some claims that are pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean meditation in its entirety is just a "feel nice" routine. Here's just one of sever…

PMC has a lot of junk journals. Don't fall for them, especially if you want to use "Dr" in your nick. Most meditation research is rather low quality. Don't go around just googling your confirmation bias. One would not regard any journal on Ayurveda to have much scientific merit. It's essentially quackery. Their standards for peer review are low. This "paper" uses oxymorons such as "Vedic science".

Take this text for instance: "A feedback loop to the DNA starts a new cycle to provide whatever is needed for the activities of the cell. In meditation, the feedback loop to the deep inner Self (the seat of knowledge, like DNA) provides inner peace and bliss, which removes the accumulated stresses of life and improves overall health."

That gibberish would be an instant reject from any serious reviewer. This is not how science papers are written. This is the snake oil of the meditation world I was talking about. Minus the citations, this qualifies at best as a Facebook post. This might be an example of how meditation makes an educated man talk silly.

I also know several meditators. Anecdotally, not one improved his powers of concentration with meditation. They procrastinate and get distracted like everyone else, all while claiming they feel so much focused after meditation. Maybe, meditation makes them feel focused, while not actually being so.

Re: The new science of meditation

#169

Post by jules22 »

DrThunder wrote: post #140
tokai wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a lot of studies showing that meditation can cause harm. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-021-01503-2

True... but this lends credence to the fact that it's not just a cult pseudoscience. It's actually having an effect positive or negative on people.

I did not argue that it was inert. I actually argued that

1.) not really doing what enthusiasts claimed it was specifically doing. 2.) making people become develop bizarre beliefs and generally become irrational.

It can be a cult pseudoscience while not being inert.

Re: The new science of meditation

#170

Post by jules22 »

carabiner wrote: post #58
akasakahakada wrote: post #3

Little google search I found this guy. https://www.exploringtheproblemspace.com/new-blog/2018/2/18/... To conclude that, Jon Kabat-Zinn, the "scientist" quoted in the article is just pure pseudoscience.

He's got a PhD from MIT in molecular biology. So nothing to do with meditation or neuroscience. But he was a scientist for a while. Now he's emeritus.

Brian Josephson won his Nobel and then got into transcendental meditation. He was talking pseudoscience since. It does not take away from him that he is a smart man, but it seems to have effected his rationality quite a bit.

I know some meditating academics. They all have this tendency to irrationality.

Post reply on HN