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

171–180 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#171

Post by gwern »

adolph wrote: post #153
jules22 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. All the senior meditators I know have some element of irrationality. The openness that meditation seems to promote seems to also promote a certain level of gullibility that I did not expect from them. Obviously, an out of body experience is not really tr…

A “didactic little story” about perception and the supernatural: [0] There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in…

Bacon did it better centuries before with his idols: "And where are the testimonies from the sailors who prayed to the gods but did not return safely?"

Re: The new science of meditation

#172

Post by jules22 »

haswell wrote: post #102
jules22 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. All the senior meditators I know have some element of irrationality. The openness that meditation seems to promote seems to also promote a certain level of gullibility that I did not expect from them. Obviously, an out of body experience is not really tr…

> Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. A religious friend went on a road trip and hiked deep into the Rocky Mountains. They experienced the awe and wonder of the landscape, and to them, this was God revealing himself to them. Supernatural claims by meditators are interpretations of the expe…

Your account of an awe experience is quite common. Francis Collins had a similar experience. I am not unaware of these accounts.

I agree with much of what you said. But I also think it makes people a tad more open to irrationality after such experiences, even the knowledgeable ones.

> that is more about each individual’s existing beliefs and the resulting framing of the experience

Not disagreeing.

Re: The new science of meditation

#173

Post by jules22 »

sambapa wrote: post #77
jules22 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. All the senior meditators I know have some element of irrationality. The openness that meditation seems to promote seems to also promote a certain level of gullibility that I did not expect from them. Obviously, an out of body experience is not really tr…

Real life is a hallucination

Life being a hallucination is in fact one of the hallucinations that can be caused by meditation.

These are called derealization hallucinations and are reported in meditators.

Re: The new science of meditation

#174

Post by jules22 »

colechristensen wrote: post #111
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…

What's popular on YouTube and what's good are very often not the same. You're seeing what YouTube is trying to optimize for... it's not surprising that it's manipulative, exaggerating, populist nonsense. YouTube could do this for literally any topic. The YT algorithm's take on the best meditation advice doesn't need to define what meditation is to you. Topics which should be "boring" get this treatment on social medi…

I don't disagree. This is hacker news. We all know how skewed social media is. We all understand the biases of recommendation algorithms.

However, my point is not one of presenting a representative sample, but rather easily accessible and video instances of highly visible subjects to illustrate.

There is plenty of scientific literature on meditation induced mental disorders for what you prefer. I have looked at that too.

Re: The new science of meditation

#175

Post by deprecative »

samstave wrote: post #4
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…

The morbid, but critically true, reality is that there are different humans. There are Takers, Givers, Neutral. We are ruled by Takers. (service to self, as opposed to service of others) Which is a core tenant of meditation (service to others) We as a Humanity will not heal until we can kill the Takers Archetype in the psyche. Thus why meditation helps. But literally - the Takers who are the "they" or "TPTB" are so f…

We like takers. We hate givers.

Re: The new science of meditation

#176

Post by jules22 »

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…

> As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one.

I never said they weren't good at tech and engineering. Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience.

Re: The new science of meditation

#177

Post by nprateem »

maleldil wrote: post #147
nprateem wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, so you can confidently discount someone else's experience as obviously not true, especially without any real attainment yourself? That just doesn't work on so many levels.

If you're a materialist, which sounds likely to be true given the available evidence, any claims to the supernatural are disqualified by, for example, the Sagan standard.

You're supposed to find the evidence for yourself. But if you never start, you never will. A closed mind is certain to lead to failure in meditation if it means you never try without expectation.

Re: The new science of meditation

#178

Post by coyotespike »

jules22 wrote: post #65
choxi wrote: post #57

I’ve been meditating casually for almost 10 years, I couldn’t sit still for a minute when I started and can sit regularly for an hour now. I still have a lot of skepticism about the sensations that other meditators describe feeling, like jhanas and profound states of tranquility and whatnot. I have experienced deeper calmness and have made some insights about my brain (eg thoughts are like a sensor organ not unlike a…

Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. All the senior meditators I know have some element of irrationality. The openness that meditation seems to promote seems to also promote a certain level of gullibility that I did not expect from them. Obviously, an out of body experience is not really tr…

I can recommend Shinzen Young as a senior meditation teacher with a high degree of rigor. He self-consciously will use mystical language, but is also upfront about the fact that he remains agnostic. The Science of Enlightenment is the best place to start with his work.

Re: The new science of meditation

#179

Post by adolph »

gwern wrote: post #171
adolph wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A “didactic little story” about perception and the supernatural: [0] There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in…

Bacon did it better centuries before with his idols: "And where are the testimonies from the sailors who prayed to the gods but did not return safely?"

Is your reference to New Atlantis? In reading the below article [0] I'm not certain if Wallace was going for a similar point as Bacon. But maybe you have a different interpretation.

Wallace develops his point after the story ". . . we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice."

0. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/francis-bacons-g...

Re: The new science of meditation

#180

Post by carabiner »

jules22 wrote: post #170
carabiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you can compare meditation to the field of "medicine" or "diet." There are cranks and pseudoscience in there too, but I wouldn't write off the whole field as irrational. It's got a semantic problem too. If more people called it "mindfulness" or "focus practice" that would be more accurate for how most normal, secular people meditate. Maybe even calling it meditation vs. alternative meditation (like alternative medicine). LOTS of different forms of meditation, and not all I think are worthwhile. Some are better than others.

TM seems like a total scam/fake though, just like chiropractic, astrology, juice cleanses etc.

Post reply on HN