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

231–240 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#231

Post by beardedmoose »

csallen wrote: post #196
beardedmoose wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Critics call it “McMindfulness" I am both amused and disgusted by this term. Why does everything nowadays have to generate profit or else it's worthless? I'd like to get off this capitalist roller coaster please. As an adult with ADHD meditation is helping me greatly with some of my executive functions. That being said I don't use any apps as I despise my cell phone in general; It's just a constant stream of micro-…

The world isn't so bad. You might just need a perspective shift. A huge number of regular human activities and interactions don't generate profit, and yet aren't considered worthless. Go play an intramural sport, or take a walk with a friend, or read a book to a niece or nephew, or spark up a chat at a coffee shop, or hell, comment on Hacker News. The vast number of capitalist activities and goings on aren't so bad e…

To elaborate further my comment also stems from articles referring to things like this being a $50 billion dollar industry. A lot of services or goods are described as such like we are all just dollar signs.

I also play airsoft, walk twice a week with a friend and spend time with my children. Those are all great things and I like your optimism...

However I disagree that our capitalist society is a good thing, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Nobody gets to be a billionaire without exploiting the working class.

Re: The new science of meditation

#232

Post by dlivingston »

fredrikholm wrote: post #55
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…

Waking Up by Sam Harris. It's more insight than mindfulness, but remains secular. Loads of content from big names. Highly recommended.

Seconded. I'm working through the month-long Introductory Course currently. Waking Up strikes me as much more technical than apps like Headspace, which really resonates with me.

Re: The new science of meditation

#234

Post by downsplat »

anolog0 wrote: post #136
crazygringo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

Nice description into progressive steps, sounds recommendable. It's very close to one of my favorite types of meditation, awareness of feeling. It can get pretty intense, but it's also quite regularly rewarding in clearing up inner heaviness or tension.

Re: The new science of meditation

#235

Post by waterheater »

fluoridation wrote: post #162
waterheater wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

According to Google Scholar, the paper has been cited 19 times [1], which isn't groundbreaking but is an order of magnitude larger. Also, I imagine the fringe nature of scientific research into remote viewing keeps researcher numbers and therefore citation counts low.

Perhaps a better paper is "The Persistent Phenomena of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn, who, at the time of publication, was Dean of Engineering at Princeton [2]. According to Google Scholar, this paper has 286 citations [3].

Or consider "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena", also by Jahn, with 238 citations, according to Google Scholar. Or even Jahn's book "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World", which, according to Google Scholar, has 736 citations.

> What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?

I recommend you look at link 2, page 21, starting at the section "Theoretical Concepts." It overviews a number of plausible models, including one derived from quantum mechanics.

Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remo...

[2] http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf

[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22...

Re: The new science of meditation

#236

Post by downsplat »

vram22 wrote: post #210
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…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi Related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Brunton

For resources about Ramana Maharshi, sure, Paul Brunton was popular, but I'd first go with Arthur Osborne and/or David Godman. David has a metric ton of videos on youtube if you prefer listening to reading.

Re: The new science of meditation

#237

Post by mettamage »

mjthrowaway1 wrote: post #66
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…

Question: have you sat for a retreat? The reason I’m asking is I’m curious if it’s a “dosage” issue. I sat for a 10 day goenka retreat and was shocked at how psychedelic the experience was for how little warning I was given.

Yep, same here. Definitely had some psychedelic moments. I think in part it's because all you can do is meditate. The sensory restrictions and the fact it's a silent retreat as well all help. Your brain goes in overdrive and comes up with stuff that you won't come up with when you have conversations or consume some content on tv or youtube.

Re: The new science of meditation

#238

Post by [deleted] »

jules22 wrote: post #191
swayvil wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, the meditation scene is 99.99% pure bullshit. And that's a crime. First job for anybody trying to figure out this stuff is to scrape away the gunk and find a pearl of truth. You have to do your own research. There is no substitute.

> You have to do your own research. Generally a bad idea. Usually leads to quackery, pseudoscience beliefs etc. Individuals are much worse than institutions on matters of research.

[deleted]

Re: The new science of meditation

#239

Post by spandrew »

opportune wrote: post #221
dorchadas wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism. As van Norden says in the chapter on the Daodejing in his Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy : > The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff ... is a charming work that has attained a wide readership. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it for itself. But it reveals much more about how the Daodejing as been appropriated to illustrate Western Romantici…

What would you recommend as an introduction to Daoism, even if academic? I am not an expert on the subject but IMO Taoism has a very similar phenomenon to Buddhism (and indeed all religions or popular philosophies really) in that the “classical”, original, core teachings are pretty different from the organized later movements under the same name. So the context - philosophical, historical, sociological, spiritual - i…

This is fine though. All of these things, including the original sources, are philosophies as product of the time they were written. Ie. It makes sense for them to change as the society around them changes.

If one guy reads the Tao of Pooh and it helps him 'be' — that is the point. Laozi would likely agree: don't overthink it.

Re: The new science of meditation

#240

Post by cypherpunks01 »

carabiner wrote: post #219
dorchadas wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism. As van Norden says in the chapter on the Daodejing in his Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy : > The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff ... is a charming work that has attained a wide readership. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it for itself. But it reveals much more about how the Daodejing as been appropriated to illustrate Western Romantici…

Reminds me of how "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" has nothing to do with zen.

"Not very factual on motorcycles, either" : )
Post reply on HN