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

311–320 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#311

Post by jules22 »

uoaei wrote: post #307
jules22 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sounds like you have not given any time to a truly good-faith exploration of these methods To me, this is just a variation of "never mind the science, why don't you try for yourself" argument you find in quackery. I found a disconnect between what people were reporting and actual behavior in meditators. > only the most incidental and bottom-of-the-barrel evidence. Are scholarly reports of psychosis bottom of the ba…

Ah, the old "you're criticizing me, ergo you believe everything I am criticizing unconditionally" fallacy. What fun... Disengaging because of the amazing amount of bad faith in your responses.

> Ah, the old "you're criticizing me, ergo you believe everything I am criticizing unconditionally" fallacy. What fun...

I don't believe that you do. I said you used a familiar argument that quacks use. I do not believe that you believe in quackery. This isn't facebook. On hacker news, I assume people are generally critically minded.

> Disengaging because of the amazing amount of bad faith in your responses.

I don't know what you mean by bad faith here. I have no need to deceive you and don't feel anyone here is trying to deceive me either. I am not refusing facts unreasonably. I do have an unpopular position based on considerable thought on the matter. I am citing literature on the topic that is not dubious. You can't ground arguments any better than that. This is not bad faith.

Taylor, Greenberry B., et al. "The adverse effects of meditation-interventions and mind–body practices: A systematic review." Mindfulness 13.8 (2022): 1839-1856.

Britton, Willoughby B., et al. "Defining and measuring meditation-related adverse effects in mindfulness-based programs." Clinical Psychological Science 9.6 (2021): 1185-1204.

Shapiro Jr, Deane H. "Adverse Effects ofMeditation: A Preliminary Investigation ofLong-Term Meditators." International Journal of Psychosomatics 39.1-4 (1992): 63.

In any case, I do also agree that further exchange with you on this topic is not productive.

Re: The new science of meditation

#312

Post by jules22 »

carabiner wrote: post #180
jules22 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alternativ…

Yes, TM variants are the popular ones here, not vipassana or mindfulness. I do think it is the most harmful one. I haven't seen harm in mindfulness yet. It is best not to discuss meditation under 1 tent. I prefer your terms.

Re: The new science of meditation

#313

Post by jules22 »

sambapa wrote: post #272
jules22 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am literally talking about the literature. Kuijpers, Harold JH, et al. "Meditation-induced psychosis." Psychopathology 40.6 (2007): 461-464.

And I'm talking about Śūnyatā. Philosophical concept that emerged during times when western people were still stacking shit like rocks on top of each other.

You seem rather influenced by Indian right wing pseudohistory. It's similar to arguing Ayurveda isn't very harmful because it is ancient. An appeal to tradition.

> stacking shit like rocks on top of each other

They still do in India. Cow dung cakes are a rural fuel.

I am not doubting that India is likely the first to write about derealization. But it was mistaken to be the ultimate reality.

Re: The new science of meditation

#314

Post by jules22 »

mistermann wrote: post #281
jules22 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, only living through this fear is what causes the bad trip in the first place Where is the evidence for this? None. > the fear of "never coming back" Psychedelics sound like fun, but I have seen quite a few broken people on the streets, all because of them. It's not just fear, it is a serious concern.

[flagged]

I just read science, not the unsubstantiated metaphysical claims of meditation traditions.

Playing the fantasy of an "omniscient oracle" often seems to be the ego trip of popular meditation gurus today. They are all quite scientifically illiterate.

Re: The new science of meditation

#315

Post by EFreethought »

swayvil wrote: post #106
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…

Meditating for 30 years. "Psychedelic experiences", superhuman, supernatural, crazy magic out-of-matrix stuff. Ya. It's real.

What style of meditation do you do?

Re: The new science of meditation

#316

Post by maleldil »

nprateem wrote: post #302
jules22 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're supposed to find the evidence for yourself This is the argument of quacks and charlatans (including the meditation charlatans aka "gurus"). A quack will always argue to ignore criticisms of his snake oil and just try it for yourself and find out. Evidence is not personal, it's universal. Denying universal facts and saying this is true for me is a position of a closed mind. You are being invited to prove fact…

An impossible position if consciousness is not materialistic, especially since you discount the 3000+ years of cross-cultural claims and documented methods for reaching such states for yourself. It's hard to imagine what else might class as a universal signal there's something to explore here. Your attitude makes it inherently impossible to prove a non-materialistic position as you refuse to investigate for yourself.…

How is asking for evidence close-minded? Having 3000+ years of personal accounts is meaningless when compared to hard, physical evidence. Again, personal anecdotes is not evidence.

I know there are studies about the efficacy of meditation in certain scenarios, which is why I do it. But that falls short when you start claiming supernatural states of mind.

> Your attitude makes it inherently impossible to prove a non-materialistic position as you refuse to investigate for yourself

Personal attitude shouldn't be relevant when you're talking about evidence. One of the main attributes of evidence is precisely that it is objective and not personal.

Re: The new science of meditation

#317

Post by lannisterstark »

Tao3300 wrote: post #246
opportune wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hoh hoh! Have you not heard that that dao which has a recommended introduction is not the true dao?

The 'no true libertarian' problem all over again lol

Re: The new science of meditation

#318

Post by tasuki »

gbasin wrote: post #104
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…

Jhanas are achieved a particular way and should be readily accessible once your concentration is strong enough (yours likely is). You may have not experienced them if you haven't accidentally pulled the right levers, so to speak. There are a few guides online of what to do, I suspect you'd succeed quickly

Links?

Re: The new science of meditation

#319

Post by tasuki »

hirvi74 wrote: post #275
nabla9 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done zazen over 20 years and know many people who have ADHD and do it a lot. You need less than a second attention span. What you need is the ability to bring mind back endlessly. It's like learning to juggle, picking up juggling pins from the ground again and again. "The faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering attention, over and over again, is the very root of judgment, character and will." – Willia…

How long am I supposed to bring my mind back for? Based on my past experiences: Every time I try, it's gone again so fast that that it's like an endless loop. And that's if I am conscious enough to catch it. Hell, my mind can wander for minutes at a time without me even realizing that I was supposed to be focusing on something else. Not trying to argue against your recommendations, but I am really trying to dig deepe…

> How long am I supposed to bring my mind back for?

One point of view is that once your mind no longer wanders, you no longer need concentration meditation. The whole purpose of the exercise is for you to learn to bring your mind back.

Don't worry about your mind wandering, it's normal. When you notice, bring it back. There is no disconnect, you're doing fine.

Re: The new science of meditation

#320

Post by duopixel »

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…

The Tao Te Ching itself is the best introduction to philosophical Taoism (the religion is something else). Perhaps certain passages can be obscure, but they reveal their meaning in time.

Take a look for yourself https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

Post reply on HN