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

331–340 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#331

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…

> n=36 and p=0.0000006

That is how pseudoscientific studies often look like. Low n, fantastic p, yet no replicability when you should expect 100% replicability. Why? They always turn out to be badly conducted experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_recept...

The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates. Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues. James Randi has written controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.

Re: The new science of meditation

#332

Post by sambapa »

jules22 wrote: post #313
sambapa wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am european influenced by the suttas

Re: The new science of meditation

#333

Post by CyberDildonics »

codr7 wrote: post #203
mirekrusin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did something similar but always tried to imagine things - shapes like cube, rotate it, move it around, slice it etc. - not easy. I always found it odd you'd want to deprive yourself from excercising mind this way by medidating = practicing not thinking. I believe it helped me a lot when programming and thinking about problems in general.

If that's what 10% of your brain is capable of, imagine what kinds of miracles are possible once you tap into the rest of it.

What you're saying is a myth that gets repeated like an old wives tale by people who never check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

Re: The new science of meditation

#334

Post by haswell »

jules22 wrote: post #256
haswell wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point about awe and wonder is that I don’t avoid the Rocky Mountains because they reinforce my friend’s beliefs about God. I should mention that it was a similar experience that he says convinced him of the existence of a god to begin with. Do you have some specific examples of irrationality? I’m curious to know what you’re encountering, and I haven’t yet found this among the non-religious meditators that I know.

> I don’t avoid the Rocky Mountains because they reinforce my friend’s beliefs about God I do avoid them (figuratively, not literally) because I value my critical thinking. What I observe in meditators is a gradual loss of trust in logic, reason and science, even in those with decades of education. They fall for silly quackeries and psychic beliefs or that the meditation teacher mystically can know things and have in…

> a gradual loss of trust in logic, reason and science, even in those with decades of education. They fall for silly quackeries and psychic beliefs or that the meditation teacher mystically can know things

This is again all very vague, so it’s difficult to understand your perspective. Silly quackeries like what?

It also doesn’t align with what I’ve experienced, or have observed in others: I’m still a staunch believer in logic, reason and science. Have never felt the need to take on psychic beliefs, etc.

I’m not saying you’re wrong about the people you’re referring to, I just don’t have a similar frame of reference.

Re: The new science of meditation

#335

Post by swayvil »

EFreethought wrote: post #315
swayvil wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I used to do concentration meditation.

Then did concentration and vipassana.

These days just vipassana.

Re: The new science of meditation

#337

Post by dorchadas »

dorchadas wrote: post #309
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…

Personally, if you're interested in the early 'philosophical' side (which I don't think can - or should - be disentangled from the 'religious' side; the separation of religion and philosophy is inherently a post-Enlightenment, Western phenomenon, and doesn't really apply outside that cultural situation), van Norden's chapters on the DDJ and the ZZ in his book I quoted from above are a good start. But there was a 'rel…

Oh I forgot to mention Coutinho's An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies, which looks at the three early Daoist texts -- the Laozi, the Zhuangzi, and the Liezi. I haven't read it yet, but have heard decent things. He specifically works from a comparative perspective as well, which makes it more interesting.

Re: The new science of meditation

#338

Post by krzat »

hirvi74 wrote: post #278
sharms wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might not help and might sound new age / abstract: meditation is not continuous focus, but is about choosing to focus, letting thoughts pass, and when you recognize you are distracted to consciously let the distracting thought go, and return to focusing on what you intended to.

I mean, isn't that what I have always done to begin with? For example, when reading a book, I can sometimes read a whole page without actually internalizing anything my eyes pretended to skim across. (My body can mimic the actions of reading, but my mind is somewhere else, if that makes things more clear). I have always done this with things like reading, conversations, work, etc.. When distracted I have to refocus m…

It's like with exercise, regular life maintains muscles at some low level, but specific techniques (lifting) make it possible to get much stronger.

Same goes with brain, you can train your imagination, focus, mental resilience, happiness via consistent practice.

Re: The new science of meditation

#339

Post by hinkley »

asdfman123 wrote: post #220
hinkley wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out a lot of humans bond over mutually shared grasping, so it can make you 'not fun at parties' when they're harrumphing about things that Do. Not. Matter. and are put off by you not dog-piling. Most people wonder how the Dalai Lama can be so serene. I wonder how he can be so approachable.

It sounds like you may be dealing with growing pains: moving on from old relationships and social scenes you've matured past.

Can’t pick my family, neighbors or colleagues. Can’t control my friends’ friends, or people who I share hobbies with. They are who they are and I can deal with them or isolate.

Re: The new science of meditation

#340

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]
Post reply on HN