The new science of meditation • Hacker News Board

Re: The new science of meditation

#381

Post by jules22 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 7:34 AM UTC

haswell wrote: post #334

jules22 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Quite possible. We might also be talking about different kinds of meditation. Mindfulness meditators seem to have a healthy attitude. TM meditators start talking psychic things pretty quickly. The people around me are all TM types.

Re: The new science of meditation

#382

Post by jules22 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 7:40 AM UTC

nprateem wrote: post #323

maleldil wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-m…

Your requirement for physical evidence is biased and so discounts the possibility that non-physical evidence may be available. It's like saying "I believe in X. I won't accept any evidence against X. Since Y is against X, Y doesn't exist" This means you'd never realise X was wrong in the first place.

If it's around for 3000 years, show the plentiful "non-physical evidence". If you still need to talk about the "possibility", it's just flim flam BS.

If you think testimonies are evidence, and are making appeals to antiquity/tradition, you just aren't thinking in an educated way. None of that is "evidence".

Re: The new science of meditation

#383

Post by jules22 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 7:44 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #346

jules22 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

"You humans"? Have you been meditating so hard that you are now hallucinating yourself as beyond human? I can't say I am surprised.

I studied cognitive science. I know cognitive biases. I also know how meditators around me are basically drowning in them with ridiculous psychic beliefs, laughable arguments and no evidence.

I'll leave you to your imagined irony.

Re: The new science of meditation

#384

Post by jules22 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 7:49 AM UTC

waterheater wrote: post #359

fluoridation wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective. First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF. Second, an RF transceiver is a device capable of sending and receiving a signal over RF, not just anything that emits RF or that is physically affected by RF. Otherwise a glass of water is an RF receiver, because when I put it in the microwave it heats u…

> First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF. So? ELF communication systems have operated in that frequency range for decades [1]. Also, by "RF", I'm not referring specifically to ITU radio bands. I'm saying that the brain in general responds to radio waves in general, which is inclusive of the whole portion of the electromagnetic spectrum below 300 GHz. Perhaps a better characterization o…

> The very fact that functional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been created demonstrates the brain is indeed a transceiver.

That is not a sound argument. I think you can see why anyone would disagree.

Re: The new science of meditation

#385

Post by jules22 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 8:06 AM UTC

waterheater wrote: post #355

jules22 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. As of 2017, the military actively conducted research in the domain of Anomalous Mental Cognition [1]. The modern terminology is different and more technical, but the goal remains the same: to identify and understand precognitive and extrasensory abilities…

Fine. I accept that the Army contracts everything out.

In which case, my point is that you were ascribing scientific credibility to the Army because they make stealth bombers and I was arguing that the engineering expertise is a.) not pertinent, b.) not within the institution.

I don't consider Annie Jacobson to be an unbiased source.

Here are some glaring criticisms of her past books in terms of her competence.

Leading space historian Michael J. Neufeld, gave a negative review of the book: “Jacobsen concentrates on the scandals, which inevitably leads to an imbalance in presentation. Little is said about the substantive contributions of von Braun.”

Space historian Dwayne Day, for instance, called Area 51 a "poorly-sourced, error-filled book" in which the author makes an argument that "defies common sense" and is reliant on one anonymous source. Jeffrey T. Richelson and Robert S. Norris, critiquing Jacobsen's factual errors on the blog Washington Decoded, stated that "[t]here are so many mistakes that it is hard to know where to begin ... Area 51 is a case study of how not to research and write about top-secret activities." Historian Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, also criticized the book's sensationalistic reporting of "old news" and its "error-ridden" reporting. He wrote: "All of [her main source's] claims appear in one or another of the various publicly available Roswell/UFO/Area 51 books and documents churned out by believers, charlatans and scholars over the past 60 years. In attributing the stories she reports to an unnamed engineer and Manhattan Project veteran while seemingly failing to conduct even minimal research into the man's sources, Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent." The book was sharply criticized for extensive errors in an essay by a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior fellow at the National Security Archive.

I will accept it when mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists acknowledge it as something that exists. Not one or two of them, but most of them.

Re: The new science of meditation

#386

Post by darthrupert » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 8:30 AM UTC

johndhi wrote: post #72

darthrupert wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One probably needs a bit of religiousity to be able to meditate as much as senior meditators do.

Yeah, that makes sense to me (as a somewhat religious meditator). I disagree that a focus on something other than logic is problematic, though. I'd actually argue that all-logic-all-the-time is a sickness.

Yeah, I agree. In fact, even as an atheist, I believe humans in general have an innate drive towards religious thinking. If we suppress classic ways to those things, people will find new ones. And those new ones won't have gone through the test of time.

I believe we are seeing the effects of this in many western countries.

Re: The new science of meditation

#387

Post by darthrupert » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 8:31 AM UTC

haswell wrote: post #371

darthrupert wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam Harris is not religious, but he certainly has practiced meditation in a religious way. I'm not saying this as if it was a bad thing, or that it detracts from his scientificism or atheism, just an observation.

Harris practices meditation religiously in the same way that professional athletes train religiously. The difference is that people don’t conclude that one must become a religious person to become an athlete. Describing training as religious evokes a definition of the word that has nothing to do with: > 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity. > 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion. Med…

Well articulated, thank you.

Re: The new science of meditation

#388

Post by maleldil » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 8:55 AM UTC

nprateem wrote: post #323

maleldil wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-m…

Your requirement for physical evidence is biased and so discounts the possibility that non-physical evidence may be available. It's like saying "I believe in X. I won't accept any evidence against X. Since Y is against X, Y doesn't exist" This means you'd never realise X was wrong in the first place.

Except that we've seen plenty of times that "non-physical" evidence doesn't exist and has never been relevant, and usually there's a better physical explanation. So by default, it's fair to assume that non-physical evidence doesn't exist, and if you use that in argument, the burden of proof is yours.

I'm open to accepting non-physical evidence if you can prove it exists. If you can, that would be very interesting, but it's likely that you can't. Again, anecdotes and tradition aren't evidence.

Re: The new science of meditation

#389

Post by jules22 » Sat, Aug 26, 2023, 6:50 AM UTC

kagakuninja wrote: post #358

jules22 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The human brain is far less rational than we tend to believe. Recent research indicates that we hallucinate our world All the more reason, to not take reason for granted. > Senior meditators spend vast amounts of time examining their personal reality They do, and my concern is they contribute no new insights, especially given the vast investments of time. > Out of body experiences can be had by any person who spend…

>These are serious hallucinations and I am alarmed by how they are brushed aside. Most meditators think they are astral projecting. This is not examination or insight. This is delusional. Do you dream at night? That is a hallucination. People can learn to be aware during dream states, this is called lucid dreaming. There is nothing delusional or dangerous about that, although the experience can be terrifying for peop…

I don't disagree with most of that. I studied a fair amount of science, including psychology and cognitive science. I know you can cause unusual states with meditation and you have a right to.

Choosing to experience an out of the body experience or a lucid dream is fine. But believing that you are actually visiting or seeing a remote location is a delusion. Quite a few meditators think they are getting psychic powers with meditation, not just unusual states of consciousness. Look up siddhi.

Re: The new science of meditation

#390

Post by javert » Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

everydayDonut wrote: post #187

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…

Wow thank you for this! I suppose that's what the answer could have been for me, a kind of bridging between my lifelong reverence and pursuit of reason, and the passion or intuition that I didn't understand in others or myself. I'm still early into reading the James Legge translation, but I've heard that there are many interpretations of the original. Is the tao of pooh not even close to daoism then?

Perhaps the Tao of Pooh is better than the original Taoism, or is an improvement.

If you like TOP better, or think it's more correct, or more wise, that's fine.

(I don't think so, but someone else might.)

I also strongly disagree with some of the sibling comments which insist that Taoism does not have a non-mystical (i.e., non-religious) core. As a disclaimer, I'm not really an expert. But I can see that there is a wise and rational framework there, that does not depend on make believe.