Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Do you meditate?

news.ycombinator.com

211–220 of 233 posts

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#211
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats something that bothered me regarding mindfulness vs. concentration. Mindfulness presupposes that the "Three Fundamental Characteristics" exist, and have the form described by Buddhist metaphysics. It tells you to take this on faith and go looking for them. As a secular meditator I would prefer not to make the assumption that Buddhist metaphysics is correct. I would like to see the creation of a kind of mindfuln…

You don't have to presuppose that they exist. You can simply observe their comings and goings. It will take a lot longer but it is still possible. You become the observational instrument to see if those characteristics do, in fact, exist. The critical tools of modern philosophy has been disconnected from direct experiences for this, so it's not as useful as you think it is. At least, not until you have direct realiza…

Thanks for your reply. Going on a vipassana retreat and participating in a shamanic ceremony are definitely things I'd like to do at some point. All of my investigations have been solitary, for the most part, so I am ignorant of the collective side of things. (as a nerd, I am generally ignorant of the collective aspects of life anyway!)

I think if meditators were to study continental philosophy in particular, they would find many fruitful parallels to concepts in Eastern thought. Phenomenology involves examination of arising phenomena in a similar fashion to mindfulness, though I don't think it is ever as clearly explained. There is within it an attempt to overcome the subject-object distinction, and to re-frame the relationship between scientific objectivity and the lived experience of the human life-world. Unfortunately it is also some of the most impenetrable stuff ever written!

>>I've also found that " they have to rely on the cognitive, social and philosophical resources of their time and place." is not as big of an influence as you think it is.

I will take you up on that, but it might take me a few years. :)

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#213
post #46

Missing an option: I've never tried it, but would be open to it. If someone could give a rational (non-mystical) explanation of how and why to do it. Or point me to an existing one.

the kind that is fashionable in "western medicine" at the moment is called "mindful meditation". if you google that phrase you can find more info. it's basically practicing not giving a fuck (whatever you are thinking about you try to give up thinking about - you are aiming for a kind of "not caring about anything" state). so if you think that would be a good thing to practice, give it a go. i do it because it was re…

If it's true that all that non-mystical meditation is, is just forcing yourself to not think about ANYTHING, it makes sense that a person would find it to be a way to stop worrying about things, and just sort of relax.

BUT, it seems like it would be more effective to simply take corrective action (mental or existential) in order to actually address the thing that you are worried about.

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#214
post #64

I recently started meditating, using the method in "Mindfulness in Plain English". So far, I've been able to meditate for between 1 to 3 hours at a time, every day. I do feel quite a bit of calm afterwards and during the deep parts of the meditation, and have also experienced some occasional hallucinations (like a feeling of intense bliss, like my arms are floating, like my chest is a hundred feet from my head) when…

I dislike "Mindfulness in Plain English". I have not spent more than a few hours trying any specific technique it advocates, so it's really the writing and reasoning I recommend against.

I reviewed the author's claims in some depth a couple years ago:

http://jonathan.graehl.org/vipassana-meditation-part-1

http://jonathan.graehl.org/vipassana-meditation-part-2

http://jonathan.graehl.org/vipassana-meditation-part-3

I think, before adopting a regimen, we ought to ask ourselves: is there evidence that the advocates of it arrived at it by a reasonable process? Or, if they didn't, are the benefits (compared to alternatives) compelling enough to override the risk of your spending time making an assessment and making an error in the direction of credulity? (see http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/ )

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#215
Perspective from a stone-cold atheist/philosophical-materialist that started daily meditation in recent months: there's nothing magical to it, but there is something to it.

There are many different explanations as to "how it works". These range from greater connections with supernatural beings to just giving your brain some quiet time to perform various housekeeping activities that it doesn't get a chance to do when constantly stimulated with computer/phone/tv.

If you want to know "what can meditation do for me besides waste my time?", here is my attempt at describing what it feels like and how it's beneficial. This is just my subjective experience. The first benefit of meditation for me has been to make me aware of the near-constant mental chatter going on in my mind, and presumably the minds of many other people in society. I knew it was bad but I had no idea how bad until I tried to shut it off for a few minutes. It's like when someone points out every time you say "umm" in a conversation and you suddenly become aware you are doing it constantly. As for the second benefit, imagine how you feel when you are in a pleasurable and carefree mental state. For example you are at a bar or a party talking to someone you just met who has similar interests and after 20min you have sort of a full body buzz going even if you haven't been drinking, the rest of the world falls away, and time flies by. Or if you go to the gym or do martial arts and you enter the gym stressed about work, then two hours later you walk out and are driving home, feeling great and the things that were bothering you earlier seem insignificant. Meditation builds a mental muscle that allows you to more easily slip into that groove. I'm still a newbie but there are times that I can slip into that state at will, walking down a crowded street surrounded by people.

"Arrgg! stop wasting my time and tell me how this is this going to get me money/sex/stock options!" If you are still looking for the immediately tangible benefit of meditation in terms of (input x) -> (output y) that will depend on your situation. I can however give you an example. If there is a room full of of stressed out uptight people and someone walks in who is more relaxed and "present" than everyone else in the room, other people in the room will notice this, they will subconsciously assume there is a reason, they will be more inclined to listen to that person. They are walking around with empty cups and that person acts like their cup is overflowing. The joke is the first time this happens you will have the thought "omg it's working, the 'trick' is working!" and instantly your new found charisma will evaporate. If you chase it you cannot have it, there are many things in life like this :]

As for method, I don't use candles, music, darkness, unusual sitting poses, or any other props. They obviously help some people but I have not tried them. I simply put my phone on silent, set my phone alarm to vibrate in 20min and put it on a table behind me. Sit in a chair and look at a point on the wall, be sure there aren't any screens or clocks in your field of vision to distract you. Once you are sitting looking at the point on the wall let yourself be present and not thinking about anything in the past or the future. The first two or three times you try this it will feel like the longest 20 minutes of your life and you will find yourself constantly thinking of chores, imagining interactions, and berating yourself for thinking. Don't judge yourself and don't "try" to not think. Newbies are often told that if they really need to focus on something, to focus on their breathing. Normally when you have a thought your mind seizes on the thought like a shark seizes on its dinner. Rather, be like the stone at the bottom of the sea and the thought is like a jellyfish. The thought appears, you are aware of the thought, but you don't engage it, you just let it drift by.

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#216
post #162
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you find any practical purpose to the "altered" states of consciousness? I would also like to suggest substituting the word "altered" with "disturbed". Would you mind telling me your thoughts on this (whether in connection with the above question, or not)?

"Did you find any practical purpose to the "altered" states of consciousness?" Yes. I found them very useful for understanding myself. They confronted me with many unpleasant (and pleasant) but important parts of my life and feelings that I was in denial of or just couldn't experience in ordinary consciousness. They helped me gain a lot of insight in to myself and in to the world. Another benefit was shaking my certa…

> But they were very valuable.

...if you say so :)

> But to paint them all indiscriminately with the pejorative term "disturbed" is to misunderstand their nature.

I meant the following definition for "disturbed": interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of

Sorry, I suppose I should have made it clear. I can see now why I need to be careful using this word. So to return, I connected to the fact that drugs are an intoxicant, perturbing the natural functioning of the nervous system. Using them to achieve a desirable result is... well, let us be polite: it won't become an acceptable form of "treatment". Their unpredictable nature that you mentioned is essentially the strongest argument in this debate.

> It's also a bit arrogant to put ordinary consciousness up on a pedestal as if it was the ultimate and best form of consciousness and the rest were lacking, wrong, or immoral in some way.

No, it's just logically self-contradictory to expect that by perturbing a system you may improve its behaviour. Any argument you may formulate in those terms should and will be discarded. As for other possible arguments in favour of drug use... well we only have what we have so far.

> From their perspective, it is the ordinary state of consciousness which is "disturbed", and the enlightened state of consciousness that is healthy. Who are we to insist otherwise?

We are hackers :p

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#217
post #193
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

especially the possibility that things like trees might have feelings While I don't want to categorically disparage having different experiences, even those that are drug induced... the notion that inanimate objects and even trees have feelings is fundamentally unsound. If that is a result of your drug-use experience, then I might argue that you have reduced your brain's ability to align itself with experimental real…

"the notion that inanimate objects and even trees have feelings is fundamentally unsound" It may seem unsound from the perspective of ordinary waking consciousness, and certain materialistic[1], physicalist[2], or naturalistic[3] philosophies. But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism…

> But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism[8] and religions which hold animistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic beliefs.

Excellent, doctrines do tend to be self-contained. IF X, THEN Y. In the mean time, I bring up an important fact: we have always depended decisively on how well we coordinated our ideas with reality, for the purpose of achieving technological efficacy. In this light, the doctrines you enumerated are undesirable. Judging by the rate of success, the former, scientific doctrines you enumerated are more workable and, as such, preferable for the purpose of adjustment to the conditions of empirical life.

> Do you accept the evidence of your own senses while in a non-ordinary state of consciousness? If not, why not?

We accept evidence that is reproducible. I will stop here and not answer the other questions that you followed with, out of politeness.

> So, "sound" or "unsound"? It all depends on your point of view.

See above.

> I'm just open to the possibility. Anything is possible, and I'm ok with that. I didn't use to be. I used to be quite dogmatic in clinging to what I considered to be a "scientific" and materialistic world view. [...] Who knows? Who is to say? I'm certainly no authority.

Take much care to ensure that you are not merely being open, like a scientist is to new evidence and a better "map" for the "territory"; but rather that you are doubting everything. And as someone once eloquently put it, there are two ways to glide easily through life: to believe everything, and to doubt everything – both ways save us from thinking. (There's also another less polite quote about being open minded)

That aside, I think you have gathered an extraordinary amount of very interesting knowledge in your pursuits, and I think that in itself was as incredibly useful affair.

Re: Poll: Do you meditate?

#219
post #199
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious, as in absurd. You might as well throw out mathematics because so much of it originated in India and China. I'm a skeptic myself, but that cuts both ways.

Mathematics isn't popular because it originated in India and China; it's popular because it's practically useful in a variety of ways. Why are Christian symbols popular in anime? It's not because they're inherently compelling in any way, it's because they're from a foreign culture and they have exotic appeal. Why do people in the US practice meditation? Is it because they rationally considered all available peer-revi…

I think that's largely true, but doesn't speak to whether meditation is actually worthwhile. And I'd think it's less true for people here. For myself, I never tried it until I started hearing of studies. After that, I found some nice secular material on it. I would have had a lot of trouble wading through much woo, and luckily that wasn't needed.
Post reply on HN