Is aura real?
- Thread starter Dr.Poisonfreak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But the problem is, you easily forget it is a placebo. That makes you open and vulnerable to any number of cons and swindles, not to mention pseudo-science marketed atrociously priced devices that do fundamentally nothing.Erana said:
Also, I personally prefer the truth ovar the alternatives. I believe (self-)deception by it's very nature cannot be ultimately helpful. To build or base something on a deception or a false idea is to endager everything that comes after. Truth is the most stable foundation of all, because of this I prefer to have as many true beliefs and true knowledge as possible. This requires evidence, proof and application of logic.
To reject that on the basis of something 'making me feel good' is to take the first steps on the road to hubris.
Besides, if you use something you know to be a placebo, given or delivered to you via methods you know or suspect to be false, it is not bettering yourself with the help of those charlatans or their flawed methodology: You are simply paying for something you already have and you know you have it. Would it not be far better to learn to skip the middle phase, to forget the placebo, and go straight to the sought-after change or effect? Doing this will improve you and your sense of self-worth more than any placebo ever could. Not to mention, you are making sure you are not supporting an organization, person or method based on deceiving people out of their money.
I am adamant against purposeful lying, scam-artists and exploiting people's vulnerabilities like plenty of self-claimed psychics and spiritualists do. I'm against of taking payment for a treatment or remedy you cannot prove to be effective and/or are unable to explain how it works. I am adamantly against pseudo-science BS since it is meant to con people: by spreading falsehoods, mis-representing ideas and retconning real terminology to falsely give the impression of scientific support to their ideas and/or products.Erana said:
I hold such people to be the lowest of the low scum. If a person truly has best intentions at heart, truly wishes to help others and they believe they have a unique or rare gift that allows them to do so, then I believe they are morally responsible for finding out if their gift really works and how their gift achieves the results. I hold them morally responsible to commiting themselves to finding out the truth of their supposed gift and to forgo any personal fantasies or delusion. After all, if their gift is real and works; then by studying it, testing it and submitting the gift to trials of verification and subsequent attempts of disproval and then completing all those tests with flying colours would give them the opportunity to spread to knowledge, possibly allow others to replicate that gift and thus help more people then they alone could ever hope to help. If they truly wish to help, they would attempt to help as many people as possible, and that road is one of logical inquiry, evidence and proof. Otherwise they are simply deluding themselves of their real intentions, of the validity of their perceived power or ability. And thus they are offering only false hope and cures that either do nothing or make the patient put off going to a real doctor until it is too late.
As a side-note, I am against religions if said religions are based on intentional deception, moral dishonesty and/or the betterment of a selected few.
Above all else, I value truth. "To say I know only when I can show, to say I think when unsure and to say I have no clue when I don't" is a principle of mine.
By the way, Parapsychology is usually scholarly, not exactly mainstream, but usually at least the methods are sound. Given that we are talking about something that isn't wildly accepted in mainstream scientific literature parapsych is probably about as good as you're going to get.Starke said:
Aura do exist.
In 1939 a physicist named Semyon Kirlian accidentally discovered a way to take a image of electromagnetic fields. One of the experiments he conducted using this method proved the existence of a field surrounding living things, also nonliving things, and would later be developed into more detailed photographic techniques. This field not only showed the same characteristics of the mystical 'aura' that had long been spiritually believed, it also differed depending on a persons mood, thought patterns, life style and the likes. Hence it is very likely that the aura can be 'read' to determine the state of physical and mental health and conditionings in a person photographed.
The real question is if a person is capable of seeing this field with the naked eye? I won't say what I personally believe, I do firmly hold that a persons belief are sacred and private only to be shared with a select few if at all.
I will say this though: If there is a way to read a persons aura with the naked eye you can be sure that the person claiming to have such an ability does NOT possess it. 'Spiritual' matters are, and have always been, a realm in which charlatans roam freely. Never trust a person who will trade you something 'spiritual' in exchange for money... NEVER.
In 1939 a physicist named Semyon Kirlian accidentally discovered a way to take a image of electromagnetic fields. One of the experiments he conducted using this method proved the existence of a field surrounding living things, also nonliving things, and would later be developed into more detailed photographic techniques. This field not only showed the same characteristics of the mystical 'aura' that had long been spiritually believed, it also differed depending on a persons mood, thought patterns, life style and the likes. Hence it is very likely that the aura can be 'read' to determine the state of physical and mental health and conditionings in a person photographed.
The real question is if a person is capable of seeing this field with the naked eye? I won't say what I personally believe, I do firmly hold that a persons belief are sacred and private only to be shared with a select few if at all.
I will say this though: If there is a way to read a persons aura with the naked eye you can be sure that the person claiming to have such an ability does NOT possess it. 'Spiritual' matters are, and have always been, a realm in which charlatans roam freely. Never trust a person who will trade you something 'spiritual' in exchange for money... NEVER.
You claim to know the Truth? Interesting.SakSak said:
I take everything with a grain of salt. And once again, I pull out the, "prove the earth is round" argument. Using science, you can build a case filled with a huge amount of circumstantial evidence, but unless someone flies me up into space to see with my own eyes, how can one truely prove if there's a curve to the world?
Just a thought.
On topic: The OP's question has been answered: Auras exist in some technical form or another. Seeing auras without the use of instruments to amplify the human senses has evidence stacked aginst it, but there isn't any concrete evidence of its non-existence.
i believe its true :/
cause apparently if you stare at someone for a while when they're in a spotlight (or just have a light focusing on them) you can see a coloured aura around them, and there are different colours for each people
my bro's is blue.. but one of my friends was a kinda browny-yellow =D
cause apparently if you stare at someone for a while when they're in a spotlight (or just have a light focusing on them) you can see a coloured aura around them, and there are different colours for each people
my bro's is blue.. but one of my friends was a kinda browny-yellow =D
You misunderstood. I claim that I search for the truth, constantly refining my knowledge to separate false statements and beliefs from those that I can show to be true.Erana said:
But since we as humans are fallible, we can only asymptotically approach the truth. Some parts we know better, some parts we are just finding out and of some we currently have no idea. All truth known by humans is provincial, by the very nature of scientific method and human fallibility.
Very well then: We have the hyphothesis, 'Earth is round'. How would we go about disproving that?
Easy. If the earth is not round, then at different latitudes (like say... Cairo and Stockholm), when measured at the same local time (EDIT:Fixed that. A better comparison would have been two cities at the same longitude) the shadow of an object of equal heigh from the ground up should be equally long. This would be because the sunlight would come at an equal angle to both objects.
We find this to be false. The shadows are of different lenght. Therefore, either sunlight does not travel in linear fashion (something between the sun and stockholm is causing the light to bend whereas this effect is mysteriously missing from between sun and Cairo. Or vice versa) or the surface of the earth has some curvature.
Also, assuming earth is not round or curved, how does one explain the following observation:
Upon looking at the horizon while at sea, the mast of ships approaching from 'behind' the horizon are seen first, before the rest of the ship? Indeed, how does on explain horizon 'blocking' view at all? With a sufficiently advanced telescope, it should be possible to look from one side of the Pacific Ocean to the other side (USA to China for example) in a straight line, if the Earth were flat instead of round.
Yet this is impossible. Either Earth has curvature, or light bends away from earth's surface for no apparent reason at all. Upon completion of other tests, this mysterious curvature of light away from Earth's surface is not supported by empirical evidence. Light travels at a straight line as far as the instruments can tell.
As far as anything can be known, this is pretty much the proof you requested.
Why not take one step further? How could you trust your own eyes should you actually make it to Earth's orbit? That too would be circumstancial evidence as you seem to be using that word. You cannot prove your eyes give you accurate information.
You have to assume they do, in order to function in what we perceive to be reality.
Science builds from that lonely assumption, requesting proof and evidence until things can be proven and thus known, to the extent that anything can be known.
So if you could trust your own eyes to show you the reality of Earth's roundness from the orbit, why would you not trust them to give you accurate information down on earth? In reference to the shadow test and horizon problem: If you cannot believe the results of these tests, seen with your own eyes, why would you suddenly believe your eyes upon reaching planetary orbit - Your eyes are still seeing the exact same thing, curvature of the Earth.
Things that are called "auras" may exist in several senses. For instance, you could talk about an "aura of fear" or "aura of passion", but that's a case of interpreting peoples' expressions and body language, etc. People may appear to have "auras" due to the play of surrounding light sources, but that's says nothing about the person other than where they are and the light is. People may appear to have auras because there's something wrong with your eyes: go swimming in chlorinated pool long enough, and your vision may go a bit fuzzy.
In terms of someone claiming to be psychic or spiritual and saying you have some sort of colour, I'd say they're talking utter rubbish, whether because they really believe that sort of New Age nonsense or because they're a charlatan trying to get money out of you.
In terms of someone claiming to be psychic or spiritual and saying you have some sort of colour, I'd say they're talking utter rubbish, whether because they really believe that sort of New Age nonsense or because they're a charlatan trying to get money out of you.
Perhaps some of the people claiming to be able to see these "auras" are mutants able to see faint traces of radiation and weak light emitted by living creatures?xmetatr0nx said:
I mean, there are several species of animals able to see in the infra red spectrum or ultra violet spectrum. Perhaps these people have mutated into having a similar ability (although probably a lot more weak)?
Or they could just be talking bullshit. But it would be quite interesting if their eyes had such mutations.
In the paranormal sense, utter bollocks. A friend (I use the term loosely) claimed my aura was yellow. But so were the walls of the canteen. Mindblowing.
Can you see my aura of impressedness radiating from me? Or at the very least sense it? Because that's pretty much exactly what I was going to type (curse my slowness in reading the first 2 pages).SakSak said:
And this too. I can't believe it took so long for it to be mentioned. And I can vouch, as a migraine-sufferer, that this is true and nothing mystical.EquinoxETO said:
