Poll: Can you view auras?

[PyriteOkio]

True that theres people who can see sound. I forget the condition, but it was on discovery.

 

[Seldon2639]

Lol I love how people think they can tell another person what they see and don't see. That's just amazing.

The notion that science can explain everything and that their idea of reality is the only one is very close-minded. Battling theory with pessimistic theory is not a form of truth. There are things many people see that they cannot explain and were not told it was there prior to seeing it, and there is no amount of intellectual elitism that can suddenly make it go away. Alot of people don't talk about it or can't explain it because of the incredibly rude attitudes people possess toward things that they don't understand.

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality. It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism. I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance. On that note, I must fall back on Ockham's Razor:

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief?

Edit:

Why is there no option for; 'I don't believe in auras'?

Because this thread wasn't made for people who don't.

As far as I'm aware, you didn't post a disclaimer at the beginning saying "Can you view auras (if you believe they exist)?" You opened this discussion to the skeptics; if you want to exclude us from the discussion, and have an echo camber of "dude, this is so weird, I've seen them too. I thought I was crazy" that's fine, but don't try to pretend like you said that from the get-go.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Naysayers it's possible.

People are hot after all (temperature wise). Heat creates radiation, all you need to see glowing people is a slightly broader range of vision than the average human.

 

[Snowalker]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly says the person must be able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

 

[Seldon2639]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly say the person must eb able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

Wait a tick. You're saying that if you can *see* a person, you can see them using their *aura*? If an aura is radiating off of a person, you should be able to see it around an object (the same way you could if their torso was obscured, but not their arm). Otherwise, it's just seeing the person, isn't it?

 

[Mizaki]

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality.

This request is doomed to fail. I was just about to think of some but 'confirmed reality' is a tough thing to actually determine because perception varies from one person to another, and when one assumes theirs is the only one or that they can themselves define it, it isn't worth it to actually bring up examples, especially since the criteria required for something to be what I am asked to list makes it already something easily shot down.

It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism.

Skepticism is no longer healthy when it becomes condescending and rude.

I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

The appetite for proof of things one already does not believe in happens to be a voracious one.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance.

Hence varying from person to person. If everyone could percieve things others cannot, wouldn't that make it the norm and therefore not a topic to debate?

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

There are always questions, always things people did not see prior to events. Even if one firmly sits in the real world and does not believe in anything else, they are also guessing if the entire event had not been presented to them. The imagination does not only have extremes. The unknown will always exist, no matter how much people think they know.

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief

This was an attempt to make it look stupid.

And even after all that typing, I could've just reposted my first post.

EDIT: I am not the original poster.

 

[incrediblegeek]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly says the person must be able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

Sounds conveniently like a way to avoid being tested and proven false.

"In another test, which was televised,[14] an "aura reader" was placed before a partition where five people were standing. He claimed that he could see their auras from behind the partition. As each person moved out, the reader was asked to identify where that person was standing behind the slot. He succeeded in identifying only 2 out of 5."

The link [14], by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

See auras? No. Detect a presence? Yes. I can feel when people are behind me, or around me when its dark.

Which comes from smell, and sound.

 

[Seldon2639]

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality.

This request is doomed to fail. I was just about to think of some but 'confirmed reality' is a tough thing to actually determine because perception varies from one person to another, and when one assumes theirs is the only one or that they can themselves define it, it isn't worth it to actually bring up examples, especially since the criteria required for something to be what I am asked to list makes it already something easily shot down.

It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism.

Skepticism is no longer healthy when it becomes condescending and rude.

I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

The appetite for proof of things one already does not believe in happens to be a voracious one.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance.

Hence varying from person to person. If everyone could percieve things others cannot, wouldn't that make it the norm and therefore not a topic to debate?

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

There are always questions, always things people did not see prior to events. Even if one firmly sits in the real world and does not believe in anything else, they are also guessing if the entire event had not been presented to them. The imagination does not only have extremes. The unknown will always exist, no matter how much people think they know.

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief

This was an attempt to make it look stupid.

And even after all that typing, I could've just reposted my first post.

EDIT: I am not the original poster.

And now we're at the core of the issue. In order to justify your position, you have to treat very close (if not past) the "all of reality is subjectively perceived" line that Hume drew. That's fine, but it's pretty much the end of any reasonable discussion. It could be that there are those who can perceive that which (a) the vast majority of humanity cannot, and (b) that no controlled test has been able to either replicate, nor confirm the perception of, but that seems less likely. Once again, we're back to Ockham, and I'll ask the question again:

Which requires fewer unnecessary entities: that these powers don't exist, or that these powers do exist, but they cannot be shown to anyone else in a controlled environment, nor confirmed in any way, shape, or form, except by the word of the person who has them?

I'm with the other guy. If you can prove you've got this power, James Randi's got a cool million for you.

Edit: 1.14 million, in point of fact.

 

[Trace2010]

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I don't care whether its been proven or not (here's a hint Einstein: send him a link or something)....don't go flaming stuff just because you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
James Randi. If any one can prove they have this ability, he'll give them a million dollars. No one's won. Ever.

You honestly don't need proof? Sad.

Less sad than your last question: You misunderstood what I said and why I said it. Read my last post again, genius. Or the one before that, if you would prefer.

 

[incrediblegeek]

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I don't care whether its been proven or not (here's a hint Einstein: send him a link or something)....don't go flaming stuff just because you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
James Randi. If any one can prove they have this ability, he'll give them a million dollars. No one's won. Ever.

You honestly don't need proof? Sad.

Less sad than your last question: You misunderstood what I said and why I said it. Read my last post again, genius. Or the one before that, if you would prefer.

This stuff is junk science, period. Sorry if you can't see that.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Naysayers it's possible.

People are hot after all (temperature wise). Heat creates radiation, all you need to see glowing people is a slightly broader range of vision than the average human.

You can see energy traveling through a medium?

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

I can sense people, no seeing auras though...although I can smell fires and such before they happen.

 

[TMAN10112]

I thought I could once, but it stopped once I got glasses(It turns out that I'm near sighted in one eye).
Now if you will excuse me, I have to spend the next 48 hours without glasses(or contacts) to test this theory.

 

[Mizaki]

And now we're at the core of the issue. In order to justify your position, you have to treat very close (if not past) the "all of reality is subjectively perceived" line that Hume drew. That's fine, but it's pretty much the end of any reasonable discussion. It could be that there are those who can perceive that which (a) the vast majority of humanity cannot, and (b) that no controlled test has been able to either replicate, nor confirm the perception of, but that seems less likely. Once again, we're back to Ockham, and I'll ask the question again:

Which requires fewer unnecessary entities: that these powers don't exist, or that these powers do exist, but they cannot be shown to anyone else in a controlled environment, nor confirmed in any way, shape, or form, except by the word of the person who has them?

I'm with the other guy. If you can prove you've got this power, James Randi's got a cool million for you.

Both sides kill reasonable discussion, actually. This is a dead debate but hey I like to get my brain working.

I think it's difficult for those who have them really, because even if they aren't real, they percieve it, thus making it real in their own reality. In my process of understanding things like this, I've found that reality differs from one person to the next. Even the most ridiculous of things could very well be real in another person's reality. Things like religious experiences could very well be absolutely true because it had a shown effect that nobody can explain without the use of blunt pessimism or skeptical counter-guessing. I'll even let out a little something for this one. At certain times, when I look at an object that is brightly colored or white when there is enough light (especially when there is alot), I see a moving glittering substance. I'm not sure what it is, and I don't try to guess because that would ruin it. I really do see this. I don't hear voices when I see it, and I don't have any emotional reaction to it. It's just there. I can see it when I look at the sky on a sunny day. And sometimes it's not there. Sometimes it's barely there. At times, like right now, it's even in front of my monitor when I'm on a white page. However, if you can explain it, I'd be delighted. Also, there are times when certain people seem seperate from their surroundings, like they were pasted or photoshopped onto it. It's those things I'm usually reluctant to mention because I don't want to be met with the rudeness that I see in this thread. It would be especially bad considering how even after some dude goes "youre crazy" I'll still see it.

The unecessary entities statement is entirely why this discussion will be an uphill battle on both sides, because I personally do not think that these kind of... abilities can be done on purpose, hence why readers and the likes always look stupid. Of course, it would be easier if these things could be disproven, but disproven and not experienced are two different things.

 

[Snowalker]

Well, since I'll be taking slack for this, lemme explain.


I do not see an amazing glowy light around some one, well I do for one person, but thats unrelated. What I see is when light passes over them, and I can feel it subconusly, I see a shade of something on their face. Its not as supernatural as it sounds, if they're sad, not cring, but just sad. They look really pale, If they are angry, they seem redish, if they're mad, they have a dark shade to them, and if they are happy, they look absolutly normal.

I'm not saying I'm supernatural, I'm merely saying I can sometime pick up somepeople emotions better than other people. I have to be near them and I have to see them to get a good estimate, and thats all it is an estimate, not a fullproof "your sad" thing. So sure this may not be what he's talking about, but it sounded close enough to me.


*braces for flame*

 

[Limos]

I recommend you seek mental help immediately, you have some of the symptoms of Schizotypal Personality Disorder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder], it is characterized by

1.) Ideas of reference
2.) Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
3.) Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
4.) Odd thinking and speech
5.) Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
6.) Inappropriate or constricted affect
7.) Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
8.) Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
9.) Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

I can't say for sure that you fit all the symptoms, but usually people who believe in such nonsense as Auras, Chi, Spirits, Demonic possession or the like are suffering from this disorder. Hopefully a good psychiatrist will be able to help you.

 

[Snowalker]

I recommend you seek mental help immediately, you have some of the symptoms of Schizotypal Personality Disorder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder], it is characterized by

1.) Ideas of reference
2.) Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
3.) Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
4.) Odd thinking and speech
5.) Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
6.) Inappropriate or constricted affect
7.) Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
8.) Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
9.) Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

I can't say for sure that you fit all the symptoms, but usually people who believe in such nonsense as Auras, Chi, Spirits, Demonic possession or the like are suffering from this disorder. Hopefully a good psychiatrist will be able to help you.

I know I'm crazy, they have a name for my problem, great...


EDIT: I also meant to ask, why do you think I have social problems? I actually have quiet a few friends, and many fo them are very close to me. so... I don't think your all right on that.

 

[Trace2010]

This stuff is junk science, period. Sorry if you can't see that.[/quote]

Apology accepted.

"Skepticism is no longer healthy when it becomes condescending and rude."

Someone else said it best above. Sorry if you couldn't see it was only about that.

 

[Seldon2639]

And now we're at the core of the issue. In order to justify your position, you have to treat very close (if not past) the "all of reality is subjectively perceived" line that Hume drew. That's fine, but it's pretty much the end of any reasonable discussion. It could be that there are those who can perceive that which (a) the vast majority of humanity cannot, and (b) that no controlled test has been able to either replicate, nor confirm the perception of, but that seems less likely. Once again, we're back to Ockham, and I'll ask the question again:

Which requires fewer unnecessary entities: that these powers don't exist, or that these powers do exist, but they cannot be shown to anyone else in a controlled environment, nor confirmed in any way, shape, or form, except by the word of the person who has them?

I'm with the other guy. If you can prove you've got this power, James Randi's got a cool million for you.

Both sides kill reasonable discussion, actually. This is a dead debate but hey I like to get my brain working.

I think it's difficult for those who have them really, because even if they aren't real, they percieve it, thus making it real in their own reality. In my process of understanding things like this, I've found that reality differs from one person to the next. Even the most ridiculous of things could very well be real in another person's reality. Things like religious experiences could very well be absolutely true because it had a shown effect that nobody can explain without the use of blunt pessimism or skeptical counter-guessing. I'll even let out a little something for this one. At certain times, when I look at an object that is brightly colored or white when there is enough light (especially when there is alot), I see a moving glittering substance. I'm not sure what it is, and I don't try to guess because that would ruin it. I really do see this. I don't hear voices when I see it, and I don't have any emotional reaction to it. It's just there. I can see it when I look at the sky on a sunny day. And sometimes it's not there. Sometimes it's barely there. At times, like right now, it's even in front of my monitor when I'm on a white page. However, if you can explain it, I'd be delighted. Also, there are times when certain people seem seperate from their surroundings, like they were pasted or photoshopped onto it. It's those things I'm usually reluctant to mention because I don't want to be met with the rudeness that I see in this thread. It would be especially bad considering how even after some dude goes "youre crazy" I'll still see it.

The unecessary entities statement is entirely why this discussion will be an uphill battle on both sides, because I personally do not think that these kind of... abilities can be done on purpose, hence why readers and the likes always look stupid. Of course, it would be easier if these things could be disproven, but disproven and not experienced are two different things.

This is where any discussion of the supernatural goes off the rails. The question is not necessarily what can be "disproven" but what can be "proven". By all existing standards of scientific evidence, I can prove myself to exist. My scientist friends would look at me weird for desiring to prove it, but I could do so. The issue is that from the perspective of anyone who does not already believe in what you believe, you need to overcome some burden of proof in order for me to accept that it exists (not the phenomenon itself, I'll take your word, but the supernatural element of it). In your case, as a believer, I would need to overcome a burden of proof to prove it *doesn't* exist.

Now, we can argue the scientific method, and how it's always based on "it's not true until it's proven true", but that gets us nowhere new. This entire discussion smacks of the old atheist/theist argument, which (while entertaining the first dozen or so times) is pretty tiresome.