Afterimage vs Aura - Proof

[Roo]

Ive just been reading a little on aura's and have become interested in the argument over whether we see an afterimage or aura around colours. Whats suprising to me is that the argument continues and yet it seems so simple to test.

Afterimage/aura information:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/tutorials/?BoardID=9&BulletinID=249

I just read this:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/tutorials/?BoardID=9&BulletinID=246


The brow centre receives a more subtle type of energy than light. This type of energy can only be received by the brow centre (often called the third eye or brow chakra) when it is active and tuned in to receive that type of energy.


an aura is definitely not any type of light.

If the third eye receives the energy we interperate as an aura and the energy isnt any type of light then it would only be natural that we wouldnt need a really bright room to see aura's?
Lets say you get an orange and a yellow coloured object and place them in a dimly lit room. Due to the lack of light the human eye wont be able to tell the colours apart, they'll both probably appear grey. Now if the aura argument is correct then it shouldnt matter that the human eye cant pick out the colour, because the third eye doesnt work on the colour as such (light), it just recieves energy from the object. If however you dont see the colours expected aura then its a good possibility that your seeing an afterimage and not an aura.

Anyone tried this?

>Roo

I see colored auras in a dimly lit room around people and in their chakra areas with their clothes on. So, I'm either crazy or I'm seeing auras. Ah, but proving it...there's the rub.

[Apex]

The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it to anyone but yourself with our current technology. You especially can't prove it to someone who refuses to believe.

[Roo]

Im aware proving it to others is impossible, this was more a "prove to yourself" type thing.
The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Thanks for the reply

>Roo

[Apex]

The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Yes this is true. This (among other things) helped me make the initial leap into this sort of material.

[Chris]

I think what is making me more sceptical of these things is the increasing number of experiments I read about where either a person claims to see auras or can detect ‘energy’ from living beings. Yet, every single one of these experiments has failed to show anything.
The format of the experiments can take one of many forms, such as:

People stand in patricians visible to the person reading auras; they state they can see all auras. Next, the patricians are closed, and the person says they can see auras above the patrician top. Next random selections of the people behind the patricians move. The person reading auras simply has to state which patricians they can see auras above (this could work in the dark as mentioned above).
Another experiment I read about involved heads being used, then lights dimmed and some of the heads being replaced with fake heads.
Every experiment I’ve read they get it dreadfully wrong.

Other experiments take the form of people holding their hands under the ‘psychics’ hands, and the physic detects their energy flow. The psychic is blindfolded and hands are randomly placed under those of the psychic (care being taken so wind or heat from close proximity does not give this away).
The psychic simply has to state when they can detect living energy flow, once again, the results are appallingly bad.

I’m not attempting to change opinions, or state that energy and auras don’t exist. But I guess it just makes me doubt and disheartens me when every experiment I’ve read of fails, even when the psychic claims they can detect energy and auras.
These forms of experiments don’t require us to understand the science behind auras or energy, but they could prove auras/energy have an existence.

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs. Such as all the experiments to date failing.
proving these things in a close group of friends is also not really sufficient. The power of suggestion is greater than any of us know. For example, if you have a friend who really believes in this. Chat to them on MSN, then both focus on each other. One is going to ‘project’ to their friend, waving their hands to prove it. The other simply has to focus and wait. But suggestion already enters here due to the friend knowing what to expect, and if belief and relaxation is great enough, both parties will believe one actually projected to the other etc. I know this is a simple example, but time and again I see things which can be interpreted in such a non-paranormal way.

I just don’t understand why the gurus don’t go out and attempt to prove these things either way once and for all. Yes scientists might be sceptical, but gaining 100% on such aura/energy tests time and time again will start to make people notice etc.

[Chris]

Im aware proving it to others is impossible, this was more a "prove to yourself" type thing.
The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Thanks for the reply

>Roo

But why is proving this to other impossible? We don't have to state the science behind auras, but just a person can repeatedly produce the correct results.
For example. Get someone to place 5 coloured cloth in a pitch black room. You go into the room and simply state what colour each cloth is. This would be significant proof. The experiment could be repeaded n'th times with random cloth colours and placements etc.

As stated above though, every similar experiment to date has failed :\.

[Apex]

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs.

Our reality is our beliefs, to almost a complete extent.

[Chris]

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs.

Our reality is our beliefs, to almost a complete extent.
I could concede this if the world we lived in wasn't so inflexible to our beliefs. The 'physical' universe is pretty much consistent from observer to observer, well I'll say is consistent, but each observer might interpret situations differently.
I just can't rid myself of the doubt that if the physical universe was just the sum of all beliefs, then we wouldn't have a world like we do now. Science was a pretty much minority belief which had to be hidden for hundreds of years - the dominant belief at that time was a world based on scripture. If belief had such an effect on reality, how did the universe transform from a religious based one, to the objective universe based on science we see about us today. Surely the overriding belief of hundreds of millions would have stifled any changes a few hundred might manifest?
The other option is the universe just is, and belief doesn't change it, and science just discovers it as-is.
There is so much that points to this, and so little that points to the belief reality is based upon belief - that I can't personally ignore it.
New babies not indoctrinated are very much governed by the rules of this reality - but they are belief free so should be able to do amazing feats?
Placebo effects - interesting studies which blocked the brains pain receptors found out that even placebo effects failed to work in such circumstances. This means that placebo might have no route in 'mind over matter', but belief can cause the body to manufacture natural chemicals/neurotransmitters based upon the stimulus.
There are countless examples of ‘reality’ not budging to our personal beliefs.

So yes, while we perceive our reality through our beliefs, beliefs in themselves seem to have little to no effect on reality as a whole. This is what I meant. I.e. I can make myself belief something to the extent my brain starts overlaying it on reality – but all that has changed is my perception – reality remains unchanged.

[Roo]

But why is proving this to other impossible? We don't have to state the science behind auras, but just a person can repeatedly produce the correct results.

Being able to repeatedly produce the correct results, although a major boost for the aura theory, doesnt prove the existence of aura's. Science for instance wouldn't conclude that aura's must exist from an experiment where a person can guess coloured cloths in the dark. Scientists would likely find a large amount of other possibilities that could also account for this ability... And so ultimately its hard, if not impossible to directly prove that "aura's exist".


I’m not attempting to change opinions, or state that energy and auras don’t exist. But I guess it just makes me doubt and disheartens me when every experiment I’ve read of fails, even when the psychic claims they can detect energy and auras.

Agreed completely.. but its the same for OBE's and astral projection also. I know a great deal is being done to try and prove that OBE's are a real phenomena, but if we're led to believe that here with us now are great people capable of having OBE's at will, then surely we wouldnt be completely insane in thinking that these people would also be capable of proving their ability. The playing card experiment for one has been attempted by possibly hundreds of people, why then do we not see better hit rates?

Im on the fence with this, im neither a skeptic nor a believer, im simply an open minded person who's had some strange experiences in the past and wants to dig deeper.

>Roo

[Chris]

But why is proving this to other impossible? We don't have to state the science behind auras, but just a person can repeatedly produce the correct results.

Being able to repeatedly produce the correct results, although a major boost for the aura theory, doesnt prove the existence of aura's. Science for instance wouldn't conclude that aura's must exist from an experiment where a person can guess coloured cloths in the dark. Scientists would likely find a large amount of other possibilities that could also account for this ability... And so ultimately its hard, if not impossible to directly prove that "aura's exist".


I agree with you. I guess what I meant to say is, guessing cloth colour by random would produce very different results from being able to see the cloths aura and deduce it from that. If a person can see auras, then they would get 100% each time. Over enough sets of 100%, science would have to concede that 'something' was happening. This wouldn't prove the existence of auras, but it might give reason to believe auras might exist. At the least, it would be something for science to start studdying.
I guess an analogy would be a sighted person in the land of the blind. These blind people ask him to tell them the colours of certain objects (which they have deduced from instruments - ie although they can't see colour, they can detect it scientifically). The sighted person would have no trouble giving the correct colour each time. So why can't people do the same with auras? It seems we could spend a lifetime learning to see auras, yet our incidence of seeing the correct aura would be on par with chance guessing (thats how results seem stacked to date).



[quote:1dcifiw0]I’m not attempting to change opinions, or state that energy and auras don’t exist. But I guess it just makes me doubt and disheartens me when every experiment I’ve read of fails, even when the psychic claims they can detect energy and auras.

Agreed completely.. but its the same for OBE's and astral projection also. I know a great deal is being done to try and prove that OBE's are a real phenomena, but if we're led to believe that here with us now are great people capable of having OBE's at will, then surely we wouldnt be completely insane in thinking that these people would also be capable of proving their ability. The playing card experiment for one has been attempted by possibly hundreds of people, why then do we not see better hit rates?

Im on the fence with this, im neither a skeptic nor a believer, im simply an open minded person who's had some strange experiences in the past and wants to dig deeper.

>Roo[/quote:1dcifiw0]

I'm on the fence too. I used to be a believer, but the more 'paranormal' experiences that I experience for myself, and as I expand my knowledge of science and spirituality, I can find, if not scientific explainations for this phenomena, but the area of scientific knowledge an explaination could fit under (my lack of knowledge not allowing me to articulate etc). So I now sit on the fence.
I admit to increasing frustration at the lack of any meaningful results, and parts of the spiritual community who try and attach science to their arts to gain credibility (but they usually misinterpret the science ie QM, and bring more scepticism their way).

[Apex]

This is rather OT, so I'll keep it brief.

Belief is our reality. Chris, you said yourself everyone sees the world differently, this is because of their beliefs. This may seem circular reasoning but it is not. This is everyone creating their own reality.

Now, as far as doing fantastic things, it's a matter of whether you think 'faith can move mountains'. If you believe it, truly truly believe it, do you think you could?

Science is subjective, each experiment has its own incentive and ideal outcome. In effect, science thinks up its own results. A scientist once called the physical dimension the realm of frozen light. I believe that if you think something exists for long enough, it will manifest itself in the physical. How long it will take depends on the person, what it is, etc. This goes for creating a stack of money, letting yourself fly, whatever. In the astral it takes less time to do this, in the mental even less, and so on.

/endOT

[Chris]

This is rather OT, so I'll keep it brief.

Belief is our reality. Chris, you said yourself everyone sees the world differently, this is because of their beliefs. This may seem circular reasoning but it is not. This is everyone creating their own reality.

Now, as far as doing fantastic things, it's a matter of whether you think 'faith can move mountains'. If you believe it, truly truly believe it, do you think you could?

Science is subjective, each experiment has its own incentive and ideal outcome. In effect, science thinks up its own results. A scientist once called the physical dimension the realm of frozen light. I believe that if you think something exists for long enough, it will manifest itself in the physical. How long it will take depends on the person, what it is, etc. This goes for creating a stack of money, letting yourself fly, whatever. In the astral it takes less time to do this, in the mental even less, and so on.

/endOT

Hey, I wouldn't say this is OT :).

Sorlac. I used to believe exactly this. I used to believe things were only impossible because we had ingrained beliefs telling us so, and a truely 'free' person could do anything.
I guess I dropped this belief because there is nothing at all to support it.
Animals have no belief, yet I don't see teleporting monkeys or flying dogs etc.
A new born child fresh from the womb, a being with no preconceptions or beliefs (ie the ideal candidate to do amazing things), yet they conform perfectly to these shared rules we witness around us. If the belief system was true, new borns would be doing amazing feats regularly, because they know no better.
Also, in a population touching 7 billion, there has been no solid evidence of even one amazing feat such as a flying man over newyork spotted by hundreds etc.

Regarding subjectivism, I think we are mistaking a subjective take on objective facts, and everything being subjective. For example. If me and you both carried out a scientific experiment, we would get the same results if done properly - or even something like us both listening to the world service at a set time and making a transcript of words, if this theory holds, thent here should be slght differences in what we percieved ie our belief affecting reality. If me and you went to a specific astral locale, our results would be drastically different. This suggests there is an underlying conformity to physical reality. Belief might effect observation, but it doesn't change reality.

Just out of curiosity, have you anything which shows people manifesting things into existence here in the physical? I would be genuinely interested, because I've searched, and found nothing I can class as genuine.

I guess to finish, when for you personally do you say 'enough' and drop a belief? ie for me, I've seen nothing but my own desire for ti to be true in regards to belief dictating reality, do I keep this desire even though there is nothing what-so-ever to back it up? Or do I concede perhaps my knowledge of the physical is flawed, and start to look for other beliefs?

Ps. In relation to this belief, how do you explain our current world model? ie Billions have devote religious faith, yet even all that unwavering belief isn't enough to manifest anything - moreso, the world is moving from the religious principles to new philosophies. Do you think all these bliions have a secret desire to end their religion, and so they are creating this belief? Or does even the belief of billions no change reality?

Chris,
I think you raise some very good points. I, too, am bending away from many "New Age" beliefs because I just don't see that much that can't be explained by other, more mundane things. I think we have to be very discerning in what we accept as reality. People are getting to a point where New Agism is becoming the new Religion. And, along with that new type of religion, you have to accept everything every medium, psychic, and healer says to be true. *shivers* I am more pragmatic than that, and I have a hard time twisting my beliefs around to agree with some of the things being claimed. Many times, I have to keep the laughter going on inside of me from popping out and insulting many of my New Age friends.

But, I do disagree with you on this point you brought up:
"Belief might effect observation, but it doesn't change reality."

In all of the studies that you mention, there is always the Observer Effect going on. I have a Psychology degree and was privy to many experiments, both as the experimenter and the experimented on. I rarely quote studies any more. For every study done "proving" one thing, there is an opposite study done "proving" the opposite. I believe the experimentor always affects the outcome to some degree. I see it in the way questions are worded in a study. I see it in the people chosen to participate in the study. Also, I believe that the experiementor affects the study "paranormally" by changing the reality to what he believes, or the outcome that he wants. Very, very, very, very few studies are done without the experimentor already believing he knows what the outcome will be. He is already biased going in.

There have been some good studies done on some of the tops psychics in the world. Their results, while not 100% or even close, are almost always greater than chance. If you use an inferior psychic, of course you are going to get worse results. Just because someone claims that they are psychic or can read human energy doesn't mean they are very good at it. That makes the studies themselves flawed. By using top notch psychics, you often get greater than chance results. But, even these top psychics will tell you that the stress of the study will affect their ability negatively. If you go into an important test, and are freaking out because you are worried about the results, don't you think you would do pretty poorly, too?

[Chris]

Chris,
I think you raise some very good points. I, too, am bending away from many "New Age" beliefs because I just don't see that much that can't be explained by other, more mundane things. I think we have to be very discerning in what we accept as reality. People are getting to a point where New Agism is becoming the new Religion. And, along with that new type of religion, you have to accept everything every medium, psychic, and healer says to be true. *shivers* I am more pragmatic than that, and I have a hard time twisting my beliefs around to agree with some of the things being claimed. Many times, I have to keep the laughter going on inside of me from popping out and insulting many of my New Age friends.


I can agree with the above. I see it as I can take on these new beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that there are other explanations for them, but trying to ignore this evidence just feels “wrong” to me.
I guess in many circumstances it comes down to how much you want your beliefs to be true, or how much do you want to discover truth.
I’ve been in the position of dropping some pretty major beliefs because I just couldn’t pretend any more. If I’m honest, this was pretty shocking and felt terrible – but I knew it was the right thing to do in the path I am on.





But, I do disagree with you on this point you brought up:
"Belief might effect observation, but it doesn't change reality."

In all of the studies that you mention, there is always the Observer Effect going on. I have a Psychology degree and was privy to many experiments, both as the experimenter and the experimented on. I rarely quote studies any more. For every study done "proving" one thing, there is an opposite study done "proving" the opposite. I believe the experimentor always affects the outcome to some degree. I see it in the way questions are worded in a study. I see it in the people chosen to participate in the study. Also, I believe that the experiementor affects the study "paranormally" by changing the reality to what he believes, or the outcome that he wants. Very, very, very, very few studies are done without the experimentor already believing he knows what the outcome will be. He is already biased going in.


I do agree with you here. I guess I should articulate what I mean. Perhaps an experiment was set up which took the form of a bank robbery. The robbery is filmed from all angles as to provide an unbiased view of the events. A number of unsuspecting individuals are placed in the bank and around the streets and not informed of the experiment.
The experiment goes ahead, and later the witnesses are asked to recall the events. The transcript of their view is then compared with the unbiased video evidence.
This is the kind of thing I meant. The video shows a base reality of the event, and the participants each have their own view based upon their perspective. Their views do not change the events of the base reality.
I know there are many possible areas for biasness to effect even such experiments as this. Such as the person taking the statements perhaps asking leading questions or the person comparing witness statements against the video having a certain bias etc.
I think experiments soley regarding the mind and perception (psychology etc) do have a more difficult position of finding a base truth due to the nature of individuality and the mind.
I guess when I talked about this; I was more thinking of things like physical constants, physics, chemistry, biological reactions etc.
I interpreted the statement belief affects reality to mean belief actually changed objective reality which changes reality for everyone. QM is usually pointed at as an example of this, but even the uncertainty principle looks like its got a mundane mode of action now, rather than ‘the observers belief effects the out come of the experiment’. It seems the observer changes nothing in this area now.




There have been some good studies done on some of the tops psychics in the world. Their results, while not 100% or even close, are almost always greater than chance. If you use an inferior psychic, of course you are going to get worse results. Just because someone claims that they are psychic or can read human energy doesn't mean they are very good at it. That makes the studies themselves flawed. By using top notch psychics, you often get greater than chance results. But, even these top psychics will tell you that the stress of the study will affect their ability negatively. If you go into an important test, and are freaking out because you are worried about the results, don't you think you would do pretty poorly, too?


I agree with this too, which is why I think we need a lot more research done into this and similar areas. I guess it’s the only way we will get some ‘solid’ answers, rather than having to reply on desirable belief.

[Apex]

Animals have no belief, yet I don't see teleporting monkeys or flying dogs etc.
A new born child fresh from the womb, a being with no preconceptions or beliefs (ie the ideal candidate to do amazing things), yet they conform perfectly to these shared rules we witness around us. If the belief system was true, new borns would be doing amazing feats regularly, because they know no better.


There is confusion here between believing you can do something specific versus not believing anything at all, or not believing you can't do something (double negative = positive, can't think of a better way to rephrase).


Just out of curiosity, have you anything which shows people manifesting things into existence here in the physical? I would be genuinely interested, because I've searched, and found nothing I can class as genuine.

I've seen a few stories, no spectacular first-hand experiences. Personally, I've been able to will away illness and do other controversial nonconcrete actions. As for the stories, I read about a woman who wanted a particular, rare type of dog as a pet. She couldn't find one anywhere, so decided to imagine and act as if she did have one. After a few weeks the local pet store called and said it was amazing, but that the type of dog she was seeking just arrived (previous owner couldn't take care of it). Other stories elude my memory right now.


I guess to finish, when for you personally do you say 'enough' and drop a belief? ie for me, I've seen nothing but my own desire for ti to be true in regards to belief dictating reality, do I keep this desire even though there is nothing what-so-ever to back it up? Or do I concede perhaps my knowledge of the physical is flawed, and start to look for other beliefs?

Indeed, no evidence, personal or otherwise, would turn me off to a belief. See above for my personal proof.


Ps. In relation to this belief, how do you explain our current world model? ie Billions have devote religious faith, yet even all that unwavering belief isn't enough to manifest anything

Everyone has their own viewpoints on religion, which varies from person to person. Yet, belief in such higher powers does create miracles from time to time; miracles made possible through overlap of belief.


moreso, the world is moving from the religious principles to new philosophies. Do you think all these bliions have a secret desire to end their religion, and so they are creating this belief? Or does even the belief of billions no change reality?

Religion is in no danger of ending. As for new movements, people tend to see the trends they want to, which is what this is all about.

[Chris]

Animals have no belief, yet I don't see teleporting monkeys or flying dogs etc.
A new born child fresh from the womb, a being with no preconceptions or beliefs (ie the ideal candidate to do amazing things), yet they conform perfectly to these shared rules we witness around us. If the belief system was true, new borns would be doing amazing feats regularly, because they know no better.


There is confusion here between believing you can do something specific versus not believing anything at all, or not believing you can't do something (double negative = positive, can't think of a better way to rephrase).


That’s an interesting idea which I hadn’t given thought to :). Although it still leaves the question that if belief can alter reality to a significant level, why does a new born (belief-less) conform to the rules of reality which we all perceive? It seems to suggest a certain set of rules exist for all irregardless of personal belief.



[quote:300rypd6]Just out of curiosity, have you anything which shows people manifesting things into existence here in the physical? I would be genuinely interested, because I've searched, and found nothing I can class as genuine.

I've seen a few stories, no spectacular first-hand experiences. Personally, I've been able to will away illness and do other controversial nonconcrete actions. As for the stories, I read about a woman who wanted a particular, rare type of dog as a pet. She couldn't find one anywhere, so decided to imagine and act as if she did have one. After a few weeks the local pet store called and said it was amazing, but that the type of dog she was seeking just arrived (previous owner couldn't take care of it). Other stories elude my memory right now.
[/quote:300rypd6]

I agree there are some events which seem to suggest that belief can alter reality. But I guess I’m a bit reluctant to accept curing illness in self as a lot of studies have shown that we can do amazing things regarding hormone secretions, strengthening the immune system and creating specific tissue changes. This seems more to have its roots in the connection between brain and body, and that brain can control even minute facets of the flesh. I guess this could be given with healing too. You give the person the mindset for their own body to heal itself etc.

I am open to the idea you mentioned regarding the dog. I remember reading of a similar technique regarding brining a £5 into your life, or using it to find car parking spaces :). I’m still on the wall regarding such things as this, as unless the result was something amazingly out of the possible, there is always the possibility of random chance creating such an occurrence.



[quote:300rypd6]I guess to finish, when for you personally do you say 'enough' and drop a belief? ie for me, I've seen nothing but my own desire for ti to be true in regards to belief dictating reality, do I keep this desire even though there is nothing what-so-ever to back it up? Or do I concede perhaps my knowledge of the physical is flawed, and start to look for other beliefs?

Indeed, no evidence, personal or otherwise, would turn me off to a belief. See above for my personal proof.
[/quote:300rypd6]

I wouldn’t say I’m complete closed to such beliefs as discussed in this thread. Just I see a lot around me which might have alternative explanations, or at best, don’t fit the scenario I’m told by many people that reality is totally dependant on belief.



[quote:300rypd6]Ps. In relation to this belief, how do you explain our current world model? ie Billions have devote religious faith, yet even all that unwavering belief isn't enough to manifest anything

Everyone has their own viewpoints on religion, which varies from person to person. Yet, belief in such higher powers does create miracles from time to time; miracles made possible through overlap of belief.
[/quote:300rypd6]

My premise for this is the people who believe all of reality is pure belief and nothing more. They usually back up such arguments about inconsistencies with it’s a belief created through a group consciousness. If that’s the reason why it’s difficult for an individual to create any meaningful change, I question the point why billions of people can’t change the status quo if their belief is much stronger than all others.
I used religion purely because it has a lot of followers with a very deep and devout faith.



[quote:300rypd6]moreso, the world is moving from the religious principles to new philosophies. Do you think all these bliions have a secret desire to end their religion, and so they are creating this belief? Or does even the belief of billions no change reality?

Religion is in no danger of ending. As for new movements, people tend to see the trends they want to, which is what this is all about.[/quote:300rypd6]

I agree there. But as the point above, when science was emerging, it was a minority, and an overwhelming amount of belief was against it. Yet it prospered and thrived regardless of how many more people didn’t believe in it. The point I was trying to make was things which went against all logic of the times, against unfathomable resistive believe grew and blossomed.
I was trying to make a point that even overwhelming belief is not enough to stifle things which even threaten that belief, which seems to suggest belief does not dictate reality, or does not dictate it to any meaningful level.

Ps I don’t post here to argue. These things actually mean a lot to me, and I respect views I receive here. I’ve got to a point where I can’t hide my lack of faith in certain ideas, and I’m working through this all via forums and discussion.

[Lordofthebunnies]

After reading through these and a couple other threads on aura's, I'm wondering if perhaps seeing auras is not actually independant of regular sight. Paranormal abilities need not be 100% separate from ordinary functions, i.e chi kung.

What might be productive is to see if those who see auras can figure out things that a person with non-auric sight isn't capable of, though nothing comes to mind at the moment...

Chris,
What about the possiblility that we all created this existence together, and then chose to forget? There are ways to create reality and then there are ways to create reality. I see your point about science being a minority v. religion, but what if that is the reality we chose and now have forgotten in order to experience? I know, I know, I'm back to the All is God thing, but I can't get past that. It's the only thing that makes sense to me in this senseless world.

[CFTraveler]

Chris wrote:
I agree there. But as the point above, when science was emerging, it was a minority, and an overwhelming amount of belief was against it. Yet it prospered and thrived regardless of how many more people didn’t believe in it. The point I was trying to make was things which went against all logic of the times, against unfathomable resistive believe grew and blossomed.
I was trying to make a point that even overwhelming belief is not enough to stifle things which even threaten that belief, which seems to suggest belief does not dictate reality, or does not dictate it to any meaningful level. I just recently read an article about a book in which the author proposes that the 'scientific movement' gained acceptance because of the idea that had become prevalent in which Nature came to be seen as repeatable and predictable because, not in spite of the belief that if God created the Universe, then it would be seen as a 'clockwork' mechanism, stable and measurable, and that view of the universe became popular because of the spread of Christianity. I'm not arguing for this hypothesis (I'm not sure if I agree with it, it could be religious revisionist history). I am mentioning this because if it is true, then there was a paradigm shift in the collective consciousness of the time/region that made it possible for scientific observation to become the standard it has become, and the resistance was coming from political forces, not necessarily from the collective consciousness itself.

[Moonchild]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058631/posts

[Chris]

Chris,
What about the possiblility that we all created this existence together, and then chose to forget? There are ways to create reality and then there are ways to create reality. I see your point about science being a minority v. religion, but what if that is the reality we chose and now have forgotten in order to experience? I know, I know, I'm back to the All is God thing, but I can't get past that. It's the only thing that makes sense to me in this senseless world.

I accept this is a possibility too. I guess I don’t take it seriously as yet (i.e. I have no personal proof to back it up for me) because it just seems too convenient an explanation. For me at least, this idea comes from other authors or as an extrapolation of other peoples (unverified) spiritual beliefs. It can also argue away anything. Mention a scientific fact which counters a spiritual truth, and you usually get the argument “reality is created by consciousness, including science and the brain, so I’m right” i.e. “the fact you put forth is just a side effect of maintaining a collective reality and so I will dismiss it”.
It seems to be a get out clause for deeper thinking about science, reality, and the mind.

It could be true though, but it would be nice to think that ultimately there would be a way to find out either way rather than having to live a life based on belief and nothing more.

Ps. Perhaps this line of thinking is what makes sense to me right now, so I persue it, but it might be totally untrue :).

[Chris]

After reading through these and a couple other threads on aura's, I'm wondering if perhaps seeing auras is not actually independant of regular sight. Paranormal abilities need not be 100% separate from ordinary functions, i.e chi kung.

What might be productive is to see if those who see auras can figure out things that a person with non-auric sight isn't capable of, though nothing comes to mind at the moment...

I agree :). I'm not sure if i'm being selfish to want 'objective' proofs of these abilities, but I think it would go a far way into understanding them. I also agree that many paranormal might have their roots in the physical (but do have attributes which put them above it).

[Chris]

I just recently read an article about a book in which the author proposes that the 'scientific movement' gained acceptance because of the idea that had become prevalent in which Nature came to be seen as repeatable and predictable because, not in spite of the belief that if God created the Universe, then it would be seen as a 'clockwork' mechanism, stable and measurable, and that view of the universe became popular because of the spread of Christianity. I'm not arguing for this hypothesis (I'm not sure if I agree with it, it could be religious revisionist history). I am mentioning this because if it is true, then there was a paradigm shift in the collective consciousness of the time/region that made it possible for scientific observation to become the standard it has become, and the resistance was coming from political forces, not necessarily from the collective consciousness itself.

This is a possibility :). Do you remember what the book was called?

[CFTraveler]

Here's two possibilities:
Science & the Trinity-Sir John Polkinghorne (my first bet)
Science & Providence- Same author but I don't think so.

I have to wait 'til Monday to look at the actual publication but I read an excerpt from Science & the Trinity and it read that way. Sir John is a theoretical physicist who left a job at Princeton to be an Anglican Priest, then went back to Princeton to explore the Science & Christianity historical interaction. He is very interesting reading.

[CFTraveler]

Lordofthebunnies wrote:
What might be productive is to see if those who see auras can figure out things that a person with non-auric sight isn't capable of, though nothing comes to mind at the moment... Well, I can tell you that I used to see auras, and sometimes still do, if I'm emotionally engaged with the person I'm talking to (don't ask me why) and I don't know anything. :cry: