4 ms·

At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". There's so many different kinds of exercise, for many different goals. The same thing goes for me

At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". There's so many different kinds of exercise, for many different goals. The same thing goes for mediation

root_axis 7y ago
> At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". Is it though? We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise, not so with meditation. Without a common definition, I'm not sure what kind of empirical claims can be made about meditation.
- ses1984 7y ago
  >We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Oh really.
  - maerF0x0 7y ago
    I think the real issue is that exercise, being a physical thing is much easier to observe and parameterize. How many miles do you run on a flat treadmill? How high of Heart BPM? How much does the individual weigh? What movement is done, for how many reps and what weight? Now how does one parameterize the intensity/duration of a meditation session? And does it, like exercise, depend on the existing adaptations of the individual?
    - eternauta3k 7y ago
      Frequency and duration of mind-wandering Kinds of distractions (subtle vs gross) How much detail is perceived of the meditation object Is the mind one-pointed Are there gross physical sensations, or only subtle (like your body is a point cloud) Are there intense, or subtle, pleasant sensations through the body Are there constrictions in the body What is the nature, frequency and intensity of thoughts Is there a sensation of being a knower/subject Stage in the Progress of Insight ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/ https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight... ) Which Jhana ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iii-the-samatha-jhanas/27-the-concentration-states-shamatha-jhanas/ https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iii-the-sa... ) etc, etc. Different traditions would be interested in different aspects of your experience, though.
      - maerF0x0 7y ago
        Ok, thats a good list for self reflection, but how do you instrument that besides "surveys"? IMO the best things are the brain imaging technologies, but I suppose that's far too expensive to research right now?
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Yes.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    Elevating heart rate through physical activity? (Of course walking won't raise it as much as pumping iron will, but they both will, and they're both exercise.)
    - jakeinspace 7y ago
      That's cardiovascular exercise. Training for muscle growth and/or central nervous system activity is entirely different.
      - OJFord 7y ago
        Training for muscle growth will raise your HR. It's not the goal, but it will happen.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    It's at least not as wide varied as "One type of exercise is lying perfectly still in bed" and "Another is sprinting and lifting weights". To me, that's the range of definitions that meditation has. I have heard that meditation should be thinking of nothing, I have heard that meditation should be reflection on the past, I have heard that meditation should be free-form thinking, or focused on the present. This range is, to me, roughly equivalent to "meditation is basically anything, usually (but not always) involving some quite though process".
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    99.9% of people will consider something done to specifically raise your heart rate or strain your muscles as exercise. That 0.1% is just for the HN contrarian who will invent a different understanding that nobody has. Meditation is completely nebulous, ranging from sitting down indian-style for 15 minutes to pseudoscience chakra bullshit that induces euphoria and cures diseases. When people say they are going to exercise, you know what they are going to do. When they say they're going to meditate, it really could be anything. It is a real suitcase word.
    - chc 7y ago
      I don't find this all that persuasive. For one, I'm not convinced that "pseudoscience chakra bullshit" isn't meditation, even though it obviously doesn't work the way those people say it does. There are also people who view exercise in an unscientific way or believe it will have unrealistic benefits, but that doesn't make exercise nebulous. To my understanding, we have done brain imaging on meditators and can see that the practice is reflected the brain, so just like you'd define exercise as something that strains a muscle, you might define meditation as something that induces a meditative brain state. I think you might be confusing lack of visibility, or difficulty of measurement, with indefinability.
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      > 99.9% of people will consider something done to specifically raise your heart rate or strain your muscles as exercise ...and a lot of people would include slow, gentle stretching in the category > Meditation is completely nebulous It can be nebulous to you. To other people sport can be nebulous and meditation a well understood domain.
    - Scarblac 7y ago
      That description is sufficient but not necessary. There are lots of forms of exercise that are not done specifically to raise heart rate. I'd say most.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  >We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Is it something that increases your heart rate? Surely playing video games or watching a scary movie is not exercise. Does it require one to walk or run around, i.e. ambulation of the lower limbs? Sit-ups and push-ups are probably exercise but don't require this. Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day?
  - manmal 7y ago
    Physical exercise I would define as moving a body part.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Here's the dictionary definition I think is relevant to the discussion: bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness So video games and scary movies wouldn't count whereas sit-ups and push-ups would. Science can tell us the types of "bodily exertion" that contribute to "developing and maintaining physical fitness", that's how we can know what counts and what doesn't. > Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day? If you control for diet you absolutely can.
    - oarabbus_ 7y ago
      >bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. Bodily exertion for any other sake (running from a wild animal, from a threatening person, towards an individual in need of help etc) is still exercise. There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. >If you control for diet you absolutely can. Well, no, that's not quite true. From my examples above, distance running is a form of cardiovascular exercise which has benefits such as stimulating the release of chemicals like BDNF, which tend have positive neurological effects. There are, obviously, also significant cardiovascular benefits - increased VO2 max, lower resting heartrate, etc. On the other hand, deadlifting heavy weights results in major growth of the musculoskeletal system, bone density, and other benefits, but causes little benefit to cardiovasculr or neurological function. Cardio and strength training are two entirely different beasts in the types of empirical claims you can make about the benefits they bring.
- RuleOfBirds 7y ago
  I'd say by any definition of "We can at least all agree on a definition" that I'd accept, we can either all agree on the definition of both or neither. If both, we're discussing this in a context that prefers practicality and meaningful discourse. If neither, we're discussing in a context that prefers pedantry and academic hogwash. Otherwise, if one but not the other, maybe we're getting the worst of both worlds ️
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > I'd say by any definition of "We can at least all agree on a definition" that I'd accept, we can either all agree on the definition of both or neither. It's a turn of phrase, I don't mean that literally all people will always agree on the definition of the word, I mean, practically speaking, outside of "pedantry" and "academic hogwash". I mean the scientific definition with empirical outcomes.

At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". There's so many different kinds of exercise, for many different goals. The same thing goes for mediation

root_axis 7y ago

> At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". Is it though? We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise, not so with meditation. Without a common definition, I'm not sure what kind of empirical claims can be made about meditation.

ses1984 7y ago
>We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Oh really.
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  I think the real issue is that exercise, being a physical thing is much easier to observe and parameterize. How many miles do you run on a flat treadmill? How high of Heart BPM? How much does the individual weigh? What movement is done, for how many reps and what weight? Now how does one parameterize the intensity/duration of a meditation session? And does it, like exercise, depend on the existing adaptations of the individual?
  - eternauta3k 7y ago
    Frequency and duration of mind-wandering Kinds of distractions (subtle vs gross) How much detail is perceived of the meditation object Is the mind one-pointed Are there gross physical sensations, or only subtle (like your body is a point cloud) Are there intense, or subtle, pleasant sensations through the body Are there constrictions in the body What is the nature, frequency and intensity of thoughts Is there a sensation of being a knower/subject Stage in the Progress of Insight ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/ https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight... ) Which Jhana ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iii-the-samatha-jhanas/27-the-concentration-states-shamatha-jhanas/ https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iii-the-sa... ) etc, etc. Different traditions would be interested in different aspects of your experience, though.
    - maerF0x0 7y ago
      Ok, thats a good list for self reflection, but how do you instrument that besides "surveys"? IMO the best things are the brain imaging technologies, but I suppose that's far too expensive to research right now?
- root_axis 7y ago
  Yes.
- OJFord 7y ago
  Elevating heart rate through physical activity? (Of course walking won't raise it as much as pumping iron will, but they both will, and they're both exercise.)
  - jakeinspace 7y ago
    That's cardiovascular exercise. Training for muscle growth and/or central nervous system activity is entirely different.
    - OJFord 7y ago
      Training for muscle growth will raise your HR. It's not the goal, but it will happen.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  It's at least not as wide varied as "One type of exercise is lying perfectly still in bed" and "Another is sprinting and lifting weights". To me, that's the range of definitions that meditation has. I have heard that meditation should be thinking of nothing, I have heard that meditation should be reflection on the past, I have heard that meditation should be free-form thinking, or focused on the present. This range is, to me, roughly equivalent to "meditation is basically anything, usually (but not always) involving some quite though process".
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  99.9% of people will consider something done to specifically raise your heart rate or strain your muscles as exercise. That 0.1% is just for the HN contrarian who will invent a different understanding that nobody has. Meditation is completely nebulous, ranging from sitting down indian-style for 15 minutes to pseudoscience chakra bullshit that induces euphoria and cures diseases. When people say they are going to exercise, you know what they are going to do. When they say they're going to meditate, it really could be anything. It is a real suitcase word.
  - chc 7y ago
    I don't find this all that persuasive. For one, I'm not convinced that "pseudoscience chakra bullshit" isn't meditation, even though it obviously doesn't work the way those people say it does. There are also people who view exercise in an unscientific way or believe it will have unrealistic benefits, but that doesn't make exercise nebulous. To my understanding, we have done brain imaging on meditators and can see that the practice is reflected the brain, so just like you'd define exercise as something that strains a muscle, you might define meditation as something that induces a meditative brain state. I think you might be confusing lack of visibility, or difficulty of measurement, with indefinability.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    > 99.9% of people will consider something done to specifically raise your heart rate or strain your muscles as exercise ...and a lot of people would include slow, gentle stretching in the category > Meditation is completely nebulous It can be nebulous to you. To other people sport can be nebulous and meditation a well understood domain.
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    That description is sufficient but not necessary. There are lots of forms of exercise that are not done specifically to raise heart rate. I'd say most.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
>We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Is it something that increases your heart rate? Surely playing video games or watching a scary movie is not exercise. Does it require one to walk or run around, i.e. ambulation of the lower limbs? Sit-ups and push-ups are probably exercise but don't require this. Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day?
- manmal 7y ago
  Physical exercise I would define as moving a body part.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Here's the dictionary definition I think is relevant to the discussion: bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness So video games and scary movies wouldn't count whereas sit-ups and push-ups would. Science can tell us the types of "bodily exertion" that contribute to "developing and maintaining physical fitness", that's how we can know what counts and what doesn't. > Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day? If you control for diet you absolutely can.
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    >bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. Bodily exertion for any other sake (running from a wild animal, from a threatening person, towards an individual in need of help etc) is still exercise. There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. >If you control for diet you absolutely can. Well, no, that's not quite true. From my examples above, distance running is a form of cardiovascular exercise which has benefits such as stimulating the release of chemicals like BDNF, which tend have positive neurological effects. There are, obviously, also significant cardiovascular benefits - increased VO2 max, lower resting heartrate, etc. On the other hand, deadlifting heavy weights results in major growth of the musculoskeletal system, bone density, and other benefits, but causes little benefit to cardiovasculr or neurological function. Cardio and strength training are two entirely different beasts in the types of empirical claims you can make about the benefits they bring.
RuleOfBirds 7y ago
I'd say by any definition of "We can at least all agree on a definition" that I'd accept, we can either all agree on the definition of both or neither. If both, we're discussing this in a context that prefers practicality and meaningful discourse. If neither, we're discussing in a context that prefers pedantry and academic hogwash. Otherwise, if one but not the other, maybe we're getting the worst of both worlds ️
- root_axis 7y ago
  > I'd say by any definition of "We can at least all agree on a definition" that I'd accept, we can either all agree on the definition of both or neither. It's a turn of phrase, I don't mean that literally all people will always agree on the definition of the word, I mean, practically speaking, outside of "pedantry" and "academic hogwash". I mean the scientific definition with empirical outcomes.