5 ms·

This might go beyond how you feel and into direct biological impacts. I don’t listen to the Huberman Lab podcast much these days but I did listen to the episode

This might go beyond how you feel and into direct biological impacts. I don’t listen to the Huberman Lab podcast much these days but I did listen to the episode with David Linden, which I found quite interesting. [1] At one point, they are discussing the mind/body axis and the latest scientific developments in exploring how mental states can affect the body. There is a fascinating although very untested - but, testable - hypothesis that meditation may be able to slow the growth of cancerous tumours. The mechanism here is via nerve endings that reach the tumour and their effect on immune responses at the site. Linden was emphatic about how science requires a mechanism of action, and that when people refer to this potential effect against cancer as due to “alignment of chakras” or whatever, it is “bullshit” to use his word. I get where he’s coming from, but on the flip side, the benefits of meditative practice were arrived at long before science took any note of them. In fact for many years, the scientific perspective on it was that it was entirely bullshit. Meanwhile the people who were (admittedly incorrectly) talking about chakras were delivering real benefits to their followers. As such it seems to me that more respect is warranted, and perhaps even more caution. What do you think? 1 https://hubermanlab.com/dr-david-linden-life-death-and-the-neuroscience-of-your-unique-experience/ https://hubermanlab.com/dr-david-linden-life-death-and-the-n...

pegasus 3y ago
Well put.
xgb84j 3y ago
I think these eastern concepts (e.g. meditation concepts such as chakras, "organs" in traditional chinese medicine) are not meant as objective truths, but rather as useful mental models. Different mental models used in the same culture often contradict one another, which only makes sense if you don't see them as ultimate truth.
TriNetra 3y ago
Chakras are real so as Kundalini [0]. However, these aren't physical in nature, rather, they are on subtle body of consciousness. Now, that's not possible to prove scientifically yet, but with your dedicated regular practice, you can experience them yourself as this guy on HN did [1] which inspired me to start my own exploration (back in 2014) and have intense experiences which remains with me. 0: https://www.amazon.in/Kundalini-untold-story-Om-Swami/dp/8184958625 https://www.amazon.in/Kundalini-untold-story-Om-Swami/dp/818... 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041
- georgeburdell 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gourabmi 3y ago
    Just because it isn't published in a journal with latin1 characters doesn't mean it isn't true
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      > Now, that's not possible to prove scientifically yet It may be that there is something to the idea that there are ways of stimulating certain parts of the body that can produce something like vagus nerve effects, but asserting it's true by the name given in an ancient mythology is a great way to derail any conversation.
  - Enginerrrd 3y ago
    There's definitely something to chakras. They were always my go to example of a thing to make fun of for being utterly absurd, without substance and based on something deeply unscientific. Then, after several months of intense meditation I started getting strong somatosensory perception in areas of my body traditionally associated with chakras, and Kundalini awakenings and the like. Terms I only picked up on after researching what might be happening. In short, it strongly appears that if you take a group of people and have them perform certain practices for an extended period of time, you will create a relatively consistent cluster of symptoms. Eastern mythology/religions have their own language to describe these phenomenona, and the alleged mechanisms are obviously ridiculous, but there is nevertheless something oddly consistent about reported experiences. Thus, I think it's pretty sound to conclude that there is something "real" going on, creating a relatively consistent pattern of somatosensory experiences. The mechanism is almost certainly explainable by neuroscience but has received little serious exploration due to its purported mechanism and religious background.
digging 3y ago
Haven't listened, but I think I understand where Linden was coming from, even if it's unnecessarily harsh. The idea that "you can breathe this way and get this effect" can be true and can come from folk wisdom, but they ascribe wrong reasoning to it which makes it mysticism. The reasoning is what's "bullshit". It's like saying "I tie my shoes tight every morning to honor the shoe gods or else they'll untie my laces." Well actually, you're right to tie your laces tight, but only because that's how laces work on a physical level. The chakras thing, or any other mystical model, is only a low-resolution model. It's useful to point you to a correct belief, but we have to be careful not to get too invested in wrong reasoning. Or else you end up with a system of beliefs which may be mostly wrong - ie, "If my X chakra does this for me, I am sure my Y chakra does that for me," - when what you may be looking for is a completely different phenomenon.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  > The chakras thing, or any other mystical model, is only a low-resolution model. More importantly, they served their purpose continuing knowledge as both a practice and oral tradition such that they have survived millennia. This in spite of libraries burning down and the limited access to/absence of text, etc. I think in this lens, it's not right to condescend, or be confounded or annoyed that the mechanism still works today. Further to that, I think in absence of this instinct in the scientific community to condescend, the valuable knowledge preserved in mystical practices could be understood sooner
- sixo 3y ago
  Well, it's a low-resolution model that ancient people converged on for a reason, which is that it is starts from a readily-attainable subjective experience, which is then used to explain things in ways that surely go too far. It is relatively easy to feel some of your chakras, I've done it, it took about a week of effort via a hodgepodge of breathwork, stretching, yoga, and "somatic" meditation facilitated by THC. You try to awaken muscles all over the body, "unblocking" points of tension, and eventually you start to have this impression of "energy"/"heat" flowing in loops from points on the spine, out along muscles and back again; in my case "unblocking" some of these caused buried emotions to pour out, and temporarily gave me near-perfect posture. It's interesting: these are clearly a description of something real.
lovvtide 3y ago
> Linden was emphatic about how science requires a mechanism of action I don't think this is correct. Science is based on empiricism. Of course we'd like to understand the mechanism of action, but it's not strictly required for scientific description of some aspect of reality. For example, Kepler's laws were derived from the observed paths of the planets — it was only later that these same laws could be explained with recourse to the theory of gravity.
- redavni 3y ago
  Yeah, he likely meant "Nature" requires a mechanism of action.
  - lovvtide 3y ago
    Even if that is what he meant, I still don't think it's correct. To speak of a "mechanism of action" is necessarily to speak about a model of Nature that you, an observer, have created. Natural phenomena exist empirically and logically prior to any such model, thus is is metaphysically redundant to say that Nature as such requires a mechanism of action.
theGnuMe 3y ago
Meditation likely lowers stress levels which reduces cortisol levels which improves immune function/response to cancer. That’s a guess as to a mechanism.

pegasus 3y ago

Well put.

xgb84j 3y ago

I think these eastern concepts (e.g. meditation concepts such as chakras, "organs" in traditional chinese medicine) are not meant as objective truths, but rather as useful mental models. Different mental models used in the same culture often contradict one another, which only makes sense if you don't see them as ultimate truth.

TriNetra 3y ago

Chakras are real so as Kundalini [0]. However, these aren't physical in nature, rather, they are on subtle body of consciousness. Now, that's not possible to prove scientifically yet, but with your dedicated regular practice, you can experience them yourself as this guy on HN did [1] which inspired me to start my own exploration (back in 2014) and have intense experiences which remains with me. 0: https://www.amazon.in/Kundalini-untold-story-Om-Swami/dp/8184958625 https://www.amazon.in/Kundalini-untold-story-Om-Swami/dp/818... 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041

georgeburdell 3y ago
[flagged]
- gourabmi 3y ago
  Just because it isn't published in a journal with latin1 characters doesn't mean it isn't true
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    > Now, that's not possible to prove scientifically yet It may be that there is something to the idea that there are ways of stimulating certain parts of the body that can produce something like vagus nerve effects, but asserting it's true by the name given in an ancient mythology is a great way to derail any conversation.
- Enginerrrd 3y ago
  There's definitely something to chakras. They were always my go to example of a thing to make fun of for being utterly absurd, without substance and based on something deeply unscientific. Then, after several months of intense meditation I started getting strong somatosensory perception in areas of my body traditionally associated with chakras, and Kundalini awakenings and the like. Terms I only picked up on after researching what might be happening. In short, it strongly appears that if you take a group of people and have them perform certain practices for an extended period of time, you will create a relatively consistent cluster of symptoms. Eastern mythology/religions have their own language to describe these phenomenona, and the alleged mechanisms are obviously ridiculous, but there is nevertheless something oddly consistent about reported experiences. Thus, I think it's pretty sound to conclude that there is something "real" going on, creating a relatively consistent pattern of somatosensory experiences. The mechanism is almost certainly explainable by neuroscience but has received little serious exploration due to its purported mechanism and religious background.

digging 3y ago

Haven't listened, but I think I understand where Linden was coming from, even if it's unnecessarily harsh. The idea that "you can breathe this way and get this effect" can be true and can come from folk wisdom, but they ascribe wrong reasoning to it which makes it mysticism. The reasoning is what's "bullshit". It's like saying "I tie my shoes tight every morning to honor the shoe gods or else they'll untie my laces." Well actually, you're right to tie your laces tight, but only because that's how laces work on a physical level. The chakras thing, or any other mystical model, is only a low-resolution model. It's useful to point you to a correct belief, but we have to be careful not to get too invested in wrong reasoning. Or else you end up with a system of beliefs which may be mostly wrong - ie, "If my X chakra does this for me, I am sure my Y chakra does that for me," - when what you may be looking for is a completely different phenomenon.

h0l0cube 3y ago
> The chakras thing, or any other mystical model, is only a low-resolution model. More importantly, they served their purpose continuing knowledge as both a practice and oral tradition such that they have survived millennia. This in spite of libraries burning down and the limited access to/absence of text, etc. I think in this lens, it's not right to condescend, or be confounded or annoyed that the mechanism still works today. Further to that, I think in absence of this instinct in the scientific community to condescend, the valuable knowledge preserved in mystical practices could be understood sooner
sixo 3y ago
Well, it's a low-resolution model that ancient people converged on for a reason, which is that it is starts from a readily-attainable subjective experience, which is then used to explain things in ways that surely go too far. It is relatively easy to feel some of your chakras, I've done it, it took about a week of effort via a hodgepodge of breathwork, stretching, yoga, and "somatic" meditation facilitated by THC. You try to awaken muscles all over the body, "unblocking" points of tension, and eventually you start to have this impression of "energy"/"heat" flowing in loops from points on the spine, out along muscles and back again; in my case "unblocking" some of these caused buried emotions to pour out, and temporarily gave me near-perfect posture. It's interesting: these are clearly a description of something real.

lovvtide 3y ago

> Linden was emphatic about how science requires a mechanism of action I don't think this is correct. Science is based on empiricism. Of course we'd like to understand the mechanism of action, but it's not strictly required for scientific description of some aspect of reality. For example, Kepler's laws were derived from the observed paths of the planets — it was only later that these same laws could be explained with recourse to the theory of gravity.

redavni 3y ago
Yeah, he likely meant "Nature" requires a mechanism of action.
- lovvtide 3y ago
  Even if that is what he meant, I still don't think it's correct. To speak of a "mechanism of action" is necessarily to speak about a model of Nature that you, an observer, have created. Natural phenomena exist empirically and logically prior to any such model, thus is is metaphysically redundant to say that Nature as such requires a mechanism of action.

theGnuMe 3y ago

Meditation likely lowers stress levels which reduces cortisol levels which improves immune function/response to cancer. That’s a guess as to a mechanism.