4 ms·

There's s knack to seeing auras. You need to soften your focus and kind of look more with peripheral vision than in the centre. It's pretty easy to see the lay

There's s knack to seeing auras. You need to soften your focus and kind of look more with peripheral vision than in the centre. It's pretty easy to see the layer closest to the body. It's kind of like a bright outline about 1cm thick. The layer with colours is further out and I've only ever seen it once. It was rad though, 10cm apple green flames appearing to shoot off my body as I moved my eyes around. Certain lighting conditions make it easier, eg slightly dark environment with a backlit subject. Anyway cue the downvotes from the overly analytical people here. As with all things meditation, the more you try the less you'll experience.

jwrallie 1y ago
I can see colors on the periphery of my vision when black contrast with white too, and it is just... chromatic aberration from my glasses. Does not happen in a detectable level with my contacts.
michaelmrose 1y ago
[flagged]
- nprateem 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Timon3 1y ago
    The article talks about tissue itself emitting light. By what mechanism would this light produce a "bright outline about 1cm thick"? Lamps etc. don't produce such an outline.
    - michaelmrose 1y ago
      It doesn't. If you computed the energy cost to produce this I'm pretty sure you should waste away from shining not to mention that this would be visible to all people not just "sensitive" folks.
  - roydivision 1y ago
    The article specifically states that this light is NOT visible to humans: > UPE, also known as biophoton emission, is a spontaneous release of extremely low-intensity light that is invisible to the human eye and falls within the spectral range of 200–1,000 nm.
    - moralestapia 1y ago
      Light of those wavelenghts is not visible to humans. Come on, this is mega basic ...
      - moralestapia 1y ago
        Clarification, First I wrote, "Light of those wavelenghts is not invisible to humans." I wanted to change it to, "Light of those wavelenghts is visible to humans." But I messed up and it says what it says now, can't edit it further but I meant the opposite thing.
      - michaelmrose 1y ago
        They actually are 380-750nm is the visible range. That said one lumen is approx 3.8×1015 photons and an LED bulb produces 75-110 lumens per watt. It seems like the original poster meant that we are not capable of detecting this with the naked eye even though it is theoretically in the right range. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/880/how-many-photons-per-second-is-one-lumen https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/880/how-many-pho... https://www.voltlighting.com/learn/lumens-to-watts-conversion-led-bulb https://www.voltlighting.com/learn/lumens-to-watts-conversio...
        moralestapia 1y ago
        Humans are able to see single photons, so your (and others') arguments don't hold substance.
        michaelmrose 1y ago
        I can turn out the light and not see my hand emitting light. Either a single photon isnt enough to be perceptible on average in real environments or something else is defective about the assumption for instance intervening tissue absorbing most or all photons involved.
  - moralestapia 1y ago
    >Downvotes are no surprise here though. Yeah, HN has become quite hostile, no wonder why their numbers are sinking. Also, people don't follow through arguments anymore, one reply then disappear, extremely weak strawmams, etc. You tell people they're wrong and you get "watch your tone" back. Sad as this used to be a great community!
    - michaelmrose 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - moralestapia 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - tomhow 1y ago
        I've replied to the comment that started this little flamewar to point out the way they antiagnozed fellow community members with the way they phrased their comment, but we can also make an effort not to be antagonized and be kind about someone else's own experiences. It takes at least two to make a flamewar. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - tomhow 1y ago
      HN has always had plenty of skepticism towards ideas that are incompatible with mainstream science, because it's just a microcosm of broader society, with a particular focus on tech. I'd hope people here can be kind and tolerant enough to be accepting of other people's experiences and values, but it's important for all of us to avoid antagnoizing fellow community members with pre-emptive taunts about downvotes.
  - akomtu 1y ago
    Downvotes is the natural allergic reaction to alien ideas. Science to many isn't just a theory equal among others, but a religion, a part of their identity that they are very defensive about. The core postulate of this religion is that everything can be reduced to concepts understandable by their minds and replicated in a mechanical experiment, or it doesn't exist. If a few dozens of people could reliably demonstrate that they see the same aura, that would be a disaster for science as a religion, because a phenomenon apparently exists, yet you can't build an aura detector. On the other hand, this defensiveness is necessary to protect the science, for if you start admitting alien ideas without their assimilation, the science will fall apart.
    - Timon3 1y ago
      > If a few dozens of people could reliably demonstrate that they see the same aura, that would be a disaster for science as a religion, because a phenomenon apparently exists, yet you can't build an aura detector. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that science is a religion to many people, but even if it was, I don't think what you said is a necessary conclusion. If people objectively and reproducibly saw the same aura, it would allow scientists to actually study the phenomenon & try to build an aura detector. Since (AFAIK) this hasn't happened, science can't approach the topic due to the objective basis missing. But you're assuming that these auras would automatically be non-material, which doesn't seem like a fair assumption - given that we don't seem to have encountered any such thing so far.
      - akomtu 1y ago
        The God of science is the Theory of Everything that unifies all forces under one set of closed-form equations, that this theory can be understood by our minds, and can be used to predict observations. When these assumptions are declared the final truths, the science morphs into a religion, and when the science is hollowed out with the 'Occam razor', the religion morphs into a very rigid materialistic doctrine. I believe that aura has some basis in reality, maybe not what we think it is. It's much harder to believe that all the folklore around aura is made up in a consistent way. Auras must be material, if they are real, but it's not necessarily in the thin slice of matter our science is familiar with. It may be something in the realm of neutrinos or that famous dark matter: something very elusive that can be detected only in huge amounts.
cess11 1y ago
What you experience as perception happens inside the brain, it's inherently deceptive. With suggestive practice you can teach your brain to 'perceive' all sorts of things that to you appear as real as any other perception. One way to study this is to shut off the neural channels for external stimuli with NMDA-antagonists or isolating the entire body, you'll experience immersive perceptions, including visions. Falling for various degrees of decoration your brain provides spontaneously or has been trained to provide is foundational to many religious and mystical currents throughout history. Some of them consider not falling for at least some of these things to be the basic exercise of their regimes, e.g. non-reaction to mental phenomena in Goenka's vipassana or time-locked prayer as in canonical hours and islamic prayer.
tomhow 1y ago
I'm personally comfortable accepting that people have experiences that aren't explained by mainstream science, and I know at least one person who says they can see auras, a person who is very dear to me. But I also know it's best not to sneer at people who aren't familiar with those experiences, as it serves only to anger and alienate people. > Anyway cue the downvotes from the overly analytical people here This breaks these guidelines: Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. I know it can be upsetting to face hostility when sharing experiences and concepts that are deeply meaningful to you, but let's try and avoid taunting people like this. When it's predictable that a comment will attract downvotes, it's an indication that there might be a better way to express things. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jwrallie 1y ago

I can see colors on the periphery of my vision when black contrast with white too, and it is just... chromatic aberration from my glasses. Does not happen in a detectable level with my contacts.

michaelmrose 1y ago

[flagged]

nprateem 1y ago
[flagged]
- Timon3 1y ago
  The article talks about tissue itself emitting light. By what mechanism would this light produce a "bright outline about 1cm thick"? Lamps etc. don't produce such an outline.
  - michaelmrose 1y ago
    It doesn't. If you computed the energy cost to produce this I'm pretty sure you should waste away from shining not to mention that this would be visible to all people not just "sensitive" folks.
- roydivision 1y ago
  The article specifically states that this light is NOT visible to humans: > UPE, also known as biophoton emission, is a spontaneous release of extremely low-intensity light that is invisible to the human eye and falls within the spectral range of 200–1,000 nm.
  - moralestapia 1y ago
    Light of those wavelenghts is not visible to humans. Come on, this is mega basic ...
    - moralestapia 1y ago
      Clarification, First I wrote, "Light of those wavelenghts is not invisible to humans." I wanted to change it to, "Light of those wavelenghts is visible to humans." But I messed up and it says what it says now, can't edit it further but I meant the opposite thing.
    - michaelmrose 1y ago
      They actually are 380-750nm is the visible range. That said one lumen is approx 3.8×1015 photons and an LED bulb produces 75-110 lumens per watt. It seems like the original poster meant that we are not capable of detecting this with the naked eye even though it is theoretically in the right range. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/880/how-many-photons-per-second-is-one-lumen https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/880/how-many-pho... https://www.voltlighting.com/learn/lumens-to-watts-conversion-led-bulb https://www.voltlighting.com/learn/lumens-to-watts-conversio...
      - moralestapia 1y ago
        Humans are able to see single photons, so your (and others') arguments don't hold substance.
        michaelmrose 1y ago
        I can turn out the light and not see my hand emitting light. Either a single photon isnt enough to be perceptible on average in real environments or something else is defective about the assumption for instance intervening tissue absorbing most or all photons involved.
- moralestapia 1y ago
  >Downvotes are no surprise here though. Yeah, HN has become quite hostile, no wonder why their numbers are sinking. Also, people don't follow through arguments anymore, one reply then disappear, extremely weak strawmams, etc. You tell people they're wrong and you get "watch your tone" back. Sad as this used to be a great community!
  - michaelmrose 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - moralestapia 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - tomhow 1y ago
      I've replied to the comment that started this little flamewar to point out the way they antiagnozed fellow community members with the way they phrased their comment, but we can also make an effort not to be antagonized and be kind about someone else's own experiences. It takes at least two to make a flamewar. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - tomhow 1y ago
    HN has always had plenty of skepticism towards ideas that are incompatible with mainstream science, because it's just a microcosm of broader society, with a particular focus on tech. I'd hope people here can be kind and tolerant enough to be accepting of other people's experiences and values, but it's important for all of us to avoid antagnoizing fellow community members with pre-emptive taunts about downvotes.
- akomtu 1y ago
  Downvotes is the natural allergic reaction to alien ideas. Science to many isn't just a theory equal among others, but a religion, a part of their identity that they are very defensive about. The core postulate of this religion is that everything can be reduced to concepts understandable by their minds and replicated in a mechanical experiment, or it doesn't exist. If a few dozens of people could reliably demonstrate that they see the same aura, that would be a disaster for science as a religion, because a phenomenon apparently exists, yet you can't build an aura detector. On the other hand, this defensiveness is necessary to protect the science, for if you start admitting alien ideas without their assimilation, the science will fall apart.
  - Timon3 1y ago
    > If a few dozens of people could reliably demonstrate that they see the same aura, that would be a disaster for science as a religion, because a phenomenon apparently exists, yet you can't build an aura detector. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that science is a religion to many people, but even if it was, I don't think what you said is a necessary conclusion. If people objectively and reproducibly saw the same aura, it would allow scientists to actually study the phenomenon & try to build an aura detector. Since (AFAIK) this hasn't happened, science can't approach the topic due to the objective basis missing. But you're assuming that these auras would automatically be non-material, which doesn't seem like a fair assumption - given that we don't seem to have encountered any such thing so far.
    - akomtu 1y ago
      The God of science is the Theory of Everything that unifies all forces under one set of closed-form equations, that this theory can be understood by our minds, and can be used to predict observations. When these assumptions are declared the final truths, the science morphs into a religion, and when the science is hollowed out with the 'Occam razor', the religion morphs into a very rigid materialistic doctrine. I believe that aura has some basis in reality, maybe not what we think it is. It's much harder to believe that all the folklore around aura is made up in a consistent way. Auras must be material, if they are real, but it's not necessarily in the thin slice of matter our science is familiar with. It may be something in the realm of neutrinos or that famous dark matter: something very elusive that can be detected only in huge amounts.

cess11 1y ago

What you experience as perception happens inside the brain, it's inherently deceptive. With suggestive practice you can teach your brain to 'perceive' all sorts of things that to you appear as real as any other perception. One way to study this is to shut off the neural channels for external stimuli with NMDA-antagonists or isolating the entire body, you'll experience immersive perceptions, including visions. Falling for various degrees of decoration your brain provides spontaneously or has been trained to provide is foundational to many religious and mystical currents throughout history. Some of them consider not falling for at least some of these things to be the basic exercise of their regimes, e.g. non-reaction to mental phenomena in Goenka's vipassana or time-locked prayer as in canonical hours and islamic prayer.

tomhow 1y ago

I'm personally comfortable accepting that people have experiences that aren't explained by mainstream science, and I know at least one person who says they can see auras, a person who is very dear to me. But I also know it's best not to sneer at people who aren't familiar with those experiences, as it serves only to anger and alienate people. > Anyway cue the downvotes from the overly analytical people here This breaks these guidelines: Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. I know it can be upsetting to face hostility when sharing experiences and concepts that are deeply meaningful to you, but let's try and avoid taunting people like this. When it's predictable that a comment will attract downvotes, it's an indication that there might be a better way to express things. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html