Thread: Auras

Body language was Wilhelm Reich his theories. The guy you just called a wackjob. Lol... did you really not know this?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Of course, why else would I ask in the first place? I always talk out of first hand experience. I know auras exist, without a doubt.

I'm sorry, I should have specified that I was talking to spaceexplorer. It's clear you have.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

But until someone can find compelling evidence, then it is foolish to invest time and energy into the study of something unproven, and most likely false....

How do you think these people will attempt to find compelling evidence?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Lol funny how part of your work is about reading body language while you just called Wilhelm Reich the inventor of body language a wackjob...

Nobody invented body language.
I think apes, dogs and birds were doing it long before the birth of Wilhelm Reich!!!

You keep refering to this guy Reich, as if he's some kind of genuis,
Seriously, widen your sources a bit, the guy was either a con man, or willfully ignorant of the science of his day. Sorry, but I don't share the respect you oddly place on the guy.
Read this for example: http://www.skepdic.com/orgone.html

Look, ChaybaChayba, i'm not on some kind of crusade against your world view. If you'd be kind enough to leave out the personal attacks, we could just debate this like two adults. As with any debate, we will have agreements, common ground, and disagreements.
It's all part of the fun of getting to the bottom of things.
Just because we disagree, dosn't make us enemys.
It also dosn't make EITHER of us right. We could both be completely wrong.
The important point here, is not either of our beliefs, but whether or not our beliefs are well founded.

If you can supply evidence that outways my evidence, then your argument will be stronger, and vice versa.
Personal beliefs and opinions are only as strong as the information they are founded on.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking that a disagreement into the validity of an idea, is a personal issue.

Throughout our lives, we constantly take onboard new information, discard old ways of viewing the world etc.
Debates like this are a way for us both to grow... by seeing how well the foundations of our beliefs stand up to argument.
If they don't then, it's time to reevaluate and grow.

That's how i see things.

I'm the one giving so many evidence and you keep just saying that all evidnece is invalid or that the scientist in question is crazy... thats easy. Where is your evidence?

Also you say it is foolish to investigate auras without any evidence. But how are we supposed to get said evidence in the first place without investigation?

Originally Posted by Supernova

How do you think these people will attempt to find compelling evidence?

The same way information has been gathered and used throughout human existence. If a phenomena is observable, or the effects of a phenomena are observable, then it is possible to devise tests and create theories that will allow the phenomena to be observed and repeated by others. If these things can be observed and repeated by others, then they can be said to be true.
Which is why, tests like the "doorway test" were devised for Auras. There are people who claim they can see them, and make specific definitions of their claims. Then scientists, kindly take them on their word, devise an experiment to help prove or disprove the claim, and then test them.
Most of the scientists who do these experiments probably secretly hope they will work, because it would fire their career into the stratosphere... they'd be overnight sensations for a new discovery.
Unfortunatly, as of yet, Auras have had no experimental evidence to prove their existence.

As long as you keep calling scientists who provide evidence for auras crazy, you will never find any evidence. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make, yes or no?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Also you say it is foolish to investigate auras without any evidence. But how are we supposed to get said evidence in the first place without investigation?

So what your evidence is a bunch of unrelated scientific phenomena?
And a guy who was put in jail for selling a device that would "cure any disease"?

I have absolutely no problem with investigation of new ideas, obviously that is a fantastic idea.
What i do have a problem with is investigating new ideas ASSUMING that you are right in the first place.

Investigate them with a mindset that is equally open to the phenomena being false as true.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

As long as you keep calling scientists who provide evidence for auras crazy, you will never find any evidence. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make, yes or no?

Well, sorry I wasn't the one who called him crazy, don't shoot the messenger.
It was the FDA and the criminal system that locked him up.

Don't shoot the messenger? So you just have blind faith in the FDA? How scientifically minded of you.

Face it, you have a bias against auras, so does everyone. Its nothing to be ashamed off, but when presented with scientific evidence you could atleast take a look instead of completely ignoring it.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Don't shoot the messenger? So you just have blind faith in the FDA? How scientifically minded of you.

Face it, you have a bias against auras, so does everyone. Its nothing to be ashamed off, but when presented with scientific evidence you could atleast take a look instead of completely ignoring it.

I have more faith in the FDA than i have in a man who claims he can cure all illness from a magical energy.

I do not have a bias against auras, I have a bias against bad science, and people who make assumptions without decent foundations in reality.

And for your information, I have "taken a look", I don't argue points without at first studying and understanding the opposing view.

Still, argue with me all you want, but the fact will still remain, that Orgone, the "invisible magic energy of the orgasm", has no basis in fact.
Go argue with someone with a doctorate in physics, if you really want to have your opinion torn apart.

You can never prove something doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by WakingNomad

You can never prove something doesn't exist.

My 11th finger doesn't exist, I can prove that.

Anyway, that's a twisted logic, it's up to the person who makes a claim to provide proof, not the other way around.
If you can't provide proof for your beliefs, then don't go getting your knickers in a twist when noone else believes you, or argues against your claim with decent evidence.

If you make the choice to live by a belief system that cannot justify itself with evidence, then by the same choice, you have choosen to open yourself up to criticism and hard questioning from others.

My dick doesn't exist and I can prove it

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

My 11th finger doesn't exist, I can prove that.

Anyway, that's a twisted logic, it's up to the person who makes a claim to provide proof, not the other way around.
If you can't provide proof for your beliefs, then don't go getting your knickers in a twist when noone else believes you, or argues against your claim with decent evidence.

If you make the choice to live by a belief system that cannot justify itself with evidence, then by the same choice, you have choosen to open yourself up to criticism and hard questioning from others.

I disagree with your first statement. For all I know, you could be a highly advanced AI manifesting as an animated robot, or a Grey transdimensional alien.

I disagree with your second statement. I feel no burden of proof to justify my beliefs. I don't really feel burdened about much at all. It doesn't bother me when no one believes me. Arguing doesn't bother me much either. I usually just state my beliefs, but I don't try and convince the other person. If I could convince the other person, then they wouldn't be arguing.

I agree with your last statement. But, I don't really care about people criticizing me, or asking me hard questions. People will criticize you no matter what you do. As far as asking hard questions, I love that. Only people that want to believe something they don't believe will ask hard questions. If they don't want to believe, then they won't even care.

Just because auras cannot be proven by science, it doesn't mean it's not true. If you want to disbelieve in auras until science proves it, that's fine.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

My dick doesn't exist and I can prove it

You know... I could say something really naughty right now.


On another note: Everyone check out this article:

Your Human Body Literally Glows With Light

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

If you make the choice to live by a belief system that cannot justify itself with evidence, then by the same choice, you have choosen to open yourself up to criticism and hard questioning from others.

Seeing or feeling auras is the exact same thing as feeling emotions, if you claim such a thing as auras don't exist, it only means that you can't feel emotions. Like you said yourself, you are totally emotionless and you don't care. Why even bother coming in here and talking about emotions/auras? f you are emotionless and you don't care, its only logical you cant see or feel auras, ever thought about that?

You're very much like a blind person who claims such a thing as colors don't exist. How do you reason against that? How do I provide a blind person evidence of colors?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Seeing or feeling auras is the exact same thing as feeling emotions, if you claim such a thing as auras don't exist, it only means that you can't feel emotions. Like you said yourself, you are totally emotionless and you don't care. Why even bother coming in here and talking about emotions/auras? f you are emotionless and you don't care, its only logical you cant see or feel auras, ever thought about that?

You're very much like a blind person who claims such a thing as colors don't exist. How do you reason against that? How do I provide a blind person evidence of colors?

If you think that bringing personal bias and emotional fuled preconceptions to a debate is a good thing, then you've pretty much ruled out ever having an open mind to views that may contradict your own... which is the very definition of a closed mind.

You are simply making pointless arguments, first you claim i'm "too emotional" next you claim i'm "cold and detached". Seems that all you are trying to do is discredit me on a personal level, rather than have a sensible discussion about the claims you make. So which is it? Am I too angry or too unemotional. And how exactly does that matter? If you insist on the existence of Auras, then define exactly what they are, and how they exist in your opinion (and don't just do your usual of posting a bunch of links... explain it in your own words!)

Seeing or feeling emotions is NOT the same as seeing Auras.
Unless you are just using flowery language to describe empathy, in which case, just call it empathy and do away with calling it Auras.
An emotion is a psychological response to a biochemical change, whilst people claim Auras are a visual representation of a persons emotional and physical health... more often than not attributed to some kind of paranormal explanation.

As for proving the existence of colours to a blind person, that's reasonably straight forward, just because someone cannot directly experience something does not mean they cannot be aware of its existence. We cannot directly experience radio waves, x-rays or the whole host of forces at work in the universe that the human body has not evolved to percive. However, through the intelligent use of science and reason, all these things have been discovered to exist and are used daily.

I can think of hundreds of ways that colours could be indirectly proven to the blind. If you can't that shows a huge lack of imagination and creativity on your behalf, not mine.

So,
If you insist on the existence of Auras, would you be kind enough to answer these questions:

1) What is your definition of an Aura?
2) Is the aura physical, psychological or (for want of a better word) paranormal in origin?
3) What evolutionary purpose does the Aura serve?
4) What experience do you have of Auras?
5) What led you to conclude that Auras are a unique phenomena, unrelated to hallucinations, visual disturbances or illusions, or a quirk of human perception/psychology?

Until you can define what it is exactly you are talking about, you make it impossible to have a rational discussion. The word Aura is used by many, to mean many different things. You never know, I may even already agree with you, but could be arguing against a different definition of Auras.

The Pubmed article on bioluminescence WakingNomad posted could provide a basis for what some people like to call "auras" (namely Aquanina's example.)

Auras may simply be a manifestation of stronger bioluminescence in certain individuals. But that's about all it could possibly be. People who can percieve this bioluminescence don't have a "special gift." They have sensitive eyes. People who glow brighter than others don't have a "special gift." They have a harmless and curious biological abnormaity.

Bioluminescence doesn't change color according to your "mood" or "spiritual level." I'm gonna be blunt here. People need to get over this notion of a "spirit." There is no such thing. It's a compensatory psychological mechanism people who are afraid of dying use to calm themselves or reassure themselves that they haven't truly lost their loved ones. It's much more beneficiary to, for lack of a better word, "get over it" than to lie to yourself. Some things you have to let go of, and everyone will have to let go of life eventually. Instead of worrying about what happens afterward, which is nothing, enjoy all the love and wonder our world has now as one who is currently alive.

Originally Posted by mini0991

The Pubmed article on bioluminescence WakingNomad posted could provide a basis for what some people like to call "auras" (namely Aquanina's example.)

Auras may simply be a manifestation of stronger bioluminescence in certain individuals. But that's about all it could possibly be. People who can percieve this bioluminescence don't have a "special gift." They have sensitive eyes. People who glow brighter than others don't have a "special gift." They have a harmless and curious biological abnormaity.

Bioluminescence doesn't change color according to your "mood" or "spiritual level." I'm gonna be blunt here. People need to get over this notion of a "spirit." There is no such thing. It's a compensatory psychological mechanism people who are afraid of dying use to calm themselves or reassure themselves that they haven't truly lost their loved ones. It's much more beneficiary to, for lack of a better word, "get over it" than to lie to yourself. Some things you have to let go of, and everyone will have to let go of life eventually. Instead of worrying about what happens afterward, which is nothing, enjoy all the love and wonder our world has now as one who is currently alive.

I understand how you feel. I used to feel the same way.
I agree that people shouldn't worry about what happens after death. I did that for years when I was extremely religious. I was so worried about the afterlife, that I wasn't enjoying this life. I rejected my former religion, and became and athiest.

Then, so many things happened to me, I couldn't deny the existence of spirit.
Proving spirit doesn't exist is impossible.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

So,
If you insist on the existence of Auras, would you be kind enough to answer these questions:

1) What is your definition of an Aura?
2) Is the aura physical, psychological or (for want of a better word) paranormal in origin?
3) What evolutionary purpose does the Aura serve?
4) What experience do you have of Auras?
5) What led you to conclude that Auras are a unique phenomena, unrelated to hallucinations, visual disturbances or illusions, or a quirk of human perception/psychology?

Until you can define what it is exactly you are talking about, you make it impossible to have a rational discussion. The word Aura is used by many, to mean many different things. You never know, I may even already agree with you, but could be arguing against a different definition of Auras.

I'm glad you finally ask! First of all, there is no documentation on the aura, at all. I had to figure this out myself through experience and experimentation. I'm a guy who's extremely interested in science, one day, I simply stumbled upon the concept of EM-fields (ElectroMagnetic fields) and this got me experimenting which lead me to the conclusion auras do exist. It's not like I want them to exist, they simply do. I didn't even know the EM-field around the body and auras were the same when I was investigating this. It wasn't until I started seeing them that I made the connection.


1. What is the aura? The energy field around the body, which the EM-field is an aspect of and can be measured. This EM-field is also used for lie detectors. This EM-field represents the aura, the emotions. You can feel the aura with your skin or with your pineal gland, which is already proven to be an EM-field receptor in birds, so it's very likely to be the same in humans. The imagination transforms this perception of the pineal gland into a color. But you can perfectly feel auras without seeing anything, everyone feels them.

2. Where is its origin? The EM-field is the physical aspect, feeling the aura, and the color is the imaginairy aspect, seeing the aura. It doesn't mean it's imaginairy that it's not real. Normal colors are also imagairy and I guess you could say normal colors are also auras, but the aura of the physical body, the aura of the energy body is what we are talking about here.

3. Whats the point of having one? Social communication. You can't feel emotions of other people or your own without having an aura. The EM-field is also part of a bigger EM-field the subconscious of humanity, which allows for instincts to be recorded. How else could we possibly al have the same instncts and emotions regardless of genetics? This is the only explanation. See the 100th monkey experiment.. it is already scientifically verified that "somehow" instincts are spread without physical contact.

4. What experience? I can feel what people feel all the time. By feeling their auras I feel their emotions. Once in a while I see people who actually have a bright aura, but most people their auras is very very dim to the point you can only see a pale smoke clinging on to their body. Also, the auras of people resonate with eachother, they have affects on eachother. When my mood is strong, people take over my mood giving me direct feedback.When you get nervous when performing before a big group of people, this is because their attention is on you and you are not used to feeling your aura so heavily.

5. How do I know this is not just me reading off body language subconsciously? Each time I go into deep meditation and concentrate on a certain emotion, everyone around me gets affected by said emotion. This is because the auras, the EM-fields around the body resonate with eachother. Even to the point where I meditate on a certain subject, and people spontanously start to talk about said subject without telling them anything about it, this happens alot, I don't want it to happen, it just does. I hate how people steal my ideas, but apparently, ideas are automatically shared and available for everyone.

Seeing or feeling emotions is NOT the same as seeing Auras.

Yes it is. How would you know anyway, you don't even believe in auras?


Am I special? No. Everyone can do this and does this all the time, feeling auras, without being conssciouly aware of it as my aura is affecting them, so they must feel it on one level or the other. And trust me this is nothing to brag about, I don't talk to anyone about this IRL because I very much realize how people are rusted to their old beliefs and will never take you seriously anyway. But on the internet, its interesting to see how people react if you provide them scientifical evidence. And just like I guessed, no matter how much evidence you have, people still will not believe you, I guess this subject is simply too "magical" to believe. For me it's plain science, no magic.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I'm glad you finally ask!

Just for future reference, if you're trying to argue a point, you don't need to wait for the other person to ASK you to define what you are arguing about... it's kind of the polite thing, to explain your definitions when you first enter the conversation!!!


But...

Ok, if you really want to continue down this EM theory of yours, here's some further questions....

1) How do emotions/health effect the electromagnetic field?

2) Considering that the human electro magnetic field is incredibly weak, compared to say a mobile phone, or any of the myriad of electrical devices (including underfloor cabling, lighting etc.), how is it that a pineal gland, located already within the electromagnetic field of its own body, can pinpoint another humans incredibly weak electromagnetic field, when the interference of hundreds of much stronger elecro magnetic fields generated from the technology we surround ourselves with, is everywhere? It's the equivilant of trying to hear the beating of a moths wings, whilst standing by the engine of a jumbo jet, listening to your ipod, whilst a hundred cannons are being fired.

3) When you say EM fields are used in detecting lies, are you refering to galvanic skin response?(which works on minute changes in how much a person is sweating) or another technology? if so can you provide more information?

4) Some birds use the magnetic field of the earth for navigation, this i can agree upon, yet no birds use the incredibly weak EM field of other birds for social, breeding or any other reasons. Even when birds are using the strong magnetic field of the earth, man made EM fields can cause problems with their navigation. So if a planets EM field can be distorted through EM interference from technology, do you think a single humans has much chance?

5) you talk about meditating and giving off an emotion, effecting others around you. Assuming this is the truth (which in itself would need demonstrating to give it any authenticity), Could not the same reaction be due to pheremonal changes in your body scent?

6) don't you think you've just taken a basic scientific principle of electro magnetism, and then run with it, creating an elaborate and unlikely theory to try and shoehorn it into fitting with the concept of Auras?


Personally, I think if anything pheremonal changes, would be a stronger candidate for sensing peoples moods etc. than electromagnetic fields by a long shot. Perhaps you are smelling someones aura rather than seeing it?

1. Emotions are the field
2. How? I think there are deeper levels of EM-fields, other frequencies, so there is no interference. Most likely the EM-field is only one aspect, and there are fields of finer energy form.
3. Yes, I was referring to galvanic skin reponse which is not measuring sweating, but measuring the electrical resistance on the skin which is basically determining the EM-field.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Galvanic skin response (GSR), also known as electrodermal response (EDR), psychogalvanic reflex (PGR), or skin conductance response (SCR), is a method of measuring the electrical resistance of the skin. There has been a long history of electrodermal activity research, most of it dealing with spontaneous fluctuations.

The device measures electrical resistance between 2 points, and is essentially a type of ohmmeter. The two paths for current are along the surface of the skin and through the body. Active measuring involves sending a small amount of current through the body.

4. Not much chance. I can feel the pressure of my computer screen and even more from TV... I believe modern technology messes up our ability to feel these fields. I stopped watching TV.
5. Yes, body scents allow you to smell moods, but dont contain specific ideas or concept, so thats ruled out.
6. Nope.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

1. Emotions are the field.

So you're claiming that emotions ARE the EM field rather than an by product, in the way that blushing is a by product of embarassment?
Odd way to see things, completely contradicts how emotions can be manipulated pharmacology.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

2. How? I think there are deeper levels of EM-fields, other frequencies, so there is no interference. Most likely the EM-field is only one aspect, and there are fields of finer energy form.

Ok then, what about a crowded room of people? all giving off the same frequency? Is it easier to see an aura in a desert than it is in a city?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

3. Yes, I was referring to galvanic skin reponse which is not measuring sweating, but measuring the electrical resistance on the skin which is basically determining the EM-field.

No, you're completely wrong on this, I've studied galvanic skin response and seen live demonstrations of it. The conductivity of the skin is due to an increased level of sweat(it is the electrolyte required), which allows the external current to travel between electrodes . The theory is based on the concept that people get sweaty palms when they lie. It's as simple as that. This is a fact, if you don't believe me please go talk to a psychology lecturer at your local University.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

5. Yes, body scents allow you to smell moods, but dont contain specific ideas or concept, so thats ruled out.

You're very quick to rule something out, considering how police sniffer dogs can be trained to distinguish between different drugs, people etc.
In fact, dogs can transmit complex information to each other via scent.
Humans clearly do not have as powerful a sense of smell as a dog, but the same principles could still apply.
Its a far far more likely candidate than the incredibly weak EM field of a human being.


And of course, this is all assuming that Auras have any basis in reality in the first place. Which seems hugely unlikely in the first place.

When i look at my arms, i can see a black outlining, but i mostly see it darker when i look at my d**k. A black outlining over the skin.

As for what it is...i dunno, i always wanted to know what it was. I know about Aura's but i prefer a more logical look at it. I prefer a logical approach, because i see alot of things that have an outlining on them. If i really look at something, there is always an outlining.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I have more faith in the FDA than i have in a man who claims he can cure all illness from a magical energy.

I do not have a bias against auras, I have a bias against bad science, and people who make assumptions without decent foundations in reality.

And for your information, I have "taken a look", I don't argue points without at first studying and understanding the opposing view.

Still, argue with me all you want, but the fact will still remain, that Orgone, the "invisible magic energy of the orgasm", has no basis in fact.
Go argue with someone with a doctorate in physics, if you really want to have your opinion torn apart.

I dunno about all illnesses, but there is a guy who can cure some peoples problems using chi. While it's off topic from Aura's, this man can use his own, or as he claims, other peoples energys.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=81739

You can even see before your own eyes that tinfoil heats up from his hand.