[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 133 KB, 400x300, Meditation[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5430901 No.5430901[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How does one actually meditate?

I'm talking about the serious, studied, "hey this actually works" kind of meditation, it's fucking impossible to get information about it, I get spiritual bullshit everywhere

Related:
http://www.ted.com/talks/andy_puddicombe_all_it_takes_is_10_mindful_minutes.html

>> No.5430906

>>>/x/

Meditation is a spiritual exercise. Although there are studies about its effects, the practice of meditation is not a /sci/ topic.

>> No.5430915

>>5430906
That's not what I am referring to, I don't mean meditation as in spiritual but as in mental exercise, it has absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal

>> No.5430916

>>5430906

You are wrong. There are medical studies on this. My doctor is extremely conservative and even he's recognized it as a form of stress relief.

>> No.5430917

>>5430915
It has nothing to do with /sci/ either. If you want to talk about a bodily workout, then go to >>>/fit/

>> No.5430921

>>5430916
>There are medical studies on this.

That's what I said in my post, you reading impaired retard. OP doesn't want the studies though, he wants to know how to practice that spiritualist exercise. Not /sci/ content.

>> No.5430927

>>5430917
>>5430906
>>5430921
take your junior-modding to >>>/q/

>> No.5430938

>>5430901
I imagine it's some sort of self-induced placebo, where you think you're gonna be relaxed and spiritual so you end up feeling relaxed and spiritual.

Scientifically, there's stuff about how it relieves stress, and how the hxc monks can fluctuate their body temperature. Ultimately though, just clear your mind, sit up straight, and relax.

>> No.5430982

>>5430901
Having chased down several resourcse during the recent years and tried them out. This is what it really boils down to. At least for mindfullness meditation.

>Don't do anything that requires attention. If you're just starting out, a silent empty room may be the best starting point.
>you don't need to close your eyes, but it helps initially, if you keep them open, unfocus them.
>you are now aware of your breathing, don't alter the rate of it, keep it normal.
>Now to actually start the meditation progress, focus on your nostrils, just feel how the air rushes in through them, and then out through them.
>don't visualize it, don't make anything special of it, just feel it and make this feeling a central object in your mind.
>you'll notice, after twenty seconds or so, that you're derailing into daydreams. This is normal, and you shouldn't try to force yourself to not do it.
>When you realize it happens, refocus on the feeling of airflow again.
>When you feel a thought intrude, don't try to quash it, just focus on the breathing and let the thought pass by. Like your mother passing by and commenting the weather when you're reading something interesting.

Is it special and super awesome immideatly? Nope. But try it more times and it will grow to a relaxing void you can plunge yourself into. It's particularly good if you're anxious about something and want it out of your head.
It also becomes easier to do with training, so while it may be a 20 second void when you start out, you'll grow this to tens of minutes or hours after a while.

>> No.5430998

>>5430927
Don't reply to the village idiot please.

>Ultimately though, just clear your mind, sit up straight, and relax.
You strictly don't need to sit up straight and relax and all that stuff unless you're a monk doing hour-long sessions. And it's strictly not about clearing your mind,it's about maintaining a singular focus for an extended period of time.
if you 'clear' your mind you'll start daydreaming immideatly, or fall asleep. You need something to focus on and the most common object i breathing, given that it's always quite clearly present.

>> No.5431000

>>5430998
Do not bump off-topic threads. We all wand to improve /sci/'s quality, don't we?

>> No.5431005

Mindfulness in plain English is probably the best guide on meditation I know of:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html

The serious, studied, 'hey this actually works' kind of meditation -- they do serious studies on people who follow a bunch of spiritual bullshit. Just use the techniques. You don't have to believe in a bunch of spiritual bullshit to use the techniques suggested by the Buddha, etc.

>> No.5431006

>>5430998
Me again, you also need to realize that meditation is a catch-all term like "science", there's variations and subtypes of it, the most commonly taught method in the west is 'mindfullness meditation'

>> No.5431010

>>5431005
>>5431006
Please take it to >>>/x/ where it belongs.

>> No.5431020

>>5431010
stfu already! if someone wants to discuss "not so science related topic" here, that means he wants to discuss it from scientific point of view, and that itself made that topic science related :*

>> No.5431025

>>5431020
OP was asking how to practice spiritualist exercises. This is not /sci/ content.

>> No.5431028

>>5431025
and how is that not scientific?

>> No.5431029

>>5431025
>spiritualist exercises
??
thats simply the state in which you are relaxing your mind, noting to do with spiritual shit

>> No.5431031

1) turn off the verbalizing "I", concentrating on a single thing

(language suffers from things like overgeneralization, non-completeness, lack of novelty and so on - see any book about logical paradoxes ever)

2) deprive yourself of sensory stimuli until the hypnagogic imagery kicks in

i think that's all there is to it.

>> No.5431038

>>5431028
Spiritualism is pretty much the epitome of unscientific.

>>5431029
>mind
You just proved my point.

>> No.5431040

>>5431038
wtf man
mind, people often use that word instead of brain or consciousness.

>> No.5431043

How do people fall for this go-to-x troll so often? It is so fucking transparent but aspies walk into it over and over.

>> No.5431049

>>5431040
>consciousness

And now we got a dualism troll ITT. *sigh*

>> No.5431055

>>5431028
>>5431020
Don't reply to him, you will only get further shitposting back. This have been empirically demonstrated.

>> No.5431060

>>5431049
and now you are just obvious

and same fag >>5431043

>> No.5431062

>>5431055
You are the only shitposter ITT. You are the one who wants to force /x/ content on /sci/.

>> No.5431064

>>>/x/
don't come back thanks

>> No.5431066

>>5431060
How am I "obvious"? Do you mean it's obvious that I have scientific education? Well that's true. Would you please stop posting now?

>> No.5431071

>>5431066
you are overdoing it, and find a life other than trolling, even if its a no-life

>> No.5431081

>>5431071
You make no sense. I am not the troll. You are.

>> No.5431087

>>5431071
Don't reply to him, he's an autistic unemployed basement dweller (with a humanist-oriented education) with 14 hours a day to troll /sci/ with, he's been here since november and we've tried every possible reply there is without ever getting anything constructive back.

You just get yet another content devoid canned response back every time you reply to him. So just don't.

>> No.5431090

>>5431081
how would you feel if for every sage post you made, i bumped the thread?

>> No.5431096

>>5431090
Don't reply to him, just bump it with a reply to someone else.

>> No.5431097

>>5431090
> still talking to this idiot
dude just let it go, what's the point in derailing a thread you're interested in

>> No.5431111

>>5431087
Wrong in every point.

>he's
nice gender bias ;)
>an autistic
never been diagnosed
>unemployed
I'm studying at university and I have a job.
>basement dweller
My apartment doesn't have a basement.
>(with a humanist-oriented education)
Although I'm a polymath who also appreciates humanist education, my focus is on science and math.
>with 14 hours a day
I've got better things to do than browsing /sci/ all day.
>to troll /sci/ with
I do not troll. It's not my fault that you are rejecting scientific corrections.
>he's been here since november
I've been here back in 2010 when /sci/ was created.
>andwe've tried every possible reply there is
You haven't yet tried to admit that you were wrong.
>without ever getting anything constructive back.
I always give constructive feedback by telling you why you are wrong.

Try harder next time :D

>> No.5431116

>>5431090
Why would you do that? Sounds like a huge waste of time.

>> No.5431130

>>5430938
It's not placebo. Maybe you should actually try it some time before pulling facts out of your arse.

>> No.5431153

OP:

Tier 1 meditation:
- set an alarm for 20/30 minutes. This is optional, but it's a good exercise to train your discipline
- sit down, think about anything
- just don't move at all, physically, for the duration of the exercise (if you move, start again)
- you will find out that sitting perfectly still in one spot is much harder than it looks

Tier 2 meditation:
- same as before, but now try to actively focus your mind on a single object or thought construct
- this should feel extremely relaxing when done right, but it's still not "real" meditation

Tier 3 meditation:
- same as before, but now instead of focusing your mind try unfocusing it
- this will be very difficult at first because your thoughts will be chaotic, don't give up and keep practising ... it may take years but when you get it, you won't regret a single minute you put into it
- this is "real" meditation. Still your being until you reach the point of complete tranquility.

And by the way, it is a spiritual practise. But you have a great misconception about what spiritual means. It doesn't mean anything. You will know what it means when you get there. Meditation is a systematical process of breaking your reality into pieces. This means that eventually, you will gain a different view of the world. You will only understand this once you reach it.

Good luck.

>> No.5431159

>>5430938
It is not just placebo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/wim-hof-dutch-iceman-cont_n_865203.html

>> No.5431165

>>5430938
>hurr durr I don't know what placebo means
Look it up in a dictionary.

>>5431159
>huffingtonpost
How about a scientific source instead?

>> No.5431170

Cross ur legs in a manner so the blood from your knees down is cut off.

Breath through your nose, keep your mind absent of all thought.

Do that for 2 hours a day and you will feel enlightened.

What is happening is the blood that would go to your legs is being enriched with even more oxygen. Every breathe your vital organs and brain receive more.

>> No.5431171

>>5431153
Also I forgot to mention, it helps greatly if you do a bit of physical exercise before you attempt meditation. It will stretch out your muscles so you can endure motionless sitting far longer than if you went in unprepared.

>> No.5431174

>>5431171
>>5431170
Please use sage when replying to an off-topic thread.

>> No.5431179

>>5431174

It isn't scientific to talk about why crossing ur legs and breathing through your noise significantly increases ur health?

This definitely isn't /fit/ content

>> No.5431181

>>5431174
Please don't act as a judge of what can and can't be posted on this board.

Read this:

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

>> No.5431182

>>5431165
>How about a scientific source instead?
as you wish.

http://doctorsontm.org/tm-research/journals
"A total of 300 research studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique have been published in 160 peer-reviewed academic and medical journals. The peer-reviewed process ensures that the research has met the highest standards of scientific methodology, as determined by the leading scientists and research institutes of our times."

>> No.5431183

>>5431179
It becomes unscientific when you combine it with spirtitualism.

>> No.5431187

>>5431181
>Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Exactly. Spiritualism doesn't fit that definition.

>> No.5431188

>>5431187
Maybe you should re-read the definition of both meditation and science.

Stop acting like a kid. You don't like this thread? There's a "hide" button. Use it.

>> No.5431189

>>5431182
>transcendental meditation (R)
>(R)
>transcendental

Not only this is /x/ spiritualism nonsense but also it's a commercial product. You might as well advertise scientology. I asked you for a scientific source and you post sect nonsense? GTFO the fuck out of the science board.

>> No.5431191

>>5431189
>GTFO the fuck out

>> No.5431192

>>5431170
>Cross ur legs in a manner so the blood from your knees down is cut off.

This never happens, you sit in a lotus position because it's "locked" and in tension, being a stable position to stay in for a long time. Collateral circulation ensures you legs will always get the blood they need even if you compress the main arteries.

>> No.5431193

>>5431188
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation
>Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness

>mind
>consciousness
Obvious spiritualism garbage is obvious. Anti-scientific as fuck.

>> No.5431195

>>5431189
>a commercial product
You meditate just by yourself, for free.
In what way is it commercial?

>> No.5431197

>>5431193
What exactly is unscientific about this?

Btw, if you know simple math you will also know that saging a thread while I'm also bumping it doesn't really work.

>> No.5431202

>>5431195
Are you pretending to be retarded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_trademark_symbol

That sect you were linking to has registered their spiritual practice as a trademark. Fuck off with your scientology garbage.

>> No.5431203

>>5431195
Stop replying to the village idiot. Look throguh this thread to see what quality his replies have. If you're lazy, here's the answer.
>They are all the same.
Why do you expect that a person that have more chromosomes than IQ would suddenyl decide to engage you in an intellectual debate?

>> No.5431204

>>5431197
Sage is not an anti-bump, newfag.

>What exactly is unscientific about this?
Dualism and spiritualism bullshit is not testable, has no evidence and has no explanatory value. Please learn what science is.

>> No.5431207

>>5431202
>a person posts valid research material
>instead you attack him with meaningless drivel
Stay classy

>> No.5431210

>>5431202
This has nothing to do with Scientology.

One can not trademark meditation any more than one can trademark walking.
It is something that requires nothing more than your own body.

>> No.5431211

>>5431203
Infantile insults belong on >>>/reddit/. You are clearly lacking teh maturity to post on /sci/. I don't have more than 140 chromosomes btw.

>>5431207
>scientology
>valid research material
0/10

>> No.5431219

>>5431203
They just say that it is unscientific and they do not actually read any of the science behind meditation?
Ok then.
It is their loss.
I will stop replying to them.

>> No.5431220

>>5431204
>Dualism and spiritualism bullshit is not testable, has no evidence and has no explanatory value
Meditation is practised in many religious schools but objectively, it doesn't concern with any of these.

>Please learn what science is.
Science is exploration. Science is taking something and trying to make sense of it. It seems like you think you have some kind of authority on what can and can't be processed and summarized using science. You don't and as you grow up this will become more and more apparent.

>> No.5431221

>>5431210
>One can not trademark

Did you not even read the page you linked ITT?

>> No.5431227

>>5431219
The scientific research behind meditation researches the physiological effects, not the spiritual contents. Try harder.

>>5431220
Thanks for showing us that you don't know what science is. How old are you? Still in high school? Have you ever done any research? No, clearly you haven't. Spiritualism is not science. Period.

>> No.5431243

>>5431227
>Thanks for showing us that you don't know what science is.
Please expand on this.

>How old are you?
25

>Still in high school?
No.

>Have you ever done any research?
Yes. Probably more than you.

>No, clearly you haven't.
I see you like conjectures.

>Spiritualism is not science.
If you were to actually read any of my posts you would see that I've been pointing out all along that meditation doesn't have anything to do with spiritualism, objectively. Just because you have a bad association with the word doesn't mean it's not worthy of proper research. Your attitude is that of a spoiled kid, unsatisfied with what he's getting so he needs to bring attention to him by acting like a moron.

>Period.
Apparently. Maybe you should get some tampons.

>> No.5431250

>>5431243
Troll harder. You are clearly not 25. It's impossible to be 25 and posting on a science board without knowing what scientific research is.

>meditation doesn't have anything to do with spiritualism
Read my earlier posts ITT. I quoted the wikipedia definition of meditation, which explicitly states that meditation is a practice of spiritualism.

>doesn't mean it's not worthy of proper research
Proper research has been done on the physiological effects. The practice and the contents of your spiritualist garbage are not research.

>> No.5431262

>>5431250
>Read my earlier posts ITT. I quoted the wikipedia definition of meditation, which explicitly states that meditation is a practice of spiritualism.
Please show us where this definition states anything about spiritualism:

>Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness

>Proper research has been done on the physiological effects. The practice and the contents of your spiritualist garbage are not research.
Again with the same response. You are like a broken record, you know?

I've said it 3 times now. Meditation doesn't imply spirituality. Do I need to fax you a letter so you will finally understand this very simple concept?

>> No.5431265

>>5431250
>Troll harder.
It's a troll, stop fucking replying.

Seriously, a self-proclaimed 'polymath' girl that is a humanism student that at the same time claims that all forms of conscioussness is magic.

If the people of /sci/ really is so stupid that they either are the aforementioned person, or replies to it, I might as well leave permanently because this will have turned into a degenerated reality show, not a board about science.

>> No.5431268

>>5431262
>Please show us where this definition states anything about spiritualism:
It mentions "mind" and "consciousness". Those are the core beliefs of spiritualists.

>Again with the same response
If you refuse to understand a simple statement, repetition is all I can do for you.

>Meditation doesn't imply spirituality.
You just copypasted the definition which explicitly says the opposite.

>> No.5431271

>>5431265
>If the people of /sci/ really is so stupid that they either are the aforementioned person, or replies to it, I might as well leave permanently because this will have turned into a degenerated reality show, not a board about science.

This is just one bad thread.
You can always stay and post in the good threads with good science.

>> No.5431276

>>5431268
>It mentions "mind" and "consciousness". Those are the core beliefs of spiritualists.
Both of those have alternative definitions that have nothing to do with spiritualism.

>> No.5431277

>>5431268
>It mentions "mind" and "consciousness". Those are the core beliefs of spiritualists.
Talk about being unscientific. Thanks for trolling me, you did well, but this crosses all lines. Your responses are nothing short of childish.

>> No.5431279

>>5431265
I am that poster and I already said that I am not a humanism student. Work on your reading comprehension.

>If the people of /sci/ really is so stupid that they either are the aforementioned person, or replies to it, I might as well leave permanently because this will have turned into a degenerated reality show, not a board about science.
I am defending science. My intention is to improve this board and to get rid of off-topic and troll threads. If you weren't a shitposting underaged troll, you'd support me.

>> No.5431284

>>5431279
So many fallacies in this post.

>> No.5431288

>>5431284
name 8

>> No.5431289

>>5431276
No, they don't. They are unscientific dualism garbage.

>>5431277
Are you mentally retarded? How is rationality "trolling"?

>>5431284
Name one.

>> No.5431293

>>5431284
He agreed to being a humanist poster a week ago, but the negative reactions apparently made him adjust the story to give an impression of a landwhale that's actually studying math as opposed to a self-proclaimed expert of everything that have a degree of gender studies.

>> No.5431295

>>5431289
>Are you mentally retarded? How is rationality "trolling"?
I'll ignore the ad hominem because this is starting to amuse me.

Please describe in a coherent way, how research on consciousness or the mind falls under "unscientific dualism garbage". I mean, I'd really like to know. Hell if you made a video feed explaining it I'd probably pay you.

So, will you deliver?

>> No.5431298

>>5431295
You'll not get any satisfactory answer, we've had this debate, you'll get a circular argument as a reply.

When you've read it, come back to my post, and realize that you should stop replying to this gender studies cretin.

>> No.5431299

>>5431293
>agreed to being a humanist poster a week ago
I never did. Why would I lie? I am not studying a humanist subject.

>landwhale
lol, typical misogynist. An intelligent woman has to be a "landwhale" because a combination of beauty and intelligence would hurt your feelings, amirite?

>>5431295
>I'll ignore the ad hominem
There was none. "You are a retard and therefore you are wrong" would be an ad hominem. "You are wrong because [rational argument] and therefore you are a retard" is not an ad hominem. Educate yourself, pleb.

>research on consciousness
There is no research on consciousness. A magical soul is not testable, not observable, not needed for any explanation and has no evidence. Occam's razor tells us to dismiss invisible non-interacting ghosts.

>> No.5431300

>>5431293
So basically some /x/-tier feminist got told and has been endlessly asspained ever since?

>> No.5431303

>>5431298
There is nothing circular in my explanation on why he's wrong. Please point out where you think I'm begging the question.

>> No.5431305

>>5431299
http://www.scitopics.com/Neuroanatomy_of_Consciousness.html

>> No.5431308

>>5431305
Obvious pseudoscience. An article that starts by stating that a magical soul exists is clearly not scientific.

>> No.5431312

>>5431308
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

>> No.5431319

>>5431299
>There is no research on consciousness.
Wrong. There has been research on consciousness since the beginning of time. It's called psychology today:

psy·chol·o·gy
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context.

>A magical soul is not testable, not observable
The fact that you are conscious doesn't need a magic component. I don't know where you're pulling these out.

>Occam's razor tells us to dismiss invisible non-interacting ghosts.
Occam's razor is a general guideline and not a definite approach to dismissal of any hypothesis.

Let's just do this forever. I have time. :)

>> No.5431327

>>5431300
Pretty much. Except that I would get a better debate out of the mercury poisoned guy over at /x/ that belives astral projection allows him to talk to aliens from Vega.

So her tier is not /x/, it's something more fit for mental institutions, the kind of patient that decorates every square centimeter of every surface she can find with the same drivel and never gets tired or stops to think why.

>> No.5431329

>>5431312
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

>>5431319
>It's called psychology today:
Psychology is the study of observable human behaviour. It has nothing to do with magical soul dualism. The definition you posted is not the accepted definition of psychology but a troll definition that makes psychology look like a pseudoscience.

>The fact that you are conscious
This is not a fact. It is not true. If it was a fact, you could prove it by providing evidence.

>Occam's razor is a general guideline and not a definite approach to dismissal of any hypothesis.
Occam's razor is a principle of rationality. Science is based on rationality. Why do you dismiss rationality, troll?

>> No.5431330
File: 853 KB, 2100x1500, Brain-Scan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5431330

>>5430982

Have you noticed meditation bringing about positive effects in other areas of your life?

>> No.5431331

>>5431329
Your claim itself is the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

>> No.5431335

>>5431327
Then how about you stay on /x/? Obviously you don't want to discuss science or math. You are wrong on /sci/.

>> No.5431341

>>5431174
no

whatchu gonna do about it, faggot?

>> No.5431337

>>5431331
The law of the excluded middle is a standard property of classical logic and not a fallacy.

>> No.5431343

>>5431337
Your claim is either a fallacy or it isn't.

>> No.5431344

>>5431329
>Psychology is the study of observable human behaviour.
Which is preceded by the conscious actions of the aforementioned human.

>It has nothing to do with magical soul dualism.
I never implied it does.

>The definition you posted is not the accepted definition of psychology but a troll definition that makes psychology look like a pseudoscience.
I guess wiki definitions is spreading pseudoscience then.

>This is not a fact. It is not true. If it was a fact, you could prove it by providing evidence.
So you are not conscious? Is that what you're saying?

>Occam's razor is a principle of rationality.
Yes.

>Why do you dismiss rationality, troll?
I don't. Investigation is not dismissal. But you are doing exactly that. Dismissing and trolling.

Please go on while I get some popcorn.

>> No.5431350

>>5431330
Not him, but yes. Somehow reality seems more gentle. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that a calm mind is more capable of making the right decisions and not panicking for every single thing.

>> No.5431354

>>5431350

I see, thank you.

>> No.5431355

>>5431343
It isn't.

>>5431344
>Which is preceded by the conscious actions of the aforementioned human.
Actions can be explained biologically. Lrn2neuroscience. Lrn2biochemistry. No need for dualism magic.

>I guess wiki definitions is spreading pseudoscience then.
Anyone can edit wikipedia. Most pseudoscience topics do have wikipedia entries.

>So you are not conscious? Is that what you're saying?
Yes, I do not have a magical soul. I am a biological organism and obey the laws of physics.

>> No.5431359

>>5431355
> dualism magic.
> pseudoscience
> magical soul
It's hard to argue with you when you keep using so many buzzwords.

Brb, dying of laughter.

>> No.5431366

>>5431359
No argument? Just shitposting? Try harder next time, wannabe troll.

>> No.5431368

>>5431366

>Just shitposting

Way to summarise everything you've posted in this thread.

>> No.5431370

>>5431368
>projecting

>> No.5431372

>>5431355
Yes it is. Your premise includes a definition of consciousness. That paper defines consciousness differently than you. But you refuse to read it because you believe consciousness is spiritualism, by definition.

>> No.5431376

>>5431370
>projecting
Heh, it's really her again. Is she the new EK or something?

>> No.5431383

>>5431372
I did never post an exact definition. All I did was using defining properties of that entity. The author of that article uses them too and his article becomes pseudoscience when he starts arbitrarily misinterpreting neuroscientific results. He seems to quote some legitimate research, it doesn't justify his conclusions though. Nowhere in the brain's acitivity a magical soul can be seen.

>> No.5431386

>>5431383
If you're really a female can you post a picture of yourself lol

>> No.5431387

>>5431370

That was my first post in this thread.

Try again.

>> No.5431390

>>5431111

Well said.

>> No.5431391

>>5431386
No.

>>5431387
The reply was appropriate though.

>> No.5431394

>>5431391
>No.
:(
Pweeaase? /sci/ would be forever in debt

>> No.5431395

>>5431394
That's if you're pretty*

>> No.5431397

>>5431394
No. Go to >>>/s/

>> No.5431399

>>5431394
You want to see the image of a random stranger just because they are female?
That is a little creepy.

>> No.5431401

>>5431397
No I want you.

>>5431399
Shut up lol.

>> No.5431403

>>5431401
Do you even know what the acronym 'lol' means?

>> No.5431405
File: 491 KB, 295x211, 1124443511.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5431405

>> No.5431408

>>5431403
It means shut up and go namefag in some other thread while I try and seduct a troll female on /sci/.

>> No.5431412

>>5431408
You are not seducing anyone.
You just sound pathetic and creepy.

Focus on the thread, or get out.

>>>/soc/

>> No.5431415

>>5431408
You're not gonna seduce anyone by harassment on an anonymous board, neckbeard.

>> No.5431419

>>5431412
Buzz off white knight

>>5431415
:(

But I'm pretty good at it, you should give me a chance

>> No.5431426

>>5431419
Also my beard is quite glorious

>> No.5431431

>>5431383
>I did never post an exact definition.
That doesn't matter. Your premise is still faulty.

>All I did was using defining properties of that entity.
Which is your premise. You refuse to change them.

>The author of that article uses them too
Wrong, and there are multiple authors.

>his article becomes pseudoscience when he starts arbitrarily misinterpreting neuroscientific results.
Nobody is doing this.

>it doesn't justify his conclusions though
You didn't even read the article.

>Nowhere in the brain's acitivity a magical soul can be seen.
That's part of your premise. Consciousness can be defined in a testable manner.

>> No.5431440
File: 30 KB, 355x266, 1340138418098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5431440

>/sci/ attempting ideological discussion of any kind

>> No.5431446

>>5431431
>Your premise is still faulty.
How so? All I do is using the defining properties of that soul entity to show that it can't exist.

>You refuse to change them.
What is there to change?

>Wrong, and there are multiple authors
Did you not even read the abstract?

>Nobody is doing this.
So you admit that you didn't even read the article?

>You didn't even read the article.
By now I skimmed through it.

>Consciousness can be defined in a testable manner.
That would require grotesquely redefining the word. It's neither necessary nor beneficial. Redefining spiritualist terms would only serve to confusion and would be detrimental to the reputation of neuroscience because more retards would mistake it for pseudoscience.

>> No.5431460

>>5431446
Are you EK's sister?

>> No.5431479

>>5431446
>How so? All I do is using the defining properties of that soul entity to show that it can't exist.
Please define soul entity and explain why these "defining properties" must be associated to the term "consciousness". Homeopaths define water as a substance having memory. Does this mean they are right? Or that this is the only definition?

>What is there to change?
Scientific papers use a scientific definition of consciousness. This shows consensus. Where is your evidence that anyone in this thread was using something different?

>Did you not even read the abstract?
I did - "Dr. Jorge Ure, Dr. Hugo Videla, Dr. Juan Ollari".

>So you admit that you didn't even read the article?
I do not.

>By now I skimmed through it.
You surely did not read it.

>That would require grotesquely redefining the word.
Words can have many different meanings. Some words can have scientific definitions. Generally we expect scientific definitions on a science forum.

>It's neither necessary nor beneficial.
Please explain the vast amount of papers published in prestigious neuroscience journals that define consciousness scientifically.

>Redefining spiritualist terms
Please explain why you believe consciousness can only be used as a "spiritualist term" and that it does not or can not have any other definitions.

>would only serve to confusion and would be detrimental to the reputation of neuroscience because more retards would mistake it for pseudoscience.
What statistics are you using?

>> No.5431491

>>5431479
>Please define soul entity and explain why these "defining properties" must be associated to the term "consciousness".
I will not post an exact definition. That is left to the spiritualists who actually care about this nonsense. But what we know for sure is that this entity cannot be tested, observed or measured and that it is not needed for any explanation. That makes it unscientific.
>Scientific papers use a scientific definition of consciousness
Scientists avoid spiritualist vocabulary.
>I did - "Dr. Jorge Ure, Dr. Hugo Videla, Dr. Juan Ollari".
Those are the authors' names. Do you not know what an abstract is?
>Some words can have scientific definitions.
Soul and consciousness are not among these words.
>Generally we expect scientific definitions on a science forum.
And generally we dismiss unscientific and spiritualist notions on a science board.
>Please explain the vast amount of papers published in prestigious neuroscience journals that define consciousness scientifically.
There is none. There is no scientific definition of consciousness. Did you read pseudoscience or philosophy papers and mistook them for neuroscience?
>What statistics are you using?
I didn't talk about statistics.

>> No.5431508

>>5431491
>I will not post an exact definition.
Then do you agree that we can define the word to mean anything we like? A language depends on agreement between speakers.

>That is left to the spiritualists who actually care about this nonsense.
Again you associate the word "consciousness" with "spiritualism". Please explain why this must be so.

>But what we know for sure is that this entity cannot be tested, observed or measured and that it is not needed for any explanation. That makes it unscientific.
This is only applicable to the extremely limited and particular way you define consciousness.

>Scientists avoid spiritualist vocabulary.
Indeed. So please explain why you believe consciousness must be a part of spiritualist vocabulary.

>Those are the authors' names. Do you not know what an abstract is?
You stated that there is only a single author of the paper. Do you have difficulties with short term memory?

>Soul and consciousness are not among these words.
Why?

>And generally we dismiss unscientific and spiritualist notions on a science board.
Sure.

>There is none. There is no scientific definition of consciousness.
You did not read the article I had linked.

>Did you read pseudoscience or philosophy papers and mistook them for neuroscience?
I have not.

>I didn't talk about statistics.
You stated "more retards would mistake it for pseudoscience". How do you reach this conclusion?

>> No.5431520

>>5431508
>Then do you agree that we can define the word to mean anything we like?
You can define "dog" to mean "horse". Nobody is gonna understand or accept your private language though.
>A language depends on agreement between speakers.
That's why arbitrary redefinitions won't be successful.
>Please explain why this must be so.
I did. Read my posts.
>This is only applicable to the extremely limited and particular way you define consciousness.
Those are the defining properties of that entity / phenomenon.
>You stated that there is only a single author of the paper. Do you have difficulties with short term memory?
I read the paper, you only read the authors' names. Guess who's qualified to talk on the contents.
>You did not read the article I had linked.
I did.
>I have not.
Then why are you intentionally spreading misinformation?
>How do you reach this conclusion?
Common sense.

>> No.5431535

>>5431520
>That's why arbitrary redefinitions won't be successful.
How would this be an "arbitrary redefinition"?

>I did. Read my posts.
Link me to the post.

>Those are the defining properties of that entity / phenomenon.
Why? What authority asserts this?

>I read the paper, you only read the authors' names. Guess who's qualified to talk on the contents.
This is incorrect and a red herring. You informed me that there is only one author of that paper. There are multiple. I corrected you.

>I did.
Then you should appreciate that consciousness can be defined scientifically.

>Then why are you intentionally spreading misinformation?
What misinformation?

>Common sense.
Then your reasoning is not objective. I do not agree with your conclusion, unless you can back it up with evidence.

>> No.5431547

>>5431535
>How would this be an "arbitrary redefinition"?
Do you not know what "arbitrary" means? Look it up in a dictionary.
>Link me to the post.
Just read any of my posts ITT. I had to repeat myself so many times, chances are very high that a random post in this ITT will explain it.
>Why? What authority asserts this?
Consensus.
>This is incorrect and a red herring.
Not a red herring. Look up what red herring means.
>Then you should appreciate that consciousness can be defined scientifically.
It cannot. The article gives no testable definition.

>> No.5431561

>>5431547
>Do you not know what "arbitrary" means? Look it up in a dictionary.
I do know what it means. I am asking you explicitly why it is arbitrary.

>Just read any of my posts ITT. I had to repeat myself so many times, chances are very high that a random post in this ITT will explain it.
This thread is far too long to do that. Please just link me to your post explaining this.

>Consensus.
What consensus?

>Not a red herring. Look up what red herring means.
Yes it is. You assert that I have not read the paper, which is wrong. It is also irrelevant to the fact that you stated there is only a single author.

>It cannot. The article gives no testable definition.
It does. Have you read it?

>> No.5431576

>>5431561
>I am asking you explicitly why it is arbitrary.
Because it is a random choice made by your person.

>This thread is far too long to do that.
You surely aren't qualified to talk about science, if you can't even read one page.

>What consensus?
Consensus in the scientific community.

>It is also irrelevant to the fact that you stated there is only a single author.
which is irrelevant to the fact that I disproved the contents of the link.

>It does. Have you read it?
I did. It doesn't.

>> No.5431586

>>5431576
>Because it is a random choice made by your person.
It isn't. Many authors define consciousness in a scientific manner.

>You surely aren't qualified to talk about science, if you can't even read one page.
That's an irrelevant association. Please show me your post.

>Consensus in the scientific community.
Can you show me an author explicitly stating this?

>which is irrelevant to the fact that I disproved the contents of the link.
What did you disprove?

>I did. It doesn't.
How is the definition provided not testable? The paper even goes through the methodologies on why it is testable.

>> No.5431594
File: 46 KB, 500x586, 275f3e61-1c5b-4bd6-b638-f916b25c560f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5431594

This thread is stupid

>> No.5431595

>>5431586
>Many authors define consciousness in a scientific manner.
Incorrect. There is no scientific definition. Are mistaking philosophy for neuroscience again?

>That's an irrelevant association.
It is very relevant. Your reading comprehension skills are essential to your understanding of science.

>Can you show me an author explicitly stating this?
Why would an author explicitly state something everyone already knows?

>What did you disprove?
The pseudoscientific claims.

>How is the definition provided not testable?
Magical qualia have no observable effects.

>> No.5431608

>>5431595
>There is no scientific definition.
One is provided in the article linked.

>It is very relevant. Your reading comprehension skills are essential to your understanding of science.
Reading comprehension of scientific material is not relevant to reading a 100+ post thread on 4chan.

>Why would an author explicitly state something everyone already knows?
How do you know that "everyone already knows"?

>The pseudoscientific claims.
What pseudoscientific claims?

>Magical qualia have no observable effects.
The paper does not at all discuss qualia. That word is not once mentioned.

>> No.5431617

>>5431608
>One is provided in the article linked.
Incorrect. That definition is not testable.

>Reading comprehension of scientific material is not relevant to reading a 100+ post thread on 4chan.
Reading comprehension is a skill independent of the particular text you're supposed to read.

>How do you know that "everyone already knows"?
Scientific education.

>What pseudoscientific claims?
The existence of qualia.

>That word is not once mentioned.
It is mentioned via its synonym "subjective experience".

>> No.5431622

>>5431617
>makes over 9000 replies
>still sages
>doesn't show pictures

>>5431608
Stop replying, she's a troll.

>> No.5431626

>>5431617
>Incorrect. That definition is not testable.
Why not?

>Reading comprehension is a skill independent of the particular text you're supposed to read.
I have read the thread and I still do not see any post where you explain why you must associate consciousness with spiritualism.

>Scientific education.
What scientific education?

>The existence of qualia.
The paper does not claim that.

>It is mentioned via its synonym "subjective experience".
"Subjective experience" is not used in that article.

>> No.5431637

>>5431626
>Why not?
Because qualia have no effects.

>I have read the thread and I still do not see any post where you explain
I explained it multiple times. It is the definition.

>What scientific education?
Scientific education that goes beyond pop sci.

>The paper does not claim that.
>"Subjective experience" is not used in that article.
You confirmed for not having read the article. It's right in the first sentence.

>> No.5431650

>>5431637
>Because qualia have no effects.
That definition does not use qualia.

>I explained it multiple times.
You have not.

>Scientific education that goes beyond pop sci.
Where in your scientific education was consciousness associated strictly with spiritualism?

>You confirmed for not having read the article. It's right in the first sentence.
"Subjective experience" is never used in that article. This is the first sentence:
Consciousness is an interpretation of subjective phenomena which take place in the human brain in search of objective comprehension of external world.

>> No.5431756

This thread is dildos.