Talk:Aura (paranormal)/Archive 4

NPOV

This article lacks a NPOV, not from the ESP/New Age view but from the skeptic view. First of all, as a definition it should be stated what the New Age followers believe aura is. Secondly, there should be the scientific proof of the electromagnetic field generated around the body. Any thought about connecting those, that is Aura = electromagnetic field, should be justified. Since when do New Age believers think that auras = EM fields of the body? That removes the paranormal trait of the word "aura" for them if they do. Also PROOF should be given about this "technique" that enables us to see auras. This is contradictory however since higher frequency radiation that is closer to the purple color while any electromagnetic phenomenon of a human's body would be at very low frequency, which means if indeed there is a technique to see an electromagnetic field of the body, that would seem reddish.

In general, the NPOV would be served by the Scientific POV.

The idea's of auras are not a newe age thing. Many cultures of the past have believed in it, or have used it. The chinese burial ritual norm is wearing white, not black like in the western culture. A fact that many people, who have seen auras or as some would say they have, is that when a person is dying there aura goes very white. Some and many would argue that the two are connected. This is not the only one. YOu bastard phoebus, I wrote this, Ian

Or the people seeing the auras "going white" are associating white with death, as that is what has been accepted culturally and so subconciously. People turn white when they die, the "light" is white, heaven is usually depicted as whiteish, the life-giving light from the sun is white, and so forth. Look at me, I can think critically! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of a person's electromagnetic field would be in the infrared part of the spectrum. There are night vision goggles and so forth that can image this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be something of an expert in Night Vision goggles (NVG's) and InfraRed (IR) imaging. Having worked on very careful computer simulation of such devices for flight simulation and such. Night Vision goggles see into the 'near' infrared - but people don't really look much different in near-IR than they do in normal vision - there is no 'Aura'. NVG's boost the brightness of everything pretty much uniformly (although they don't make blue and green things quite as bright as you might expect with normal vision). Some Infrared cameras see into the mid-range infrared - others into the far-infrared. Far-IR is getting close to so-called 'millimeter-wave radar' - so it behaves a bit like radar and people DO look a bit odd - the most noticable thing is that they look rather naked because their clothes don't efficiently block far-IR signals. The most commonly used IR cameras (and what I think you are talking about) are the ones that work in the mid-range IR. Cameras that are sensitive to mid-range IR are essentially seeing heat emission - hot things being bright and cold things dark. In mid-range IR, humans do look rather brighter than other objects simply because they tend to be warmer. But warm-blooded animals, the engine of a car (if it has been running recently) or the roof of a poorly insulated house in winter - would also look brighter than you'd expect. There is nothing 'paranormal' about this - it's simple physics. It is possible under some circumstances to see a 'glow' around hot objects like people in some infrared cameras - and this is because the camera itself may be being partially overloaded by the brightness of a small part of the image when the majority of the image is cool/dark. Again, this is a well-understood effect - there is nothing paranormal about it. Some people have claimed that these 'glows' are the same thing as auras - but since anything warm shows up like this (even inanimate objects), it's pretty indefensible. Furthermore, on a hot day when the ambient temperature is up over body temperature, the fact that people can sweat and keep their body temperature down BELOW ambient means that people may under those circumstances be cooler (darker) than everything else in the image - and there is no 'aura' anymore...which further proves that any idea of auras being visible in the IR is nonsense. SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient shamanic and modern New Age metaphysics identify the aura as electromagnetic fields."

I reckon ancient shamans must have had a lot to say about electromagnetic fields? --Aaron Walden 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a question...

I would like to ask all those skeptics of aura's, how can you explain the way other peoples moods can affect ones own - Say, for example, you walk into a room and someone's in a really bad mood. As soon as you step in the room, you can feel in the atmosphere that something's wrong. I find it hard to believe anybody who says they haven't experienced this, or a similar phenomena, and would like to hear an alternative explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.140.189 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh - that's easy! Humans are very perceptive of facial expression and body language - although often not at a conscious level. Next time you're in a meeting with a dozen or so people sitting around a conference table - take a look at how everyone has their arms positioned compared to the person who is speaking. You'll notice that everyone who basically agrees with the speaker will have their arms folded in a similar way - and those who don't, have them positioned differently. Nobody (well, hardly anyone) knows that they are doing this - it happens at a level of the mind below conscious thought. There is no reason not to believe that the feeling you get (at the conscious level) of 'bad vibes' when you step into a room doesn't merely come from a subconscious measurement of posture, facial expression and other really subtle factors. There is no need to invent some concept that lies completely outside of all known science in order to explain such things. See Paralanguage. SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Auras != Science (moved from top)

Auras are not a scientific phenomenon, so there's no use in trying to use rational skepticism to analyze the experience. Subjective experiences cannot be proved, disproved, or evaluated by scientific means in any way. There is no necessary connection between subjective experience and objective reality, as pointed out by Kant in the Prolegammena. Lastly, auras are decidedly NOT a "New Age" phenomenon, as descriptions of aura fields goes back for thousands of years. See prana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo device

I seen on TV a device that can take photo of aura? Does it exist? What is this? How does it work? Is it just a normal photo with Photoshop effect added? -- Frap (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably Kirlian photography. It's real, but it doesn't "work". It produces images via a corona discharge effect. There's no evidence that people who claim they see auras see this type of thing, and in fact many plain inanimate objects also produce interesting images with this setup. All it really does is makes pretty pictures. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence does in fact need some work

The definition is lifted straight from a parapsychology dictionary. Not exactly NPOV. I saw another definition from a new age crystal worshipping (whatever) site that described it more of a metaphysical concept. Not suggesting one is better than the other but the opening lead could use some fine tuning. Obviously there is no scientific evidence auras exist, in view of this what would you call it? A concept? It's not a theory of course...And I have no interest in the subject so I won't be arguing any of this and I'm not Wiki savvy enough to suggest how it could be improved. Not sure how I ended up on this page actually. Maybe my aura made me read it....Angry Christian (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - the lead sentence considered by itself isn't balanced - but the very next sentence has that covered. The first sentence defines what an aura is supposed to be by 'believers' - the second one says what science considers to be the case. Overall, I'm not too unhappy about it (and I'm definitely on the 'skeptic' side of the fence). SteveBaker (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)