Talk:Aura (paranormal)/Archive 5

Differing Beliefs

As someone who has constant experience with seeing visual energy. Not sure exactly how to add information that would be considered factual, so im presenting this section as a general talk area for people who have actual personal experience with this phenomenon to categorize the current beliefs. The encyclopedic utility of this section would be mostly stimulative, thus being in the talk section; as in, to stimulate those who want to list facts about books with contrasting point of views on what an aura is and to help categorize the factual information presented in various books. So to begin the talk, ill give personal experience as a framework for such categorization. The somewhat narcisstic view that auras come off of people, or that people have auras, noted in the article page, from my personal experience, is inaccurate. To say that someone 'has' an aura, like the statement made on the article page that a religous person 'has' a purple aura, is simplistic. Although it is accurate to say that it is a belief of a more simplistic(in relation to auras) belief system, and should be noted as such. Because a persons aura, the energy around them, is the type of energy going into their body at any given time, at any moment an individual will have several colors going into them which will change instantaneously as their environment around them changes. In the beginning of seeing the energy field an individual will see the sterotypical auralike idea thrown around in common parlance. Later this ability turns into a shifting field of colored lines, as various energy transfers through the grid around. I'm not into reading books about auras, as most likely, I know more about the subject matter than the majority who has written. So anyone who can add somefactsto the presentation of auras as a new age belief. By summarizing books. Go for it. Anyone else with personal experience, or the beginnings of the contrasting views presented in books section, please continue. Continuing with categorizing the different perspectives; I think it would be useful to categorize beliefs in auras as either narcisstic(or simplistic), progressive, or energetic. Carlos castanedas egg being the more energetic perspective.(quotes welcome) The definitive lines of energy field, and aura cross over quite a bit. The point of this talk section, i think, is that the only issue here isn't the scienctific proof or non proof of auras, and the belief in them. But also the differing beliefs about them, which are vaguely listed in the second sentence of the article. "This emanation is visualized as an outline of cascading color and may be held to represent soul vibrations, chakric emergence, or a reflection of surrounding energy fields." These topics should have separate sections, with supporting book quotes, etc. As i noted earlier, soul vibrations is the simplisitic view, thus the use of the vague word soul with another vague word vibrations.(vague in that usage at least). These simplistic views tend to add a somewhat quasi scientific section to their simple aura outline, such as auras lining up to frequencies of light, or some currently measurable stimuli. The progressive view could be summarized as saying that auras are somehow special, and having them in some colors means you are progressing in some way, in some belief system. The specificity of progression would differ in different belief systems. Third perspective being the energetic perspective, being that every life reflects energy from the surrounding area constantly, with their aura. And these energies are in fact, translatable to the way we feel. With the intensity of seeing for example, red, and the way in which it is seen, directly applicable to the amount of heat a person is feeling inside. Ah, im too lazy now, but i will come back and add castanade quotes later. As well as flesh out the simplistic section.

If you can reliably and "constantly" see this - then why don't you apply to win the $1,000,000 paranormal challenge? I'm really interested to know. If I had this ability, I'd certainly be out there collecting the money! It should be really simple for you to do this. Is it that you don't need a million dollars - or that you don't wish the world to know (well, you kinda blew that by telling us)? Perhaps you didn't know that this prize was out there? I can't understand why someone who is convinced that they have this extraordinary ability isn't willing to do that. Please tell us why - I really want to know. SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[I'm a different writer by the way!] Many spiritual people lack materialism. Sadly it's also the case that Randi is so practiced that he often debunks things I have direct experiential knowledge of. I'll give _him_ a million dollars if he can worm his way round that to _my_ satisfaction though...do you think he'll take it up, or just not bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.93.105 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to see visual energy all my life also. Most people can-it's called sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) "We are so much better than you that we dont need to prove it" Great logic. Its wishful thinking people. If you really had this ability, you would exploit it. 98.135.17.4 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Aura is Pseudoscience??

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more gibberish than pseudoscience. Without trying to remember my university login for ebscohost, I've got [1], [2], [3] from Google Scholar. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get any of these. CSICOP isn't a reliable (unbiased science) source, and the other two didn't resolve to either a source or a characterization of the aura with decisive data. Can you help? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself 'From your recent post on Category talk:Pseudoscience, pseudoscience is "assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not." Many AIDS denialists aura advocates make "assertions about [AIDS that auras] claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.". So yes, it fits the category. Please stop with your pointy disruption.' (quoting from AIDS Denialism)Verbal chat 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All 3 articles associate auras with psuedoscience. If you are unable to read the American Association of Physics Teachers one, I'm sorry, but that's not my fault. Two other sources:

• HOW PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS GETAWAY WITH IT. By: Morain, Lloyd. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Apr2008, Vol. 65 Issue 2, p141-150, 10p; (AN 32898665)
• Alternative therapies. By: Goldemberg, Robert L., DCI, 10964819, Oct97, Vol. 161, Issue 4

Together that is > 0 sources, and combined with the argument above, I don't see removing the category as being warranted. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that aura's are gibberish, is it really established that "they claim to be scientific" because I've never had that impression - rather it is purely a non-scientific new age concept that has failed scientific scrutiny of existing. --85.167.100.190 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An explanation that could be scientifically tested

All humans and animals have a social space around the body and they pay naturally attention to the space right beside their body. For a lively person with wide attentive movements this space can be very large, tens of centimeters, but for a negligient non-sporty and non-social person the space around the body which they pay attention to can be very small, less than a centimeter. This instinctual attention around the body is called an aura. Since all ways of living are not equally good for health, not equally lively, you can see from the aura how likely the other person is to run into big difficulties and harmful accidents in one's life: where there is no attention in one's life one cannot protect oneself, not even against death. The body is the way we live, via it we do whatever we do and in its gestures we express what we feel about life. So in the state of the body, of our attention in connection with the body we can see how alive and strong each person is.InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article tlak pages are for contributing to the article, not discussing the article's subject. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A heartfelt apology...

I should hugely apologize for my extreme idiocy and absent-minded rudeness; I had signed up an account here, and reading through (well, more like skimming through) barely half of all that I should have read before I took any action,... I took action. I had previously been under the impression that each of these article pages were the work of a vast many, and had no idea they were works of individual people. Assuming this, like a moron, I had posted up an external link on your very nicely done page (and some others for which I should apologize to their respective creators for) without asking. Someone named Consumed Crustacean had taken the links down, and explained things to me in polite detail, that I should come to you first and discuss the addition of such links, here, on a talk page, as is apparently explained in the parts of the orientative reading, that I neglected to fully read through when I first opened my account here. Had I done so in the first place, my rude mistake could have been avoided. (There's still much for me to read, I'm ashamed to say... still reading it now.)

I feel like a complete @$$ and I'm really very sorry.

As it turns out, according to the discussion on the WikiProject Occult discussion page, the article I wrote detailing a technique to be able to see the aura with the unaided eye was not acceptable for use here due to the article's whereabouts (anyone can write about anything there without verifiability), the fact that every thousand viewers on that page makes writers earn a few pennies (unrealized fully by me until recently), and that it's "original research".

Once more, my deeply sincere apologies. It was never my intention to overstep my bounds and scribble over anyone's art/hard work.

I'm very sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

actually, I think a technique to see auras is definately worth mentioning here, as by far most of the people are in fact able to see them if they only knew how to do it. Richard Webster wrote a book that worked pretty well for me. 85.94.255.128 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aura Photography

Aura photography redirects here, but there is no information on the topic. Can this be rectified? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably redirect to Kirlian photography instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I made it so it redirects to the relevant section. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - testing

I'm getting mildly frustrated at the restoration of clearly POV text, such as "scare quotes" and editorial words like "only" 2 out of 5 successes. An encyclopedia article should not draw conclusions for the reader, nor should it lead the reader to conclusions. Just present the facts. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, neutrality was reverted without valid explanation. I see another editor removed the word "only". The scare quotes are gone, that's good. I'll fix up the awkward sentence about "which contained which". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are introducing POV by omission, this is not acceptable. Verbal chat 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no POV except maybe to agree with yours (that this is pseudoscience). I omitted nothing except editorializing (such as the word "only"). Your edits, on the other hand, are drawing conclusions or introducing redundant/unnecessary terms (like "incorrectly"). Thus far you have not addressed my specific complaints. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way is the aura intrinsically "pseudoscience"? - for this to be the case, most notable presentations of the idea ought to set out to appear scientific, or be the result of bad science. Otherwise, Father Christmas is pseudoscience. Also, please explain the removed pic, Verbal, and make a slight stab at civility, thanks. Unexplained revert = vandalism.Redheylin (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientists and those critical of paranormal activity deny claims of the existence of auras, labelling them pseudoscience.

The above weaselry needs a reference. Please cite whom you mean by "scientists"? Folks who do not believe in Santa? Redheylin (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aura imaging

  Guy Coggins claims to have invented an aura camera. I am quite skeptical towards this, is this actually auras it reads? 

http://www.auraphoto.com/products/auracam.shtml

"Each of our products uses a hand sensor, seen on the image to the right. A person would put their left (or right) hand onto the hand sensors. This in turn would allow a particular product to measure the standardized biofeedback parameter. The hand sensor itself has various contact points on them; these are connected with certain organs of the body, as well as measure the electromagnetic field of the user and can thus deliver information about the energetic and auric qualities of that person. The hand sensor can also measure deviations in temperature, humidity and static electricity in the environment and the person, allowing for greater precision in data gathering. These data parameters are then projected as a radiant, colored aura field around the body on either a Polaroid photo or onto a computer or television screen. In no time thereafter, a brilliant color photo or computer print out can be presented to the user. "

Maninaboat (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably more suitable for the Reference Desk than for an article talk page. This method is just reading galvanic skin response and making a pretty picture out of it, nothing too exciting. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

AURA - Alliance for Unveiling and Researching Anomalies. AURA Paranormal Investigations is located in St. Petersburg, FL. We strive to unveil, research and document anomalous events including Spirits & Hauntings, UFO's & Abductions, Big Foot & other mysterious creatures in a serious, professional and scientific manner. www.auraparanormal.com