DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**rushiddink** · 04-15-2006, 04:34 AM

Hi Chris,

You seem to have a rather scientific and rational approach to the subject. Your argument that auric sight is similar, if not equivalent to, retinal fatigue is a good theory. However, it seems to me, the arguement as to whether people really see auras or see visual illusions created by fatigue and psychosomatic desires can't really be proven one way or another. Hey zyzyx,

I donâ€™t intentionally hold a scientific or rational approach to this subject, but due to knowledge I have of the eye and brain, I canâ€™t ignore the similarities between what people to perceive as auras and naturally occurring phenomena due to our biological structure.
I think this might possibly be proved, there has been a number of studies regarding perception of auras. Although these studies do not attempt to prove the reality of auras, or discover the mechanics behind them, they test the consistency of seeing auras through a series of tests.
I think it should be possible to get indirect evidence of auras, even if we currently lack the scientific means to see them directly.

This is because science and scientific fact are based upon empirically observed data. Science has to observe something, usually many documented times, before it is considered scientifically valid. The downfall to this approach is something is false until it shown to be true in repeated, documented cases. So, according to science a plane wouldn't fly prior to it's invention, when really planes could always fly we just didn't know how to make them. I agree with the intention of the above, although I would differ in that things are not false until proven true, they are simply not considered at all. Such as a scientist must provide evidence for a hypothesis, else we just donâ€™t concern ourselves with it. This isnâ€™t the same as saying it is false or not possible, we simply do not have the data to say either way.

I'm a mathematician myself. In mathematics we spend a great deal of time on the idea of 'proof'. In order to prove that something is true, one must eliminate even the slightest possibility that it is false.

Since we have no empirical measure of esoteric qualities, such as auric sight, we cannot prove them to be false. We can conjecture and even formulate plausible theories, but not prove them false. Likewise, we can't prove that auric sight is a real phenomenon because, as you point out, it could simply be a physical phenomenon. I agree with this. It is in no way my intention to disprove auric sight as being valid or true. I am just seeking answers, and I just canâ€™t ignore things such as there being biological causes which near exactly match phenomenon which is taken as esoteric or occult.
Even if auras are proved to be a peculiarity of sight, it does not necessarily make the information we can gain from them useless. It might simply be that the forces/ideas behind the colours are manifested in another way than the auras we associate them with.

04-15-2006, 04:34 AM	#11
rushiddink Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 444 Senior Member	Hi Chris, You seem to have a rather scientific and rational approach to the subject. Your argument that auric sight is similar, if not equivalent to, retinal fatigue is a good theory. However, it seems to me, the arguement as to whether people really see auras or see visual illusions created by fatigue and psychosomatic desires can't really be proven one way or another. Hey zyzyx, I donâ€™t intentionally hold a scientific or rational approach to this subject, but due to knowledge I have of the eye and brain, I canâ€™t ignore the similarities between what people to perceive as auras and naturally occurring phenomena due to our biological structure. I think this might possibly be proved, there has been a number of studies regarding perception of auras. Although these studies do not attempt to prove the reality of auras, or discover the mechanics behind them, they test the consistency of seeing auras through a series of tests. I think it should be possible to get indirect evidence of auras, even if we currently lack the scientific means to see them directly. This is because science and scientific fact are based upon empirically observed data. Science has to observe something, usually many documented times, before it is considered scientifically valid. The downfall to this approach is something is false until it shown to be true in repeated, documented cases. So, according to science a plane wouldn't fly prior to it's invention, when really planes could always fly we just didn't know how to make them. I agree with the intention of the above, although I would differ in that things are not false until proven true, they are simply not considered at all. Such as a scientist must provide evidence for a hypothesis, else we just donâ€™t concern ourselves with it. This isnâ€™t the same as saying it is false or not possible, we simply do not have the data to say either way. I'm a mathematician myself. In mathematics we spend a great deal of time on the idea of 'proof'. In order to prove that something is true, one must eliminate even the slightest possibility that it is false. Since we have no empirical measure of esoteric qualities, such as auric sight, we cannot prove them to be false. We can conjecture and even formulate plausible theories, but not prove them false. Likewise, we can't prove that auric sight is a real phenomenon because, as you point out, it could simply be a physical phenomenon. I agree with this. It is in no way my intention to disprove auric sight as being valid or true. I am just seeking answers, and I just canâ€™t ignore things such as there being biological causes which near exactly match phenomenon which is taken as esoteric or occult. Even if auras are proved to be a peculiarity of sight, it does not necessarily make the information we can gain from them useless. It might simply be that the forces/ideas behind the colours are manifested in another way than the auras we associate them with.
	Quote