Talk:Aura (paranormal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk article was duplicated from aura.

I just removed some of the article because the language it used was POV from the New Age perspective (i.e, it assumed that auras were real). Feel free to put it back if you can cite a source and reword it to be NPOV. --218.101.24.11 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Aura explanation 3 Synesthesia 4 List of persons reported to be able to see auras 5 Older origins of aura beliefs? 6 Linking to Kosha (Yoga) 7 Auras as audio frequencies stupidity remove 8 Differing Beliefs 9 Good job so far 10 Proposal For External Link 11 poi 12 James Randi specific test removed

[edit] 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)

[edit] Aura explanation

- - The aura means nothing more than the living being's electromagnetic field. It's presence has been proven long ago. The only problem is: there is no technology to measure it. - - Everything has an aura, even objects, since a material is both of nature: atomic and electromagnetic. Like photons. - - People, who can see auras, describe it as a mixture of colors. -

1. The existance of Aura in this sense has not been proved

2. Any electromagnetic field that the body is caperble of producing is detecterble using are current technology

3.the claim that everything has Aura is not backed by evidence. Also can the person claiming explain neutrons?

4.Some people who cliam to see Auras describe them as only being one colourGeni 10:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, isn't aura also the latin word for air?

More occult information welcome?

I understand the reasoning for taking out the above text, and agree with it. I think the criticism of James Randi should also be taken out of this page. If needed it could be added to a page on Randi, if one exists. My question, though, is this. I am one of those people that can see auras. I would like to add to the article some effects that I see which are also supported by other sources, such as multiple aura colors, auras around objects near a person but not in physical contact with them and various aura interconnections and after-image effects. It should be made clear that there is no scientific foundation for these observations, but it should be reported nonetheless. Also, in researching auras for my own reasons, I have run across information that may be helpful to others, such as aura color attributions, methods for learning to view auras, and their possible connection to what occultists term the "etheric body". However, I am new to wikipedia and don't know the conventions here. --Godshatter 08:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As someone with no official standing or connection with Wikipedia policy-making, I'm going to put in my two cents. I don't think you should describe your own experiences here—that's the ultimate "POV" material. If you want to share on the Web what you have to say about auras, you could make your own Web site. Then I think an "external link" with an NPOV title such as "Discussion of auras by a person who claims to see them" would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I also think you should claim Randi's prize. :-) —JerryFriedman 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will look for some references to the phenomena I've seen in the books I have, and add it if I can cite a source for it. I also think the wording about Randi's prize needs to be reworked a bit. If people can see auras around inanimate objects (as I can at times), then the test proposed in the article may not work. Also, the tone is more POV than NPOV. I would love to make a million-plus by winning the prize, but I'd hate to lose it on a test that made too many invalid assumptions. --Godshatter 21:18, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synesthesia

Is there any reason I shouldn't move the sentences about Liszt's, Beethoven's, and Schubert's synesthesia to synesthesia? —JerryFriedman 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

_____________________

The information is useful in both places (aura and synesthesia). The reference to musicians seeing colors while hearing music needs to remain in the aura section because it is one of the most common ways that non-psychic professionals will typically go on record as saying they are seeing colors. These colors appear in the form of auras, and they also typically accompany other sensory stimuli, so this reference indeed belongs both in the aura section and in the synesthesia section. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do the colors really appear in the form of auras? Mine don't—they appear in my "mind's eye" like things that I imagine, not around physical objects the way auras are described. But of course other synesthetes' experiences might be different from mine. If you have a reference to people who said they saw auras somehow (around the instruments?) instead of just saying that a certain note or timbre has a certain color, putting that in the article would make sense to me. Otherwise, I think the connection between synesthesia and auras needs to be explained.

(to answer the above)Seeing colors in the minds eye, would represent absorbed energy into oneself, whereas a person actually seeing colors, is seeing things which are outside of them. A person able to see inner colors, is in touch with themself. A person able to see the energy pattern of the world around them, is attuned to their environment(higher stage of enmeshment, if one imagines a wire mesh, as the energy grid).

One of the links in the article, Auras in the "Skeptic's dictionary", ends with a speculation that at least some people who see auras may actually be experiencing synesthesia, seeing their knowledge about a person or object in another form. Is that the connection? —JerryFriedman 18:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Auras are frequently seen in the mind's eye, and are often seen in a variety of different ways through what is known as high sense perception. High sense perception is the term coined by Dr. Shafica Karagula, and mentioned in Karagula's book "Breakthrough to Creativity." It describes the way information is often perceived by some sensitive people, including medical intuitives. Just as there are many ways that everyone sees auras, there also appear to be a number of different ways that people experience synesthesia, including some people seeing colors at the same time as they are experiencing a different sense. The connection between auras and synesthesia is thus based on the way that additional information is experienced by certain people. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I tried to incorporate this information in a logical order and an NPOV way. I leave it to you to correct anything I misunderstood (if I did, no offense, I was just editing boldly), and to decide whether to add Breakthrough to Creativity to the references section. I really think, though, that this article needs only one example of synesthesia, if that. —JerryFriedman 17:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll also leave it to you, or to anyone who knows, to correct the spelling of "dycanide" or "dicynanin". The y's are in different places. —JerryFriedman 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a beautiful job with your recent edits to the aura and synesthesia pages. They are both quite improved! I've just checked the spelling for "dicyanin" and will see the spelling is checked. —Cynthia_Sue_Larson 06:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad it worked out to be useful. —JerryFriedman 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of persons reported to be able to see auras

Just for references.--Jondel 02:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Edgar Cayce
• Joseph Ostrom added by Lottie 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older origins of aura beliefs?

I wonder if anyone knows anything about origins of the aura belief. Most New Age beliefs I'm familiar with go back to concepts from old mythologies, philosophies or belief systems. But I haven't found anything relating to "aura". Can anyone help me out on this? AdamDobay 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Kosha (Yoga)

Aura is the visible part of Kosha of yoga anatomy.

[edit] Auras as audio frequencies stupidity remove

I have removed the following paragraph from the article, because, frankly, it feels like who wrote it had no idea what they are talking about. If the frequency of a dark blue aura is 200 Hz, it would be a sound (220Hz is A in the second octave), not a colour invisible to the naked eye. These are not even high frequencies, as humans can perceive sound waves between about 20Hz and 20000Hz. See Audio Frequency for more. AdamDobay 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the strongest evidence that Auras exist comes from Dr. Valerie Hunt who correlated high frequency sounds with the observations of several aura readers. After doing a fourier frequncy analysis here are her results:

Aura Colour

Frequency Hz

Dark Blue

200

Green

300

Yellow

400

Red

500

Orange

600

Light Blue

700

Violet

800

Cream, White

1000

Golden

1400

• Arrr, sound and electromagnetic waves are completely seperate. I don't know what the devil you're talking about. I support keeping this crap out, though, since it lacks verifiability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the decimal point was in the wrong place, like maybe if it was converted from different units of measure? --Classic8uranus 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Good job so far

A sincere thank you to all who have contributed to this article. I find it to be an interesting subject.

That being said, I would like to note my surprize in seeing such a short article paired with such a long discussion page. Geez people, quit talking so much and dish out some information instead.

Also in case you didn't know, and I'm actually trying to be helpful here, the proper way to cite references is to use reference tags. This involves placing a cited source after the statement it pertains to, inside of two <ref> tags. Then under the References section you place a single (self closing) tag <references />.

Example:

This machine doohicky can purportedly photograph Auras.<ref>Super cool book</ref><ref>Neato website</ref>

References

<references />

Thank you for the help. I've added some info from a couple of books I have, and have added footnotes and a "Notes" section at the bottom of the page for them. Godshatter 07:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal For External Link

Would like to propose the following for an external link - Yogi Philosophy - The Human Aura Smithville 00:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] poi

The image of a person using glow-in-the-dark poi sticks isn't an actual artists interpretation of an aura, and isn't 100% applicable to this page. 66.41.66.213 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a very beautiful image, but has nothing to do with this subject, so it's gone. A kirlian photography image would be more appropriate, even though it too would have nothing to do with auras, but they are at least claimed to be images of them. -- Fyslee 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi specific test removed

The test given conflicts with the writings of Robert Bruce, so would not be valid as a test for the validity of auras. Godshatter 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)