Jump to content

Talk:Aura (paranormal)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Consumed Crustacean (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 27 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk article was duplicated from aura.

Removed from the article

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)

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.
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)


List of persons reported to be able to see auras

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

Deleted link

I put up a link on how to see an aura and it was promptly deleted as being commercial with a threat to be banned to boot. Nice! The article is on line and open to the public- no charge. It seems interesting that the skeptics rule the roost here. So what's that all about.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aura_(paranormal)&oldid=21980699"