Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Evidence proves why healers see the 'aura' of

18 posts in this topic

Researchers in Spain have found that many of the individuals claiming to see the aura of people –traditionally called "healers" or "quacks"– actually present the neuropsychological phenomenon known as "synesthesia" (specifically, "emotional synesthesia")

This might be a scientific explanation of their alleged "virtue". In synesthetes, the brain regions responsible for the processing of each type of sensory stimuli are intensely interconnected. This way, synesthetes can see or taste a sound, feel a taste, or associate people with a particular color.

The study was conducted by the University of Granada Department of Experimental Psychology Óscar Iborra, Luis Pastor and Emilio Gómez Milán, and has been published in the prestigious journal Consciousness and Cognition. This is the first time that a scientific explanation is provided on the esoteric phenomenon of the aura, a supposed energy field of luminous radiation surrounding a person as a halo, which is imperceptible to most human beings.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-scientific-evidence-healers-aura-people.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to bookmark this for any topic where someone claims seeing " aura's "......Thank You !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, to be able to experience synesthesia (Chrome spell check needs to learn a new word).

The idea of hearing a smell, seeing a sound, etc. mesmerizes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, not at all surprised though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought crossing my mind.

Just because it is a product of the brain does that make it not real? Or is it just an abnormal yet equally valid way of perceiving things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought crossing my mind.

Just because it is a product of the brain does that make it not real? Or is it just an abnormal yet equally valid way of perceiving things.

Ah, the consciousness vs. brain conundrum.

Truthfully, until consciousness is understood, no, an aspect of it being shown and read as a byproduct of a working brain is not confirmation one way or the other whether the experience is real or "fake". Since, in reality, basically everything we experience in this world (or others you may come across) is a byproduct of a working brain.

I guess it's up to the individual to wonder whether it is intended, or a bug/glitch of the brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the consciousness vs. brain conundrum.

Truthfully, until consciousness is understood, no, an aspect of it being shown and read as a byproduct of a working brain is not confirmation one way or the other whether the experience is real or "fake". Since, in reality, basically everything we experience in this world (or others you may come across) is a byproduct of a working brain.

I guess it's up to the individual to wonder whether it is intended, or a bug/glitch of the brain.

That is exactly why I brought it up. It sparks a very interesting debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can 'see' sound sometimes. usually it has no color but sometimes it's vivid blue or red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Random thought crossing my mind.

Just because it is a product of the brain does that make it not real? Or is it just an abnormal yet equally valid way of perceiving things.

It's real only if the majority of the people experience it say it's real. Funny way to conclude things.

Edited by FlyingAngel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's real only if the majority of the people experience it. Funny way to conclude things.

Sorry but my comprehension skills have been WAY OFF lately for some reason, as well as my sarcasm meter. Double hard since I don't know you guys at all yet being new here.

Are you saying:

1) It is silly to believe that what we perceive at the base/normal level is the only "right" or "real" way. (I'd agree with this)

or

2) Only things that are normal can be considered right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a matter of perception, the colours perceived of the energy field. And speaking entirely philosophically of course perception is our filter, our looking glass, on what consciousness streams to us. All matter of things can shape and manipulate our perception.

Sorry but my comprehension skills have been WAY OFF lately for some reason, as well as my sarcasm meter. Double hard since I don't know you guys at all yet being new here.

Are you saying:

1) It is silly to believe that what we perceive at the base/normal level is the only "right" or "real" way. (I'd agree with this)

or

2) Only things that are normal can be considered right.

Yes and no. Just my opinion though.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but my comprehension skills have been WAY OFF lately for some reason, as well as my sarcasm meter. Double hard since I don't know you guys at all yet being new here.

Are you saying:

1) It is silly to believe that what we perceive at the base/normal level is the only "right" or "real" way. (I'd agree with this)

or

2) Only things that are normal can be considered right.

I cast my vote for #1. I've worked with kids with ADDHD and other "learning" disabiities, and came to understand that while they experienced the world in a different way than most, their experiences had value to themselves & others. If I took the time to try to see things from their perspective, it often led to insights that I would not have had otherwise. Normal is just a state occupied by the majority. Well, if you're a member of the majority, it's not going to bring you a lot of insight or revelation. However, peek into the mind & experiences of someone outside the norm and you might learn something.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a few people can see it

which means only 99% of them are lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but my comprehension skills have been WAY OFF lately for some reason, as well as my sarcasm meter. Double hard since I don't know you guys at all yet being new here.

Are you saying:

1) It is silly to believe that what we perceive at the base/normal level is the only "right" or "real" way. (I'd agree with this)

or

2) Only things that are normal can be considered right.

If the world has 99% of "crazy" people, and you are the only normal person. The entire world would call you crazy while they consider themself "normal". What's real, what's not real, is a matter of perception. In fact, we alone can't decide what's real, what's not, but the majority does.

so a few people can see it

which means only 99% of them are lying?

Lying, nope. Mistaken, misinterpretation, having no knowledge over it, probably. Remember when 99.99% of people said that the sun and other planets orbit around the Earth? Well one man stood up and said otherwise. No, the people didn't lie and they didn't entirely wrong. The logic of their perception led them to that conclusion.

Okay, as of people who see auras. I don't think they lie. Their perception has made them see things that way. Importantly, there must be something that trigger their brain to catch auras. If it's because of a illness, a hallucination, so be it. If it's a perception, then really their brain could interpret things that normal people can't. But before we could find the real cause, it's hard to say that their perception is more or less real than ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take care here. Just because ONE study somewhere was done and published doesn't "prove" anything. The next step in true scientific process would be a peer review of the actual study, searching for flaws in the process (I am sure there were plenty based on the hypothesis). Then the EXACT same study and results would have to be repeated by other independent researchers--the more the better. Then the assertion would only be SUPPORTED, not proven.

We are so easily swayed by the words "a study indicates" (to the delight of advertisers) that we often turn off our intellectual process after those words and stop questioning. In fact, those are the three words that should MOST get your B.S. meter running in overdrive! It's a common joke among the scientific community that the results of a given study will always be skewed toward whomever is most likely to provide the money for the next grant. I would advise any university or college student to take a good scientific research class, or at the very least statistics. You will become a much wiser consumer of "research" and far less likely to be duped into believing that just because a study SEEMS to indicate something, that is the final word.

So, fellow site-members, please be careful when using the words "science" and "proof" (or versions thereof) together. It's more rare to scientifically PROVE something than you may think, as much as you may agree with the assertions made. This is especially true when addressing issues of consciousness and personal experience, which is, by definition, SUBJECTIVE, and extremely difficult to quantify, qualify, or study at all, much less be proven one way or another.

Just a mini-lecture from a concerned long-time scientist with no particular view on this particular subject.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Emmy Grace, you summed up what I wanted to say quite well.

As I recall, synesthesia is a miswiring of the brains ability to interpret things; that doesn't make seeing colors that are attached to unrelated things meaningful.

So far, as I read the article, I have yet to see any "evidence" of anything, just anecdotal results that can be warped to suit the expectations or wants of those who want so badly for "auras" and other things to be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought crossing my mind.

Just because it is a product of the brain does that make it not real? Or is it just an abnormal yet equally valid way of perceiving things.

It would be real but not some esp of course. It would be abnormal and depending on the extent (I don't know how far this color thing would go) it may actually be an invalid way of perceiving. Let me elaborate a little. If, for example, this 'aura' thing works both ways, ie. you see a color that is really emanating from an object/subject and you get an association of mood/personality, then imo, it is an invalid way of perceiving. But, I don't know whether that really happens with synesthetes, even the ones that see colors when musical notes are played, ie. when they see a color (optically), do they get an impression of music ? I don't know if I'm explaining myself right there - I hope it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take care here. Just because ONE study somewhere was done and published doesn't "prove" anything. The next step in true scientific process would be a peer review of the actual study, searching for flaws in the process (I am sure there were plenty based on the hypothesis). Then the EXACT same study and results would have to be repeated by other independent researchers--the more the better. Then the assertion would only be SUPPORTED, not proven.

We are so easily swayed by the words "a study indicates" (to the delight of advertisers) that we often turn off our intellectual process after those words and stop questioning. In fact, those are the three words that should MOST get your B.S. meter running in overdrive! It's a common joke among the scientific community that the results of a given study will always be skewed toward whomever is most likely to provide the money for the next grant. I would advise any university or college student to take a good scientific research class, or at the very least statistics. You will become a much wiser consumer of "research" and far less likely to be duped into believing that just because a study SEEMS to indicate something, that is the final word.

So, fellow site-members, please be careful when using the words "science" and "proof" (or versions thereof) together. It's more rare to scientifically PROVE something than you may think, as much as you may agree with the assertions made. This is especially true when addressing issues of consciousness and personal experience, which is, by definition, SUBJECTIVE, and extremely difficult to quantify, qualify, or study at all, much less be proven one way or another.

Just a mini-lecture from a concerned long-time scientist with no particular view on this particular subject.

Welcome to UM and nice first post.

Truthfully, until consciousness is understood, no, an aspect of it being shown and read as a byproduct of a working brain is not confirmation one way or the other whether the experience is real or "fake". Since, in reality, basically everything we experience in this world (or others you may come across) is a byproduct of a working brain.

You said it better than I would of.

@OP, So a person can train to have such synesthesia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.