View topic - How about a section specifically for Auras and how to see?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » PsiPog.net Ideas » How about a section specifically for Auras and how to see?

Goto page Previous  1, 2

How about a section specifically for Auras and how to see?
Author	Message
Posted on Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:51 am
CD27 Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 125	if you would read my theory, you would see an extremely good use for the aura. it's more powerful than you think. as for the proof, you are completely correct, it is completely evidence, which still does alot. as our entire scientific community finds overwhelming evidence to be proof. cd
Back to top
Posted on Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:22 am
batworz Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 128	science can't prove everything, people who think that are fools.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:10 am
Peebrain Site Admin Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 716	Research into auras suggest that they don't exist. Now, does that mean that people who see auras are crazy? No, not at all. Pete A. Sanders, in his book You Are Psychic, offers a kickass explaination, that I personally agree with. His idea is that the mind receives information, and then if that mind is wired to really like visual things, then it can show the information to the conscious mind via auras. But if your mind isn't wired for visual things, then it might deliver the information another way. For example, I personally am more of an auditory kind of guy. Which is why I write articles on communicating with your subconscious, and do a lot of internal mental dialog. The voices in my head aren't real, in a sense that they aren't coming from an external source. The voices are a way my mind delivers the psychic information to me. For people who are more visual, they don't like having voices in their head. They understand better if they see it in front of them. So the mind takes the same psychic information, and creates a visual stimulation. We label this as the "aura". The aura isn't a physical object that is floating out in space, just like the voices aren't really hidden voices flying through the air - they are both created by the mind. This is why you find that when two aura-vision people read a person, they will pick up different colors, and different textures. If they were both seeing the same aura from an external source, then they would both see the same thing. But (in Sanders' theory) since the aura is created in the mind, the final image a person sees is simply the mind's attempt to explain the psychic information in visual format - which will be different for each person. Get it? It's the theory I happen to like. Sanders also talks about other types of people, who receive psychic information other ways. His book kicks ass. And the reason we don't put up aura vision articles is because I haven't had an author that focuses on the contradictory nature of the normal explaination for aura-vision. Regular aura vision, that you read about in New Age books, contradicts itself a lot. If an article is going to be posted, I don't want it to simply copy the same contradictory information - I want it to make sense. ~Sean
Back to top
Posted on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:59 pm
Vladimir Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 666	I believe the effect is called "synaethesia", Peebrain. Overlapping of senses. In this case, vision and the "psychic sense" overlap. Possibly (and probably) due to the brain having trouble dealing with the new sensory input which comes from developing sensitivity. This results in being able to see energy, which means seeing the energetic "crap" around people, among other things. This is what I believe anyway.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:36 am
batworz Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 128	Quote: the final image a person sees is simply the mind's attempt to explain the psychic information in visual format - which will be different for each person. lol that should be a good experiment. But I don't know of anyone else where I live who can see auras. If I say that to anyone, they'll just laugh.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:04 am
Red_Devil Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 136	It's basically what peebs already stated, but this is my theory... Aura viewing is done through the perception of the so called colors. If you read through the oppinions of several persons, you'll see that each of them has a different meaning for different colors. What one might perceive as red, meaning sickness (for example), another might perceive it as blue, it heavily depends on the viewer. Imo, aura viewing and reading is done through both body language and psychic information being interpreted by your brain, and sometimes it can be just light playing pranks on you. Try it, develop it, and who knows, formulate a theory and present it here! It's always fun. Sorry for any typos.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:23 am
CD27 Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 125	batworz wrote: science can't prove everything, people who think that are fools. exactly. science can't prove everything, because there is so much that we do not know; therefore, i do not trust science as much as everyone else does. they call things "laws" simply because they can't figure out how to get past something, only because they don't know how. and then they say it's "impossible". that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard..."well, because we can't produce a test that can break through this, it must be impossible"...that is so stupid (no offense to those who think that way). therefore, i try to see everything in an open-minded way and i can't stand it when someone goes about saying "oh well that sounds like Bull", "That's impossible", and "there is no such thing...". i can't stand that, its really pushes my buttons, because there is so much they don't know, and they should be open to that fact and should therefore be open-minded. saying that something is "impossible", "No such thing", and "bull" is not only completely stupid and idiotic, but it's highly selfish. i don't like people like that, and i don't stand for them. moreover, i don't waste my time with them. i won't sit here adn spend all day trying to explain to someone how "legit" i am, or how much i know. if they don't believe me, they don't ave to and they can try NOT post about how much "bull" it is. if they can't hand for hand prove to me that i'm wrong, i don't want to hear it, because you won't change my mined, it's already made up. sorry, that was kinda off-topic i think i'll end now. cd
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:05 am
SunTzu Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Posts: 126	Logical Fallacy. You cannot claim something DOES exist because you cannot prove it's non-existance. The existence of psionics is proven (not the methodology). The existance of auras is not.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:13 pm
CD27 Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 125	even still, saying that it's not real and abandoning it is even dumber. why abandon something like that simply because we have yet to discover the equipment to test it with? if Einstein were to abandon his stuff simply because he didn't have the equipment the world would be really really crappy. we'd probably be under german rule, we'd not know as much about the universe as we do now (which is still very little). my point is, i dont' trust science to my life, not at all. i don't trust science to the extent of proclaiming it true at every instant. yea, of course there are things that seem to be constant and unbreakable, but i assure you, if it was created at any time in the past, i don't care how complex it is, it CAN be destroyed or manipulated. dispite all of these "laws" we have surrounding it. now, for what you said: "Logical Fallacy. You cannot claim something DOES exist because you cannot prove it's non-existance. The existence of psionics is proven (not the methodology). The existance of auras is not." on the contrary, how can you prove something does NOT exist simply because you cannot prove it does exist? in other words, simply because you have alot of supportive information on one opposing scientific revelation, how can you suppose that there is even more data amongst that huge mass of knowledge that we do not know that would support the other? you don't, therefore it should not be dismissed EVER. cd
Back to top
Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:57 pm
SunTzu Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Posts: 126	Read again, you have twisted my words. I did not say that auras did not exist, I have said there there is NO proof that they _do_ exist. Because of this, they are not going to get a section at psipog. I do not trust science to the point of blindness. I do experiments of my own, as should every good psion, and I have still seen no proof of auras, despite the fact that my first teacher used to use them all the time to help people that came to him. Scientific Laws are laws, simply because they have not yet been broken. There is a reason a law can stand unbroken for a prolonged period of time, and this is usually because it is true (admittedly not always). I, however, referred to no scientific law in my previous posting. Your question of "can we have a section for auras" has been answered. This topic is locked.
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2

PsiPog.net Forum Index » PsiPog.net Ideas » How about a section specifically for Auras and how to see?