Afterimage vs Aura - Proof

[Roo]

Ive just been reading a little on aura's and have become interested in the argument over whether we see an afterimage or aura around colours. Whats suprising to me is that the argument continues and yet it seems so simple to test.

Afterimage/aura information:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/tutori...BulletinID=249

I just read this:
http://www.astraldynamics.com/tutori...BulletinID=246

The brow centre receives a more subtle type of energy than light. This type of energy can only be received by the brow centre (often called the third eye or brow chakra) when it is active and tuned in to receive that type of energy.

an aura is definitely not any type of light.

If the third eye receives the energy we interperate as an aura and the energy isnt any type of light then it would only be natural that we wouldnt need a really bright room to see aura's?
Lets say you get an orange and a yellow coloured object and place them in a dimly lit room. Due to the lack of light the human eye wont be able to tell the colours apart, they'll both probably appear grey. Now if the aura argument is correct then it shouldnt matter that the human eye cant pick out the colour, because the third eye doesnt work on the colour as such (light), it just recieves energy from the object. If however you dont see the colours expected aura then its a good possibility that your seeing an afterimage and not an aura.

Anyone tried this?

>Roo

I see colored auras in a dimly lit room around people and in their chakra areas with their clothes on. So, I'm either crazy or I'm seeing auras. Ah, but proving it...there's the rub.

[Apex]

The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it to anyone but yourself with our current technology. You especially can't prove it to someone who refuses to believe.

[Roo]

Im aware proving it to others is impossible, this was more a "prove to yourself" type thing.
The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Thanks for the reply

>Roo

[Apex]

The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Yes this is true. This (among other things) helped me make the initial leap into this sort of material.

[Chris]

I think what is making me more sceptical of these things is the increasing number of experiments I read about where either a person claims to see auras or can detect ‘energy’ from living beings. Yet, every single one of these experiments has failed to show anything.
The format of the experiments can take one of many forms, such as:

People stand in patricians visible to the person reading auras; they state they can see all auras. Next, the patricians are closed, and the person says they can see auras above the patrician top. Next random selections of the people behind the patricians move. The person reading auras simply has to state which patricians they can see auras above (this could work in the dark as mentioned above).
Another experiment I read about involved heads being used, then lights dimmed and some of the heads being replaced with fake heads.
Every experiment I’ve read they get it dreadfully wrong.

Other experiments take the form of people holding their hands under the ‘psychics’ hands, and the physic detects their energy flow. The psychic is blindfolded and hands are randomly placed under those of the psychic (care being taken so wind or heat from close proximity does not give this away).
The psychic simply has to state when they can detect living energy flow, once again, the results are appallingly bad.

I’m not attempting to change opinions, or state that energy and auras don’t exist. But I guess it just makes me doubt and disheartens me when every experiment I’ve read of fails, even when the psychic claims they can detect energy and auras.
These forms of experiments don’t require us to understand the science behind auras or energy, but they could prove auras/energy have an existence.

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs. Such as all the experiments to date failing.
proving these things in a close group of friends is also not really sufficient. The power of suggestion is greater than any of us know. For example, if you have a friend who really believes in this. Chat to them on MSN, then both focus on each other. One is going to ‘project’ to their friend, waving their hands to prove it. The other simply has to focus and wait. But suggestion already enters here due to the friend knowing what to expect, and if belief and relaxation is great enough, both parties will believe one actually projected to the other etc. I know this is a simple example, but time and again I see things which can be interpreted in such a non-paranormal way.

I just don’t understand why the gurus don’t go out and attempt to prove these things either way once and for all. Yes scientists might be sceptical, but gaining 100% on such aura/energy tests time and time again will start to make people notice etc.

[Chris]

Im aware proving it to others is impossible, this was more a "prove to yourself" type thing.
The thing about the test i described is that if you know what colours you should be seeing or would expect to see, it means you cant mistake normal brain activity or afterimage as an aura. For instance if you look at a bright light the afterimage can stay in your vision for quite a while, especially if you then enter a dimly lit area or close your eyes. When you know the aura you should be seeing you can simply disregard this, neurons firing etc etc.

Thanks for the reply

>Roo

But why is proving this to other impossible? We don't have to state the science behind auras, but just a person can repeatedly produce the correct results.
For example. Get someone to place 5 coloured cloth in a pitch black room. You go into the room and simply state what colour each cloth is. This would be significant proof. The experiment could be repeaded n'th times with random cloth colours and placements etc.

As stated above though, every similar experiment to date has failed :\.

[Apex]

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs.

Our reality is our beliefs, to almost a complete extent.

[Chris]

I am also of the mind that ‘proving it to yourself’ is an inherently flawed way of proving the existence of these phenomena. It’s been shown time and time again that belief can become manifest to oneself. For example, if I really try and believe I see ‘shadow people’ out of the corner of my eyes, over time, I will start to interpret movements in the corner as shadow people etc.
We simply start to see what we force our brain over time to interpret in the way our belief dictates.
We might see these things, but it doesn’t give them any reality outside of our beliefs.

Our reality is our beliefs, to almost a complete extent.

I could concede this if the world we lived in wasn't so inflexible to our beliefs. The 'physical' universe is pretty much consistent from observer to observer, well I'll say is consistent, but each observer might interpret situations differently.
I just can't rid myself of the doubt that if the physical universe was just the sum of all beliefs, then we wouldn't have a world like we do now. Science was a pretty much minority belief which had to be hidden for hundreds of years - the dominant belief at that time was a world based on scripture. If belief had such an effect on reality, how did the universe transform from a religious based one, to the objective universe based on science we see about us today. Surely the overriding belief of hundreds of millions would have stifled any changes a few hundred might manifest?
The other option is the universe just is, and belief doesn't change it, and science just discovers it as-is.
There is so much that points to this, and so little that points to the belief reality is based upon belief - that I can't personally ignore it.
New babies not indoctrinated are very much governed by the rules of this reality - but they are belief free so should be able to do amazing feats?
Placebo effects - interesting studies which blocked the brains pain receptors found out that even placebo effects failed to work in such circumstances. This means that placebo might have no route in 'mind over matter', but belief can cause the body to manufacture natural chemicals/neurotransmitters based upon the stimulus.
There are countless examples of ‘reality’ not budging to our personal beliefs.

So yes, while we perceive our reality through our beliefs, beliefs in themselves seem to have little to no effect on reality as a whole. This is what I meant. I.e. I can make myself belief something to the extent my brain starts overlaying it on reality – but all that has changed is my perception – reality remains unchanged.

[Roo]

But why is proving this to other impossible? We don't have to state the science behind auras, but just a person can repeatedly produce the correct results.

Being able to repeatedly produce the correct results, although a major boost for the aura theory, doesnt prove the existence of aura's. Science for instance wouldn't conclude that aura's must exist from an experiment where a person can guess coloured cloths in the dark. Scientists would likely find a large amount of other possibilities that could also account for this ability... And so ultimately its hard, if not impossible to directly prove that "aura's exist".

I’m not attempting to change opinions, or state that energy and auras don’t exist. But I guess it just makes me doubt and disheartens me when every experiment I’ve read of fails, even when the psychic claims they can detect energy and auras.

Agreed completely.. but its the same for OBE's and astral projection also. I know a great deal is being done to try and prove that OBE's are a real phenomena, but if we're led to believe that here with us now are great people capable of having OBE's at will, then surely we wouldnt be completely insane in thinking that these people would also be capable of proving their ability. The playing card experiment for one has been attempted by possibly hundreds of people, why then do we not see better hit rates?

Im on the fence with this, im neither a skeptic nor a believer, im simply an open minded person who's had some strange experiences in the past and wants to dig deeper.

>Roo