bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
I went ahead and drafted that Bhovian atomic model for you—mostly because it serves as a perfect example of how "official" theories often fall apart under scrutiny... regardless of how the kids end up perceiving the concept. For them, it’ll just be little clouds where there's a higher or lower chance of finding an electron... which basically means those rigid, precise electronic orbits are getting tossed out the window in every interpretation, no matter what grade level they're in.
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
So, look—to me, "official science" is just the stuff you pick up through formal institutions... like what they drill into you in a university lecture hall. But unofficial science? That’s the deep dive you have to take entirely on your own. Since everyone isn't coming from the same academic background, we aren't all going to be on the same page regarding the second part... though I guess if you all went to the same Ivy League school, you might actually get it...
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
So where exactly are people supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime—you know, while we’re all just waiting around for the education system to actually catch up and create new majors? I mean, it’s not like this stuff can be widely available to everyone until it finally makes its way into the official university curricula...
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
And what if you’ve got more than one authority figure digging into the exact same topic?...
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
You really think that guy didn't apply basic scientific principles just because he has a PhD?
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
Oh, so we could just go, "Hey, ask the patient what they were doing before the psychosis hit and then draw a conclusion from that"?
And compare that to how other psychiatrists actually conduct research...
Would anyone consider that a legitimate scientific approach?
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
Whether you call it "psychosis triggered by rising Kundalini" or "Kundalini syndrome"... whatever... it doesn't matter...
If this is happening to a massive number of patients, does that prove Kundalini is real?
Apple fell.
Apple fell.
Apple fell.
...Is there some force behind why the Apple fell?
Do you need a measurement to conclude that gravity exists?
Quote:
>bluemason3 says:
Example? |
For instance, when talking about brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two... and it looks like you did the same to player number one (that Indian guy)... and honestly, I couldn't pull another name out of a hat if I tried. I'm not even looking it up online (though it's definitely out there).
An interesting example from the fringes of electrical engineering would be the effect of electromagnetic fields on human perception, specifically how those fields can induce "paranormal" experiences.
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
Well, damn... you just nuked his entire life's work, haha.
Look, I don't really care about all that murky "chakra" nonsense—what matters to me is the bottom line: "he proved increased brain activity via EEG" and the shift in brain wave frequencies...
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
So yeah, look at these two guys—they both reach the exact same conclusions... any third party could easily step into a lab and prove the same thing...
Plus, I've been looking into this stuff outside of their specific scope and ended up reaching the same conclusions myself...
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
You can't just make up EEG data.
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
I can't, but I assume it follows the logic of increased electrical activity as measured by an EEG.
bluemason3 said:Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.
Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.
There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."
Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.
There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.
I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.
There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.
The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.
That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.
Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.
No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.
That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.
As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.
You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.
Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...
An example?
Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.
Any examples?
Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma
I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.
Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.
Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)
I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).
Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?
Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
Cause and effect
I don't know, give that Indian guy a call and ask him yourself... haha...
I mean, yeah, jerking off triggers a dopamine spike, but it tanks your levels in the long run... just like how supposedly "raising Kundalini" spikes your dopamine... but evidence? Please... everyone's got an opinion...
At the end of the day, the practice speaks for itself anyway...
