Rat, you're redefining a word that most commonly has a different meaning that the one you're ascribing to it.
Says you and Kai.
If you say that the word "aura" means by definition "Not anything physical", as Kai put it, then you are the ones taking the easy and wrong way out, failing at communicating, BADLY.
Yeah sorry, I've been reading those LessWrong sequences too, and sometimes I disagree with them. But what really disgusts me is how Eliezers words are being treated as gospel. Especially when people try to engage in real discussion, they say something that doesn't fit with treating the way it was treated on LW, so instead of actually communicating your own thoughts (Think for Yourself style) you tell people to "read the sequences, I'm not entirely sure how you are wrong, but read the holy sequences, and it'll become apparent to you".
I know, I know, I'm overstating it a littlebit. I know and damn well hope you guys don't think like that, but it sure sounds like it.
Anyway, back on topic, as far as I know, the most commonly used meaning of the word "aura" is that it's some kind of "energy field" around a living organism.
If you want to insist that no, it's by definition non-physical, and therefore paranormal and therefore doesn't exist, then congratulations, you won the argument by defining the word in a way that wins you the argument. Stating it that way is also just about as useful to state (if I'm quoting you quoting Eliezer correctly) "I'm not anticipating any God", which you said is not a very interesting thing to state and only needs to be said once, if at all.
who's the authority on what the word "aura" should mean? Let's say it's the new age hippies that believe in them. The strongest I ever heard one seriously argue is that it could be, or might be non-physical, but no one ever told me it HAS to be non-physical otherwise it's not an aura. On the OTHER hand, every single definition I ever heard of the word aura DID include "it's some kind of energy fields around a living organism".
It's just like that discussion on souls and ghosts we had a little while back. But back then you didn't tell me I was being More Wrong than Less Wrong when I compared [spitirual] energy to memetics. Yet following the same argument, I was totally redefining the words, because I was arguing that, they might not be entirely paranormal.
Weren't we all in agreement about how it's rather useless to flaunt the skeptic statement "I don't anticipate God" and rather dumb (More Wrong than Less Wrong) to make the atheist statement "I don't believe in God" ?
Good!
Cause I think the same argument can be made here. And once we get past that we ALL might actually get to the interesting parts that, among others, Ratatosk was trying to get to.
Cause IMO, the interesting parts are, if the paranormal doesn't exist (we are in agreement) then what is it, what is the thing that people claim to perceive as auras or Ki?
Could part of it be a result of near-infrared radiation?
If the way I'm stating my case is Too Wrong to be Less Wrong, my apologies and please continue, I'll leave this thread alone so that people can use it to agree with the Scriptures.
