My intention was to point out that the results of meditation are something we can measure. This was, when I read about it at the time, news to me, and it appears to be news to the person I was responding to.
My intuition is that anyone who engages in focused practice of an activity that one can improve in will show similar differences in their brain activity. That is, I think there is a similarity to meditation and what we call "being in the zone" for activities as varied as basketball to programming. My personal experience is that such practice is beneficial.
Objective measurement is cool, sure, but more important here is how meditation makes you feel.
Actually this is a kind of measurement, one to which only you have access. It might be condemned as subjective rubbish by some, but it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Unlike religion, you aren't required to believe anything. Unlike mainstream science the result will not be publically reproducible. But that's OK: you're trying to advance self-knowledge, not public knowledge.
If someone could objectively show that focused practice of an art has the same mental benefits of meditation, then I would consider that personally useful, not just "cool."
Yes, that would be useful. And it remains open to you to try both now and compare how they make you feel.
The article seems to be claiming that all lifestyles without meditation lead to suffering. This is a pretty strong claim, don't you think? It goes beyond benefit and utility. At root, all of us are trying to feel better. Even physicists are motivated by perceptions of beauty.
People seem to think that being motivated by feelings isn't rational. But irrationality ultimately feels bad.
Is it possible that what is being measured isn't actually the _result_ of meditation? What if people whose brain works a certain way are the only ones who can sit still for hours at a time every day for many years? I know I couldn't.
Comments
My intention was to point out that the results of meditation are something we can measure. This was, when I read about it at the time, news to me, and it appears to be news to the person I was responding to.
My intuition is that anyone who engages in focused practice of an activity that one can improve in will show similar differences in their brain activity. That is, I think there is a similarity to meditation and what we call "being in the zone" for activities as varied as basketball to programming. My personal experience is that such practice is beneficial.
Objective measurement is cool, sure, but more important here is how meditation makes you feel.
Actually this is a kind of measurement, one to which only you have access. It might be condemned as subjective rubbish by some, but it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Unlike religion, you aren't required to believe anything. Unlike mainstream science the result will not be publically reproducible. But that's OK: you're trying to advance self-knowledge, not public knowledge.
If someone could objectively show that focused practice of an art has the same mental benefits of meditation, then I would consider that personally useful, not just "cool."
Yes, that would be useful. And it remains open to you to try both now and compare how they make you feel.
The article seems to be claiming that all lifestyles without meditation lead to suffering. This is a pretty strong claim, don't you think? It goes beyond benefit and utility. At root, all of us are trying to feel better. Even physicists are motivated by perceptions of beauty.
People seem to think that being motivated by feelings isn't rational. But irrationality ultimately feels bad.
I can't comment much on the article itself; I gave up on it pretty quickly because I found the author's attitude condescending.
Is it possible that what is being measured isn't actually the _result_ of meditation? What if people whose brain works a certain way are the only ones who can sit still for hours at a time every day for many years? I know I couldn't.