We have spent last couple of centuries shoehorning every single problems into scientific solution fanaticism. Ofcourse there is no denying science and tech has paid us big dividends.But this single-groove thinking has failed us a in solving more fundamental of human problems. People feel lost/purposeless, people are joining ISIS/blackwater for adventurism, trying to give some meaning to their existence.
People are lost/stressed/bored. We have replaced spirituality/religion/family with a pictures of self-driving cars and missions to mars.
There are two sides to this problem. One is that - making meditation to be a game where in, you don't understand exactly what you are paying attention to and why it matters but just that you need to increase your "game" score. This is probably not an optimal outcome because meditation can enable one to understand their inner world as well as they do their outer world. Such understanding could help solve the emotional crisis that they undergo.
Another side to this story is that those who have spent time and effort understanding the "why" and "what" of meditation can probably benefit from some push to meditation more often. I believe we should let such choices to be left over to individuals.
Your claim seems to be that technology failed to improve us in terms of spirituality, ergo it will always fail us.
The technology hasn't failed us. People who in the past wouldn't have good access to spiritual teachers, have that access now.
To give you an example - in the postcommunist Poland, virtually anything besides the catholic church was qualified as sect ~ 15-20 years ago. Thanks to the internet me & quite a few friends were able to read up about buddhism. We could practice meditation long before many teachers arrived, and listen to their teachings as well.
Right now, the access to the teachers is so much easier (again - mostly thanks to Google & Facebook Events), but there's also another thing. Apps, like Headspace, helped both me and quite a few friends, get into the rhythm of meditation and spiritual practice.
In other words - thanks to the internet, the access to teachers is far, far easier, and people get access to better quality materials.
It's also so much safer to go to meetups, or figure out what your kids are into - when I was very young my parents were afraid of sects. Right now a parent can do a quick google to figure out more information about the group the kid is attending to.
Finally - even if the technology failed (which it didn't!), it doesn't mean that it would always fail. I'm surprised to see this kind of thinking on HN.
As for the article, I don't like it either. It mentions just one kind of a gimmick/gadget, and I don't think this approach (with gadgets that track your brainwaves) is proper. There are better solutions to meditation, Headspace being one of them.
Interestingly, this actually gets closer to the original root meaning of the word than what it tends to mean these days:
> TECHNOLOGY: 1610s, "a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," from Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique," originally referring to grammar, from tekhno- (see techno-) + -logy. The meaning "study of mechanical and industrial arts" (Century Dictionary, 1902, gives examples of "spinning, metal-working, or brewing") is first recorded 1859.
Can News Organizations Ever Get Past Asking These Sort Of Simplistic Questions In Thear Headlines?
The TL;DR of this article is, as it usually is with such questions, "Doesn't really seem like it, results are inconclusive, but you gotta start somewhere so why not."
Adding gadgetry to meditation is kind of self defeating if you ask me. Typical modern approach to basically everything: add batteries and its automatically better!
The whole point of 'mindfulness' is that you don't need any gadgets or apps to be able to access it. It doesn't require external resources of any kind; it's freely available, at any time.
I think that there might be huge value in neurobiofeedback but it's a mistake to brand these devices as an aid to what essentially is a religious practice for many people. Just studying the comments in this thread shows that the sole idea of such a device seems blasphemous for some.
Perhaps it would be better to call it a concentration exercise or a brain fitness trainer, especially since it's not even clear that these devices help you with mindfulness (whatever it might be). I tried to find some reviews of Muse done by experienced meditators (I haven't collected the links, sorry) and the results seem mixed. Some claim perfect score on the first sitting, some say they get the same bad results as everyone else starting out with the app. That would suggest that either the device doesn't really do what it claims or that meditation means so many different things to different people that it's not a useful term to use in a scientific context.
11 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 44.3 ms ] threadWe have spent last couple of centuries shoehorning every single problems into scientific solution fanaticism. Ofcourse there is no denying science and tech has paid us big dividends.But this single-groove thinking has failed us a in solving more fundamental of human problems. People feel lost/purposeless, people are joining ISIS/blackwater for adventurism, trying to give some meaning to their existence.
People are lost/stressed/bored. We have replaced spirituality/religion/family with a pictures of self-driving cars and missions to mars.
The technology hasn't failed us. People who in the past wouldn't have good access to spiritual teachers, have that access now.
To give you an example - in the postcommunist Poland, virtually anything besides the catholic church was qualified as sect ~ 15-20 years ago. Thanks to the internet me & quite a few friends were able to read up about buddhism. We could practice meditation long before many teachers arrived, and listen to their teachings as well.
Right now, the access to the teachers is so much easier (again - mostly thanks to Google & Facebook Events), but there's also another thing. Apps, like Headspace, helped both me and quite a few friends, get into the rhythm of meditation and spiritual practice.
In other words - thanks to the internet, the access to teachers is far, far easier, and people get access to better quality materials. It's also so much safer to go to meetups, or figure out what your kids are into - when I was very young my parents were afraid of sects. Right now a parent can do a quick google to figure out more information about the group the kid is attending to.
Finally - even if the technology failed (which it didn't!), it doesn't mean that it would always fail. I'm surprised to see this kind of thinking on HN.
As for the article, I don't like it either. It mentions just one kind of a gimmick/gadget, and I don't think this approach (with gadgets that track your brainwaves) is proper. There are better solutions to meditation, Headspace being one of them.
> TECHNOLOGY: 1610s, "a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," from Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique," originally referring to grammar, from tekhno- (see techno-) + -logy. The meaning "study of mechanical and industrial arts" (Century Dictionary, 1902, gives examples of "spinning, metal-working, or brewing") is first recorded 1859.
Source: http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=technology
The TL;DR of this article is, as it usually is with such questions, "Doesn't really seem like it, results are inconclusive, but you gotta start somewhere so why not."
You're better off skipping the read, honestly.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Also, these devices can help by providing feedback that you might not yet be attuned to receiving without the devices.
Perhaps it would be better to call it a concentration exercise or a brain fitness trainer, especially since it's not even clear that these devices help you with mindfulness (whatever it might be). I tried to find some reviews of Muse done by experienced meditators (I haven't collected the links, sorry) and the results seem mixed. Some claim perfect score on the first sitting, some say they get the same bad results as everyone else starting out with the app. That would suggest that either the device doesn't really do what it claims or that meditation means so many different things to different people that it's not a useful term to use in a scientific context.