←back to thread

Altered states of consciousness induced by breathwork accompanied by music

(journals.plos.org)
557 points gnabgib | 2 comments | 28 Aug 25 00:22 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tavavex ◴[28 Aug 25 06:29 UTC] No.45049085[source]▶
This is a really strange comment section. The average person sharing their experiences seems very unlike the average HN user.

I feel like I can barely relate to those people, and understanding what they're saying is nigh impossible. The definitions of most things are really vague - even the article of this thread only defines breathwork as "cyclic breathing without pausing, accompanied by progressively evocative music". So... faster breathing while intensifying music is playing?

One issue for me is how anything connected to these topics seems to attract a healthy mix of rational observation, psychedelic users and religious people (old and new). Deciphering which is which is really difficult without already having a foot in the door on this topic.

replies(10): >>45049147 #>>45049150 #>>45049176 #>>45049355 #>>45049770 #>>45049900 #>>45050246 #>>45050875 #>>45053667 #>>45054122 #
jibal ◴[28 Aug 25 06:44 UTC] No.45049176[source]▶
The alarming thing is that--if you look at their other comments--they are otherwise like the average HN user.
replies(1): >>45049250 #
gentooflux ◴[28 Aug 25 06:57 UTC] No.45049250[source]▶
Which is to say, hacking one's wifi router is a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit, but hacking one's mind is not?
replies(3): >>45049358 #>>45049361 #>>45049937 #
AlecSchueler ◴[28 Aug 25 07:15 UTC] No.45049358[source]▶
I think they point more towards the dichotomy of rigorous engineering versus woo.
replies(2): >>45049402 #>>45049749 #
gentooflux ◴[28 Aug 25 07:22 UTC] No.45049402[source]▶
Formulate hypothesis, test hypothesis, record results, compare results against previous experiments, adjust hypothesis, share the data. Again, I think the problem you have is with the subject matter.
replies(1): >>45049459 #
AlecSchueler ◴[28 Aug 25 07:30 UTC] No.45049459[source]▶
I have no problem with the subject matter and routinely hack my own firmware, I'm just clarifying the point that you seemed to miss. This thread is full of the kind of anecdotal evidence that would be laughed out of the room on any other day. That's not a judgement it's just a fact.

And actually, if I do have a problem it's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting: I'd like us to give more weight to the lived experience of others even in other contexts and regarding other subject matters.

replies(1): >>45049796 #
jmmcd ◴[28 Aug 25 08:26 UTC] No.45049796{3}[source]▶
On HN it's very common to see a blog post along the lines of "I found this old piece of equipment with no brand name, I used some network traffic inspection to figure out what it does, I hacked around a bit, I got it working and turned it into a self-ringing doorbell with wifi" (or whatever). All of that is anecdotal, N=1, "I did what worked for me, I hope it's interesting to you". And those posts are highly prized and rightly so.
replies(1): >>45049832 #
1. AlecSchueler ◴[28 Aug 25 08:32 UTC] No.45049832{4}[source]▶
That's great yes, and I'd like us to give even more weight to the lived experience of others even in other contexts and regarding other subject matters.
replies(1): >>45049997 #
2. andriesm ◴[28 Aug 25 09:01 UTC] No.45049997[source]▶
In contrast I like the fact that there is often an indication of what is not substantiated by strong/provable/scientific evidence and what is not. In fact I quite love both these subjective experience reporting and the more sceptical perspectives. A lot depends on the specific subject and whether evidence exists or is feasible to gather. I would hate to not hear about cool sounding ideas that MIGHT work, but is just not endorsed by rigorous chains of evidence. As long as the discussions are honest and in good spirit. People can point out risks and likihoods and alternative explanations. I really like those too.