At this point I see it as the mental equivalent of "exercise". There's so many different kinds of exercise, for many different goals. The same thing goes for mediation
Is it though? We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise, not so with meditation. Without a common definition, I'm not sure what kind of empirical claims can be made about meditation.
Oh really.
How many miles do you run on a flat treadmill? How high of Heart BPM? How much does the individual weigh? What movement is done, for how many reps and what weight?
Now how does one parameterize the intensity/duration of a meditation session? And does it, like exercise, depend on the existing adaptations of the individual?
Kinds of distractions (subtle vs gross)
How much detail is perceived of the meditation object
Is the mind one-pointed
Are there gross physical sensations, or only subtle (like your body is a point cloud)
Are there intense, or subtle, pleasant sensations through the body
Are there constrictions in the body
What is the nature, frequency and intensity of thoughts
Is there a sensation of being a knower/subject
Stage in the Progress of Insight ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight... )
Which Jhana ( https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iii-the-sa... )
etc, etc.
Different traditions would be interested in different aspects of your experience, though.
IMO the best things are the brain imaging technologies, but I suppose that's far too expensive to research right now?
(Of course walking won't raise it as much as pumping iron will, but they both will, and they're both exercise.)
To me, that's the range of definitions that meditation has. I have heard that meditation should be thinking of nothing, I have heard that meditation should be reflection on the past, I have heard that meditation should be free-form thinking, or focused on the present.
This range is, to me, roughly equivalent to "meditation is basically anything, usually (but not always) involving some quite though process".
Meditation is completely nebulous, ranging from sitting down indian-style for 15 minutes to pseudoscience chakra bullshit that induces euphoria and cures diseases.
When people say they are going to exercise, you know what they are going to do. When they say they're going to meditate, it really could be anything. It is a real suitcase word.
I think you might be confusing lack of visibility, or difficulty of measurement, with indefinability.
...and a lot of people would include slow, gentle stretching in the category
> Meditation is completely nebulous
It can be nebulous to you. To other people sport can be nebulous and meditation a well understood domain.
There are lots of forms of exercise that are not done specifically to raise heart rate. I'd say most.
Is it something that increases your heart rate? Surely playing video games or watching a scary movie is not exercise.
Does it require one to walk or run around, i.e. ambulation of the lower limbs? Sit-ups and push-ups are probably exercise but don't require this.
Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day?
bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness
So video games and scary movies wouldn't count whereas sit-ups and push-ups would. Science can tell us the types of "bodily exertion" that contribute to "developing and maintaining physical fitness", that's how we can know what counts and what doesn't.
> Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day?
If you control for diet you absolutely can.
I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise.
Bodily exertion for any other sake (running from a wild animal, from a threatening person, towards an individual in need of help etc) is still exercise. There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness.
>If you control for diet you absolutely can.
Well, no, that's not quite true.
From my examples above, distance running is a form of cardiovascular exercise which has benefits such as stimulating the release of chemicals like BDNF, which tend have positive neurological effects. There are, obviously, also significant cardiovascular benefits - increased VO2 max, lower resting heartrate, etc.
On the other hand, deadlifting heavy weights results in major growth of the musculoskeletal system, bone density, and other benefits, but causes little benefit to cardiovasculr or neurological function.
Cardio and strength training are two entirely different beasts in the types of empirical claims you can make about the benefits they bring.
I don't see a compelling reason to dispense with a dictionary definition
> There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness.
It's not an exhaustive definition, but it is practical one, it's also unambiguous in its meaning, and applies to discussions about medical outcomes. Escaping from a wild animal is technically exercise but it's not really what the word is meant to convey. If you spent a day in the woods escaping from a wild bear, when you arrived home and someone asked you "what did you do today", you wouldn't say "I was out exercising" because that's just not how the word is used.
> Well, no, that's not quite true.
Yes it is true. We could make predictions about weight and muscle mass over time.
If both, we're discussing this in a context that prefers practicality and meaningful discourse. If neither, we're discussing in a context that prefers pedantry and academic hogwash. Otherwise, if one but not the other, maybe we're getting the worst of both worlds ️
It's a turn of phrase, I don't mean that literally all people will always agree on the definition of the word, I mean, practically speaking, outside of "pedantry" and "academic hogwash". I mean the scientific definition with empirical outcomes.