fire quan, i'm not asking to test a persons individual belief. and yes, belief can do wondeful things. i've said that before. in polar bears dream study (tm), we have a sham group believing, and a real group believing, a control group and a western group. this is how we can help see the influence of belief. however the results of such a study may result in suspension of personal belief. maybe. now we just need a body to provide funding, resources etc and we are away! i hope it's clear for all to see that although people may be skeptical about benefits of qi/qi gong, people are willing to talk about it without degenerating into rubbish. and how much work could be done by qi enthusiaists to better the world if they weren't so prejudiced against scientific methodolgy.
Heh... well, it just so happens that I happen to know a little about methodology. To understand what is going on with the "qi" thing, first of all you have to understand that you are dealing with a belief - literally an ideology of qi. Ideologies, like viruses, soon learn to "grow" defence mechanisms as they face attack from non-believers. In fact, ideologies can grow massive, simply by having to come up with answers to defend against arguments or internal consistencies - something sometimes known as the "canker" effect after the growths trees produce to cover gashes in their bark. So then you have to understand that by attacking an ideology you are also helping to make it stronger - like a weak ant-biotic, if it doesn't kill it, it helps it create a stronger defence. Qi believers have accidentally landed qi within the dominion of science. That's something which has been happening for hundreds of years. They say it cures, or it is like energy, etc. - so they accidentally bring it within scientific remit. But the moment you start to test it under those parameters, they will shift it back again, in to the realm of the untestable mystic. That's a critiique avoidance method. However, ideas are always ideas, and so ARE in an area beyond science, even if their effects aren't. If someone says accupuncture clears an illness, well, you can test that scientifically. However, scientific method still relies on words - the science is largely in the interpretation/explanation of what you are seeing, not in the event witnessed. If accupuncture does cure an illness, or even if it doesn't, the link between accupuncture and qi still remains "conceptual", as qi is not visible except by its effect. I'm sure scientists can think of other things which are not visible, except by effect, incidentally - and even effects which have no visible cause, such as that of matter "clumping." The way to dismantle qi is always by effects - not by belief, unless you're an expert in belief. If accupuncture consistenly fails, or can be proved to have no relation to any particular channel, then it fails. But let's take something else, which can't really fail - massage. How does a massage fail? If someone gives you a massage, you feel miles better, but they say they've released trapped qi, well how do you dis-prove that via scientific method? Just as qi believers failed to notice that they accidentally moves Qi in to the remit of science when they started claiming measurable effects for it, or comparing to energy in a way that then became a claim that it WAS energy, so scientists have to understand that certain asepcts of "qi" are beyond scientific method, and yet, may still have actual, real effect. That doesn't tell you that qi is real, it tells you that beliefs are very powerful, and also, very interestingly from my point of view, that a completely conceptual, i.e. potentially false, fabricated, made up idea, can sit atop our rational knolwedge of the everyday world like a crown, actually generating a believed in explanation, with apparently real effects, despite not actually being true. Science can't get to that. Science can not measure conceptual, percpetual, or emotional information. Only "systems" designed to "process" tha kind of information can experience them. Seeing a neuron flash, or an area of the brain light up is in no way the same thing as "experience" of those types of information. Just imagine if you had never felt an emotion - would you know what happiness was by looking at an area of the brain light up on a scan? No. In conclusion, what I am pointing out is that some things go beyond the remit of science, yet still emit effect - something which points to a far more complex phenomena than just an every day belief - it points to how beliefs have power. As for scientific method, there is no way to measure a cultural belief without the experiement affecting the outcome. Applying scientific method to anthropology is a difficult process, and by no means universally promoted these days. Some things you can measure by our terms, some things you can't. Maybe a belief in qi, for an old guy in China, made him live five years longer, simply via the power of belief.
Unfortunately, your experiment, to measure the power of belief, presupposes that the level of belief has already been measured - otherwise, how did you come up with these two categories in the first place? Interesting, and often valid, as such experiments can or may be, they aren't really "scientific" except in superficial form.
Good post FQ, Re: Belief. On this note I just wanted to rant for a bit. I would say that it is better to remain open about any belief/idea/phenomenon, i.e. neither believe nor disbelieve, or more like be able to move between the extremes. As both complete belief or disbelief can have dangers and benefits. For example, if you believe that "qigong" can make you healthier and practice qigong, it has the potential to make you healthier, so why not believe and practice qigong. On th other hand if you believe that demons are ever present and are waiting to feed of your life force, why believe that and potentially stress yourself out or damage yourself. As long as an individual thinks that there is one reality, he will be bound to it, and will self enforce its laws on to oneself. IMO, we all create our own realities and there is no reason why this should be fixed, why not shift your reality to gain maximum benefit out of it. The way I see it is that the mind is just like the body, it can move in many ways and to many places, you would not shackle yourself down in one room and and stay there your whole life, would you? The only thing that holds us down is our attachment/fear, i.e. shackles of our beliefs. This whole concept is a belief in itself, but a very open one at that.
Sorry Guys but you have both just argued consistently against any form of measurement of qigoing even though we have bent over backward to a commodate your concerns in the devised methodology. This attempt to move the argument on the measurement of belief when we had already tackled it and through our fake qigong group who would believe they are doing Qigong. It appears to many others on the forum that you have an irrational desire to return to pre-enlightenment thought simply because it appeals to your artistic aesthetic. Your debates sound very like Catholic Church debates of the middle-ages, very debates infact that lead up to the revolution in thought that was the enlightenment. I feel that is a symptom of the failure of the western capitalist system to provide it's people with more substantial goal than "please yourself". In this respect I don't blame you looking back for a more meaningful outlook on life. However, this search shouldn't try to undo the good as well as the bad of modern thought but perhaps seek to bring us to a new elightenment when reason and meaning direct human action. The Bear.
I have nothing against testing, I was just having a rant regarding "belief". As such, I try not to hold any fixed belief, and would happily adopt another belief system for the sake of testing. As to whether any test results would mean anything to me, well, I'm not really bothered, if I can derive positive outcomes from practice, then good for me, if can teach it to another, good for them. For me personally, results of any such proposed study would be interesting, but I doubt they would make any difference to my personal experience, unless I wanted them to, and as such why would I take away anything that may have a negative effect, if you get my drift. What is meant by pre-enlightenment thought? TBH, I’m not sure if I fully understand your statement. Myself, I think the way I do, because the practices that I do direct me to examine that which is inside me, and upon examination, the rational way of thinking, to me and others I know who practice similar methods, is like this. It is not something that is adopted through some nostalgia, its just that when the layers of modern world conditioning are pealed away, your perspective changes, or at least thats what I think it is. It is about studying oneself. I don’t see myself as trying to undo the “good” of modern thought, that would be silly and wasteful. But if I am against something, its probably cause I don’t think it is “good”, but of course everything is good or bad within a context/framework, and I am certanly not knowledgeable of all these variations and could very well be mistaken. But, we only ever do or say in this case, what we think is right. However, to me none of this is fixed, and if I learn more, whether about myself or other(s) then my opinion/thought may also change. I don't see the need for a fixed point, in fact I see it as a weakness.
Hi FQ, Please could you tell us how it is that you claim this statement to be "knowledge." Are your personal theories based on broadly accepted scientific evidence / data, or are they conjecture?
This sounds like ideologies are sentient and alive in their own right, which they're not; with a will to survive in their own right, which they don't have. Don't you mean that the people who believe in an ideology develop counter-arguments when non-believers question or attack their belief system?
right, i think i'm losing the plot here a bit, help me out. pb dream test (tm) has been put forward as a means to finding out whether qi/ qi gong has any real benefits outside of belief/placebo. suggestions were made regarding the execution of the qi gong side of things, which pb said was absolutely fine. the fire quan; you've stated the importance/power of belief (which we all recognize), ideas (which we all recognize) and the fact that people will create constant defences, logical or otherwise, to support their ideas (which we all know). things don't need to jump in science's realm. science is problem solving. and nothing is above asking questions and working things out. not having the answers now is a whole part of the enjoyable challenge of life.
I think that this is a great point but I don't think the key point is whether or not there is one reality. I think the problems arise when we think that our way of describing reality is the same thing as reality itself. For me, Qi is a model, a way of linking certain facts and observations together in a meaningful way. A way of describing reality. However, all models have their limitations due to the fact that by their nature they are simplifications. In any case, I don't think this is particularly relevant to the study proposed by PB as this is an attempt to measure the effectiveness of Qigong, not its mechanism. IMO this is the best way scientific method can be of use, measuring outcomes rather than trying to examine the existence of a conceptual model.
Well I don't believe in qi energy, or the power of qi gong, so I guess you can't be talking to me... But what is interesting is that you're just as polarised in your view as the other half.... binary positioning in action... The "there is no qi" stance is just as much an ideology, and therefore just as much governed by the exact same rules, psychology, strategies and methods as the pro-qi lobby. Thinking everything can be pulled in to the orbit of science is just as much a false ideology as any other.
not fair fire-quan, pb is skeptical, but regardless of that is actually proposing a test to help find answers either way. whilst co operating with adovocates of the idea he is skeptical of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment Belief in qigong is irrational, much like any belief system. I am trying to have rational method to provide evidence which this belief rested. Now my test, I admit, will not prove the existence of Qi, it will prove or disprove the basis which this belief system is based. If it evidence exists then there is a rational arguement for Qi if not then belief in Qi is irrational. Pre-enlightment thought was mainly irrational thought. Belief in magic, supernatural, demons and gods is irrational since the is no proof that they exist in our common reality. Does this explain my comment better? The Bear.
You've got it the wrong way round, science should expand to encompass everything not the other way around. I am not pulling anything in to science, I am looking to expand science into the realm of qi. The Bear.
Ideologies are sentient, Julie. You are one of them. I am another. Strip away your ideas, your language, your conceptualisation - well, what do you have left? Just an aware being - an ape, effectively. It's a mistake to separate ideologies from their host in that way - take your own sense of self - isn't it housed, connected, intertwined with your beliefs, from your belief that you can't walk through a wall through to your religious beliefs? Fact is, not to get too Meme about it, thought systems can, and do, evolve in a way that protects and procreates, mimicing very closely the action of a virus. It's not even that hard to see how it is done - we see it all the time. Only a few simple things need to exist in an ideology for it to occur - such as thought limiting strategies (mental-minders), socially hosted meaning structures, social structure based on beliefs. Install a few key components in to a belief system, and they will naturally seek to self defend, pro create, and fight off other belief systems. To say that the person themselves willingly does that, well, yes, but that's not the whole stroy. The belief system limits awareness and often actively encourages fear and guilt responses, once installed, to prevent a person questioning, or going beyond the bounds of certain thoughts. The person does it, but the ideological programmed evolved in such a way that once installed it limits free will through simple fear, guilt and conformity responses. It is perfectly possible for an ideology to manipulate a sentient being via the back door - i.e. via ape emotions and ape instincts - we see it all the time. In addition to that, although a very, very good question and point, it's worth considering what sentience is. Sentience is a system of self referential ideas - literally an ideology. The core programme that forms the self can be "hosted" in a number of ideological structures - you probably went throught his yourself, as JK did, and as I did. Like programmes, or like viruses, those systems can infect us, or be installed, and then fought off, or in some cases, over taken by other programmes/viruses. All ideoloigies have immune systems - one would be a person's assertion that we shouldn't think about things. The person does it, they have the power over it, but the ideology encourages them to do it - and then encourages them to spread it. The way it works, just as a virus evolves to utilize our biological features, so a conceptual virus evolves - literally, as in mutates step by step - to exploit our conceptual base - rhat is, our ape emotions and instincts. Good question though.
To clarify, no, it's not clear enough to say that a person develops counter arguments - that doesn't accurately explain the psychology of belifes, or how they structurally function to guide and limit awareness, spread, pro create, evolve or self defend. A virus isn't necessariyl sentient - not is a computer virus, so it's false to say that I'm suggesting sentience. The sentience of an idelogy comes when it is "installed" in to an aware being. It would be perfectly possible to develop a computer programme that mimics how ideological viruses work. But again, yes, ideologies are sentient. I should know, I am one.
Another pre-enlightenment concept, the inability to abstract and ideas from the people who have then. You are throwing away one of the most powerful analytical tools available. The Bear.
fire quan, how are you usefully adding to this thread on experimentation to help prove/disprove qi/qigong work? philosophy, metaphysics, the beauty of language. all awesome and essential to our humankinds evolution. but we are looking at quite a practical discussion here and i fail to see how you are contributing usefully to the original aim. polar bear has gone to quite some effort to engage with you all in a rational and reasonable debate regarding the original debate. what is going on now? and once again; there are no off limits areas for scientific investigation. it's just properly applied problem solving..
Something that actually exists is real. I am real, so are you. the cupboard monster is not real. Even though children may believe it to be real, it does not make it so. The Bear.
