Okay, In all the other threads it has been put upon me to prove that Qi and Qigong don't exist. Well now it is your turn, prove to me it does not. I can read papers published by so, so, just like you all can. I can read quotes from famous teachers just like you all can. I want undeniable proof that Qi and Qigong are shams and don't exist. I now put it to you other practitioners of MAs whom don't believe in Qi, I am not looking for b/c so and so says so, or it can't be measured so of course it does not exist remember this: Solar energy: known forever not able to be measure or "discovered" till 1838 Electrical energy: seen in lightning, not understood or "discovered" till 1831 Nuclear energy: not discovered till 1938 So I pose this as a possibility, look back to 100 years ago, and if I were spouting something akin to Nuclear energy would you all be saying the same thing? Is it not possible that just because we cannot measure a type of energy, does not mean that it does not exist? Here are some interesting clips: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6UTGkC73GE&NR=1"]YouTube[/ame] (This is interesting b/c of the heat generated, for example why does it not burn the practitioner?) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es&mode=related&search="]Qigong Demo with Master "John Chang" - YouTube[/ame] (this one is similar to the experience of using estem in chinese medicine where we hook up electrodes to the needles causing the same sensation) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu99GRUUN6Y"]Qigong master projecting his chi energy - YouTube[/ame] Here is an article from Harvard: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html Now I want to make sure you all understand, these are just interesting clips. They are NOT meant to change your minds, the goal of this thread is your chance to prove without a doubt that Qi is not possible.
Attempting to prove that something does not exist is a Philosophy 101 level fallacy. It's right up there with circular reasoning and begging the question.
Hi TQ, First can I say that peisistratos is quite right. Proving the non-existence of something is usually considered a bit of a non-starter. It is normally down to the person who proposes something does exist to prove it. Before I can try to address the issue, I need from you a concrete definition of what you mean by qi. The "animals" thread posed a hypothetical question about qi, but if we are to deal here with proving or disproving something, we need a concrete definition. Precisely what do you want us to try to disprove? It is also necessary for you to also say what qi is NOT in order to further pin it down. Definitions always seem to shift around when the subject is under the microscope. ------------------------ Regarding the films, they show a combination of magic tricks and human susceptibility. Any so-called qigong cures are down to placebo. Lifting despair and giving hope can sometimes heal people, particularly if their ailment was psychsomatic in the first place. Watching the students of the Chinese Qigong practitioner throw themselves around, just shows how people can be programmed to behave in a certain way, especially by a group. I recently saw footage of a pretty good martial artist and when he demonstrated on his own students it looked quite impressive but also a lot like they were throwing themselves around quite a bit. When he did some techniques on a passer by, it still looked martially impressive, but the stylised "throwing oneself around" did not happen. People are trained to behave in a certain way. The stylised movements of a follower are internalised physical expressions of their desire to please their teacher. It is quite sad and something that needs to be kept in check by any good teacher. Additionally, events are set up that look impressive, but all you have to do is try them yourself, assuming you've worked out the criteria that make them work. As an experiment recently, live in class, I got a line of students to try to push me over - something I'd seen Chen Xiaowang do on Youtube. I asked them to really push hard on each other's shoulders. All I had to do was slightly deflect the first person in the human chain and of course the whole line veered off and started falling about. My demonstration was not to make me look good, but to show how easy it is to set something up that looks impressive but is actually just common sense. If I had deflected a spear point, the whole spear would have veered off course. The combined human push acted a bit like a spear, albeit one that crumbled when deflected because it was made of lots of little sections and its alignment had been broken. On one of your clips, the big American trying to throw the Chinese Qigong guy just showed how much people can be strung along. His actual resistance to being thrown didn't really look any different from the Chen Zhonghua clip posted on the reeling silk thread: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnfZVDcnwww"]How to Match Your Opponent's Power - YouTube[/ame] Chen Zhonghua is the standard bearer for Hong Junsheng, who was an inspirational Chen stylist who rejected the qi concept. Here's another clip showing something not too disimillar being employed by Ma Bao Guo, but with a counter-attack employed: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6219944639668569033&hl=en-GB Notice too how the American student on your clip had the "being strung along" line that if he managed to topple his teacher, he'd be ready to move to the next level. "Groomed" in this way, students are drip fed for years, often only learning what they can deduce for themselves, not that they realise it. That's not teaching, it's exploitation, and of course the more adept exploited ones go on to become exploiters themselves. ----------------------------------------------- Oh yes, we need a concrete definition, especially as your clips show markedly different kinds of phenomena.
Lets take it a bit further back and look at the case of what used to be called vapours or humours and how people used to believe it was those that created illness... lo and behold science discovered that vapours and humours were just terms used to describe something that wasnt known... years after these terms were common use we found out about metabolism, blood flow, bio mechanics, and all the different systems found in the wonder we call a body... (sound familiar... perhaps like Qi?)... also consider that the term Qi is a good teaching tool... not the concept but the term... for example it can be really beneficial to visualise your "Qi" lowering to your dantian to help get your centre of gravity lower and thus create a more stable root... however to the uninitiated the concepts of centre of gravity is unknown so using visualisation helps... As has been said the duty and burden of proof is on the hypothesiser not the reverse... I often wonder why the esoteric and mystical labels from Asia are given sooo much weight when similar labels in the west would be derided, even by those believing in and vehemently defending esoteric and mystical concepts from the east...
I was with you all the way Shadowh, apart from here: I just want to point out that to the uninitiated, at least here in the West, qi and the dantian are also new and even quite alien concepts until they begin their martial training. How much easier then to teach them the far less alien concept of a body's centre of gravity. Additionally, the concept of lowering one's centre of gravity is superior because it is true. Tai Chi and CMAs in general, as essentially physical pursuits, can be improved by making the training and the concepts used more up to date, more scientific and more accurate. Regarding the "omnipotent superbeing" quip - qi and God are quite separate concepts. This thread is about Qi.
But surely God could create qi if he wanted to and give it only to the faithful. Maybe he finds your lack of faith distrubing. The Bear.
He wasn't busy, I got a flat tyre. But my somewhat obtuse point was that arguing about peoples beliefs is a waste of time. The fact that people believe them makes them beliefs and the fact that they are unproven stops them from being facts.
Sorry but there I was unclear... instead of is I should have used was... and in stead of uninitiated I should have used those that didnt know about things like c of g etc... thus (with the errors fixed (have a Chinese exam on Thursday so head is a bit fuzzy at the moment...) I do in fact concur with your statement and agree re use of the more modern terms... in fact I had a couple sessions with CXW's son and he is a brilliant teacher who didnt use esoteric terms but explained it in such a way as to make sense... sorry for the mix up...
The point of the thread is to disprove the existence of qi. Perhaps when Taoquan has provided us with a concrete definition we can ascertain whether or not that will be possible. In the meantime, what purpose do cheap shots about faith in God serve? A creator God is a perfectly rational answer to the question "Why is the Universe here?" It is one that science has not yet found an alternative answer for and until it does, it is quite scientific to accept God as the most rational explanation. People forget the scientific contributions made over the last 2000 or so years by Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. etc. Atheists can offer no alternative theory as to what initiated the creation of the universe from a state of supposedly infinite nothingness. What are you going to call the initiator if not God? If you say the universe needs no initiator, then kindly explain why not. Anyway, all of this is off topic and has no doubt already been argued to death on the Philosophy and Religion forums. Let's get back to qi.
JK, Pei, I understand per Pei's Quote what you both are saying: Though I ask why should we follow this "Rule"? Who made it, what organization states this is how a discussion or proof should be obtained? What gives them this qualification to determine this? I sought to have a level playing field and effectively what everyone does when they ask me to prove it is immediately take an unfair advantage. Why can I not turn around and ask the opposite? Simply because psychology says no? There are still plenty out there that would lump Psychology in with being esoteric and foo foo feeling stuff that has no true scientific basis. As we cannot measure emotions, we cannot measure how a hormone effects emotions in any definitive terms. With these holes how can we start off a discussion based on something this science says? I have never hidden the fact that some terms of Qi have been defined by western research (i believe). Though still there are many aspects that we have no idea about. For example no one can answer definitively how our bodie's cells communicate to carry out these processes. One way they believe how cells communicate is through electrical impulse (sounds also like Qi doesn't it). We also don't know much about why there are viruses and bacteria that can become latent within the body and our bodies cannot clear them. We have little idea about all the inner workings of the human body (though I admit we have indeed grown by leaps and bounds), most western science is more worried with How and not Why. For example How does the heartbeat, through electrical impulses governed by the brain and nervous system. Why does the heart beat? to keep us alive? Why does that have to happen? Or Why do cells replicate? Why do they sometimes mutate to cause various cancers? I am not saying that Qi and Qigong has the answers here, but rather that we are basing our lack of evidence for these things on science that does not always look at both sides of the fence, so to speak. JK, Let's look at the placebo idea with some numbers. I will use a TCM practitioner as an example, since this is also one of the criticisms of TCM. Say as a practitioner you have 100 patients (100%), now say that you heal (we'll be generous) 50 (50%) of your patients based on placebo. 40 (40%) of your patients are skeptics and you cannot heal any of them. 10 (10%) are indifferent and you heal half and don't help half 5/5. Now, first off to have a huge number of 50% placebo would be thrown out of any clinical trial for the placebo effect is too high. Also this is assuming that you effect NO healing effect from ANY skeptic. So truly you were only able to heal 5 people out of 100 unexplainably (when we pad the numbers towards placebo and skepticism). How would there be any practitioners out there able to maintain practice? Also, there are skeptics that are healed and actually become some of big promoters of these practices you see (I have seen this personally). Qi, Qigong, TCM are quite often the last hope for many people, so we get many more skeptics than you would believe. There are also literally millions of practitioners of Qigong, now I cannot speak for all of them as to why they practice, or if they are practicing True Qigong, or some lame version. However, there are millions that do practice for some reason, this cannot be merely waved off as placebo or suggestion for the numbers are quite high. The definition of Qi from Qigong (and mostly of what I was taught): Qi=Vital Life force energy, Qi is the energetic substance from which the entire universe is created. Through interactions and transformations of Yin and Yang Qi, the various substances of form and matter are produced. This vital-life force energy comprises both material and functional aspects of the body. Qi is the matter between matter (Jing) and Spirit (shen). Later on... When Qi condenses, matter is created, and when matter disperses, energy (Qi) is created.(Take from Chinese Medical Qigong Vol. 2 by Jerry Alan Johnson) So there is nothing mystical about it, this can be used to describe numerous chemical processes, as well as biological processes. Just look at how clouds are made to rain to condensation etc. Qi can be termed the driving energy behind this. But as I mentioned before there are different types of Qi, just as there are different types of energetic reactions. Qi is not "energy specific" as we know it (i.e. thermal, magnetic, solar energies etc.) but it is what the ancient chinese used to desribe the phenomena of what was happening on the planet. I have posted this frequently that Qi (imo and from my studies is energy). Human beings are made up of energy (as per above with the heart needing electrical impulses to pump), various Qigong masters (as per the clips above) have demonstrated the ability to harness this energy and make thermal energy, magnetic energy, emanate from their bodies. These are already natural energies around us and our body exhibits these day to day. We have not even scratched the surface on the true power of the mind, the mind controls nearly all of the bodies functions, this is no secret. But what controls the mind? In some Taoist thought, this can be given to the spirit/soul. So Qi can be likened to a muscle, you are literally learning to control the aspects of your body (minute muscles groups, blood flow, breathing etc.) by practicing Qigong or meditation. Just like anyone can learn how to wiggle their nose or ears, it is just a matter of training. Imo, we are actually all doing this through MA and Tai Chi because you are training your mind, body and spirit to fight, ground, repel etc. However, this is also the physical side of training, if Qi is likened to a muscle then you could use just that muscle as well. As per the clips above, the teacher lighting the newspaper on fire. Three things are needed to make fire. 1) Oxygen (which was obviously there) 2) Fuel (The newspaper) 3) Heat (which combined with the other clip can be seen from the master's palm at 200 degrees) So it is plausible that he was able to do this by concentrating his own electrical impulses (Qi) within his body to a specific point (his palm) in order to generate enough heat for the paper to combust. Not to necessarily cause the paper itself to burn into flames, but by merely heating his own body enough to provide the heat for it to do so. This is similar to the article that was posted about the buddhist monks that were able to do body control. "The researchers also made measurements on practitioners of other forms of advanced meditation in Sikkim, India. They were astonished to find that these monks could lower their metabolism by 64 percent. "It was an astounding, breathtaking [no pun intended] result," Benson exclaims. To put that decrease in perspective, metabolism, or oxygen consumption, drops only 10-15 percent in sleep and about 17 percent during simple meditation. Benson believes that such a capability could be useful for space travel. Travelers might use meditation to ease stress and oxygen consumption on long flights to other planets." Sorry, for jumping around a bit
Isn't Qi a religious debate? It isn't scientific since there is no definition of Qi to even begin a debate. It isn't philosophical since it isn't a way of thought. It isn't enthical since it has no moral implications other than how it is used. It isn't logical since it doesn't follow logical rules. So please tell us what kind of debate we can have about Qi? The Bear. P.S. JK, just because it is rational to your knowledge level doesn't make it true.
I agree with you here JK, Many of the masters of Tai Chi and Qigong are actually being able to put some of these esoteric ideas into western terms. I think you would like Grandmaster Jou Tsung Hwa's book The Dao of Taijiquan, because he also tried to do this and make Tai Chi easier to understand in western terms. Though I also want to point out that Western thought/science is not the end all be all it is cracked up to be. "What do you think about western civilization?" "I think it is a great idea, we should try it sometime." Gandhi Oh and btw, thanks for helping keep the thread on track.
Bear has a very valid point here, since Qi is different to everyone all ideas should be included imo. We are not scientists trying to get a definitive answer out of this. Though, I would not term Qi as only a religious debate, it does vary upon each individual. As there is a term to define Qi (though not accepted by everyone, but you can't please everyone ) It can be philosophical to Taoism and other practices such as Qigong. It can be ethical b/c some practitioners say that effecting one's qi can effect their direct physical health. It is logical because it does still follow the rules of energy: "Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy. First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Click here for another page (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die." http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html
"My knowledge level?" you're sounding like one of those esoteric mystics yourself now, PB. Gimme a rational alternative for why the universe exists then, Mr. Bear. Again, this thread is not about God, it is about qi, so stop having cheap shots. It is very intellectually lazy to lump all religious, spiritual and metaphysical concepts into the same box.
Rational people made this rule to seperate what is real and can be from what is conjecture and wish that it is... with the "but science cannot prove so much" argument, at least science is trying to show how it works all the time by investigating and researching and most importantly questioning how and why something works... its not just blind faith or belief... and if someone has a theory they are asked to prove it... and if its wrong then its wrong (even the great Stephen Hawking admits it when he is wrong)... I agree that a lot of the psychology mumbo jumbo is foo foo too... also science is discovering so much all time that emotions are beginning to be explored and so to hormones and their effects... yet after allllll this time qi still lags in the blind faith department... If all these things didnt happen then we wouldnt live... perhaps sometimes there is no why just the how... or in this case perhaps the why is "to keep an organism alive"... the cancer mutation thing does have some explanation I believe, just not all mutations but we are finding out more and more everyday by questioning and researching... not relying on millenia old generic terms to explain something we dont understand...
Quick question for TQ as I don't have time to write a detailed response right now. Do you hold with everything Jerry Alan Johnson says, or just some things? http://www.daoistmagic.com/info.php?i=2131 http://www.daoistmagic.com/info.php?i=2134
There may be a perfectly irrational explanation for the universe existing. I don't know why the universe exists but I am not going to make up fairy stories to fill in my ignorance. I will just search until I find the answer or die first, which I think is more likely. This is my same approach to effectiveness of internal martial arts and qi. The Bear.
You don't need to make up fairy stories, PB, there are a great many established religions to choose from, each with their own take on the exact nature and character of God, and what constitutes moral behaviour. Most see value in serving a higher power or greater good instead of just selfishly pursuing your own desires. Whether or not people actually manage to stick to those moral goals is another story... Off to work...
And all equally fabricated. However you are right, I serve no higher power than myself. I am a human for humans. The Bear.
