So, chi is an unmeasurable energy or force that nevertheless has a genuine effect except when experimentation is applied to try and measure it or you try to use it on a skeptic? And you're willing to believe in this unexplainable, unmeasurable force yet claim yourself to be a skeptic? The western world knew it was possible to find the philosopher's stone for a rather long time. Doesn't make it real.
On a sidenote: That Yan Xin guy has yet to provide the results for his 'experiements', despite making these huge claims to the scientific community. He also claims he can heal people with qigong over the phone, for a price of course If there are any truths or benefits to be found in the concept of chi, we won't find them through Dr. Yan Xin.
Capt Ann, you rightly say that energy and force, the context of physics, have strict mathematical definitions...but they also have verbal definitions which can be applied in a wider context (IMO) taking the concept of energy...commonly defined within physics/engineering as; 'The capacity of a body for doing work' 'Work' in this context, is defined by physics as; 'One manifestation of energy. The work done by a force is defined as the product of the force and the distance moved by the force along its line of application' (taken from the Wordsworth Dict. of Science & Technology) 'Force' being 'that which, when acting on a body which is free to move, produces an accelleration in the motion of the body, measured by a change of momentum of the the body' These definitions are provided for the benefit of the non-sciencey people so they can follow the discussion, not because I think you do not fully understand them Now, that most oft-quoted equation; E=MC^2, which serves to illustrate the relationship between (what I consider to be) the three most 'real' things in our known universe, Energy, Mass and the velocity of light (this velocity being 'real' and 'tangible' in the sense it is defined as a constant and thus becomes a primary measure) Now as a physist, I hope you will agree, that it is implied by this equation that EVERYTHING in the universe must be in the form of energy, mass or light. So; 1- how can the creator exist in this universe if not composed of energy, mass and light? 2- if the creator is not composed of energy, mass or light, it has no tangible existence. 3- if it has no tangible existence, how can it function as a creative force within our sphere, as unless it was tangible, it would be unable to effect any changes upon the energy, mass and light of our known universe? 4- unless, of couse, the creator exists upon a plane of existence which operates according to a set of laws which allow it to remain 'hidden' from our scientific enquiry, while still being able to have discernable effects 5- if such a plane of existence does exist, why does this not allow for the types of 'mystical' phenomena, subjectively experienced by countless people through the ages to also be manifest? It strikes me as odd that a scientist (not you personally) can say 'the world operates according to these laws, which preclude the existence of the phenomena you have experienced because i cannot prove their existence because i cannot measure them in a laboratory' and then say, 'but i have absolute faith in the existence of a creator whose existence is beyond my capacity to measure and thus prove because it is the nature of my creator that i must have unquestioning faith in his/her existence' sorry, but the logic breaks down and loses its vital propery of being interanlly consistent at this point (IMO)
Uh, no offense, but where the hell did you pull this from? Relativity is simply an equation that defines a relationship between energy and matter, light is a form of energy, the speed of light is a number, it is not a value of 'light'. This by no means says that everything in the universe must be in the form of energy, matter or light. And incidentally matter is not mass, mass is a quality of matter. Well firstly will you please stop trying to use physics to argue your point, your use of it is massively flawed and bordering on the offensive. If anything you're misusing it with no or minimal understanding of what you're saying. Now, as to belief in a creator. I am not Christian, I'm not religious, however here's the argument. The creator would by definition exist outside his creation, therefore the laws do not apply. Whether or not you believe is a choice, but there is no claim that the creator directly interferes with the creation. You are claim that chi has a direct, measurable effect on reality, which for some reason science cannot measure. This is not the same argument as that in a creator who by definition cannot be measured and who's existence is a matter of faith.
skeptical.. yea I'm a skeptic. until shown otherwise, i tend not to believe. agnostic with it though, ..not the kind of skeptic who just knows everything that isn't right, but not what is? I'm willing to believe in the possibility that the immense close up power my sifu could generate, and which I personally felt, ..you could perhaps call it my own type of religious experience or calling (..and he was similar enough build, musculature and probably overall gym-style strength levels to me, as to negate any huge differences being possible by physique alone) that it just might possibly be, what he (and countless millions of other Chinese people over the millenia) have said and still say it is? does that seem so unreasonable? are all these people deluding themselves? i personally think it's pretty unreasonable as to be so (...some might think arrogant, ..but lets go with bold..) as to say "we know everything, this doesnt exist, everybody who says it does is a fraud and a charlatan"...? as for immeasurable, well, you only live in Surrey, get yourself out and go and see the man in question, he's in London you might discover we don't know quite everything just yet.. time to agree to disagree on his i think?
No, not necessarily. I can believe that the huge 'power' you felt was most likely good biomechanics. I've seen a little seven stone Korean man in his fifties kick a sixteen stone lump of muscle backwards hard enough that he flew, then stumbled. This was watching the guy brace against the kick, and through a six inch compressed foam shield. I knew the sixteen stone lump in question rather well, he's not the sort to fake. Now, where exactly is this man in London, how much does he charge (given that I'm flat broke at the moment), and when can I see him?
with respect.. ..I have been doing MA 20 years+, under multiple teachers, and have a fair amount of short range power thro biomechanical means myself. and i'm relatively perceptive, and intelligent, if you believe the IQ test scores, and I think I have a reasonable grasp of reality etc.. ..this was beyond the realm of the normal in this kind of thing, or even the supremely talented. this was enough to make a sceptic think hang on a minute.. if you go back up to post 58 in here theres a link to another page in this forum, and theres all the info you need.. i wouldn't advise heading up there and asking for a Chi demo because you don't believe in it though if I were you...
*xenmaster sits down, cold and wet having just poured a bucket of cold water over his head to put out the flames, cracks his knuckles and begins to type...* 1- Mass is a measurable parameter of matter, which tells us the quantity of matter within a body. The velocity of light is a measurable parameter of light, however it does more than tell us how fast light is moving, it provides the constant reference from which to begin discusion of all other discernable phenomena. For example, the standard unit of length, the metre, is now defined in terms of this value. Which leaves us with energy, a measure of the abstract notion of potential to do work. Thus the equation deals with the relationship between (IMO) the three fundamantal aspects of the universe we inhabit, namely: a) the potential for action (ENERGY, abstract conceptual notion) b) dynamic ENERGY (LIGHT, pure energy, unconstrained and lacking MASS) c) static ENERGY (MATTER, represented as MASS and being the condensation of unconstrained energy into FORM, the fundamental property being the underlying atomic structure) to suggest the velocity of light is merely a number is to ignore the fact that, in the environment of a vacuum, it does not change relative to the observer, thus that 'number' reveals something quite special about the phenomena of light. This becomes clearer if you transpose the equation to get 'c' on the LHS; C=(E/M)^(1/2) or expressed verbally: "The velocity of light is equal to the square root of the ratio of energy to mass in a given body" Thus, the only definable constant we have in this universe, and the one by which we measure and define all other phenomena can be derived from the relative distribution of energy and mass in a given region of space-time. 2- i used the word IMPLIED with good reason, beacause if you explore the philosophical implications of both of einsteins theories on relativity, then it becomes logical to make the ASSUMPTION that everything in the universe is composed of matter/energy, to quote the note to his 15th edition of 'Relativity'; "I wished to show that space-time is not neccesarily something to which one can ascribe a seperate existence, independantly of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning." I ask you then, to enlighten me as to what else could exist, beyond matter and energy? 3- 'light is a form of energy' ; it is the primary manifestation of energy in the physical world...everything you can see, hear, touch, smell and taste is a 'form of energy'. Period. (Indeed, the term 'form of energy' implies a structure which allows energy to become manifest!) No I won't, because I don't use physics to argue my point, I mention things to get people thinking outside the box. I admit, my use of it may stretch the bounds of reason, it may be applied in dubious ways and I may be a little woolly in my definitions or make a mistake here and there. However, the use of physics as a cudgel with which to beat down any discussion of mystical phenomena is equally foolish (and to some could be perceived as equally offensive). To tell me my use of it is 'massively flawed and bordering on the offensive' just makes me laugh and begins to erode my respect for your position. Physics is not some holy scripture which we must all bow down to and thank each day for allowing our existence. To me it an incomplete body of knowledge which has some usefull things to say about our world. I'll play around with it to my hearts content, thankyou very much, and if you are offended by someone trying to provoke thought and get people thinking about things in different ways, then that is your concern and not mine. If I were going around slating you or others, calling you idiots or questioning your integrity, then that would be offensive. That is not how I conduct myself on this site, I post what I feel are valid points, admit my mistakes and invite constructive criticism of my logic. If I have nothing to offer the discussion, I say nothing and if someone stops me dead, I go away and re-think my logic or read up on 'holes' in my knowledge. Who are you to define how I choose to apply knowledge? I have a lot more than a 'minimal understanding' of what I am saying! If I am designing an electronic component, circuit or system, my adherance to the applicable laws of physics is absolute. If I am killing time in philosphical discusions on martial arts website about the possible realities of chi, aura's, reincarnation etc, I AM HAVING FUN AND PLAYING!!! There is no argument! Period. That pseudo-logic is constructed to apease those who have faith and also trust/study science. See my earlier post about the church and the development of science. I didn't make the claim about chi, (although i see no problem with it), I merely commented on the possible problems of trying to use western physics to prove the existence of eastern spiritual/mystical phenomena. I realise the two arguments you mention are not the same. However, if someone is prepared to accept the existence of a creator who cannot be proven scientifically, why can they not accept the existence of other phenomena which can't be proven scientifically...for the followers of eastern discipines (yoga springs to mind as a good example) it as also a matter of their faith!! I dread to type this, but to me it once again stinks of good ol' religious hypocracy.
No, I do not agree with this statement, and this, as LBR pointed out, is where your argument breaks down. I believe, rather, that the equation shows that matter is another form of energy. An interesting aside: I have heard many people try to use "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" to support a philosophy of relativism ("truth is relative"; "there is no such thing as absolute truth"; "everything depends on perception", etc.) All of these philosophical statements actually depend on a misinterpretation of Einstein's theory. In fact, Eitnstein himself considered his theory to be a "Theory of Invariance" (e.g., instead of 'everything being relative', the theory stated that certain quantities were absolute and/or constant). First, as mentioned before, the equation does not show, in any way, shape, or, form, that only these three things exist. Also, how could the Creator of the Universe (i.e., the One who caused the universe to 'come to be', and therefore by logic must have existed before the universe or any of its contents) possibly be 'composed' of anything contained in the universe? As far as I can tell, I haven't even come close to saying this, and I don't know if anyone else has. There are LOTS of things that I personally cannot prove in a lab, but I am willing to a.) admit that they exist, or b.) admit that they might exist, and I just don't know about them yet. But I can use the laws of physics and laboratory methods, mathematics, and logic to show what does not exist; and so far, I can use these tools to state that chi/ki as has been described in this thread does not exist as a force or energy that measureably impacts your martial arts practice. I think it might appear that way to you because you have built a straw man and struck it down. Like I said before, I have never claimed that some supreme being existed that was a force or an energy field. I claim that a God exists who has intelligence, will, and personality. These are not qualities that can be put into a test tube. I'll give you an example. I possess intelligence (although some reading this thread may debate how much ), will, and personality. Can you prove that I exist? For all you know, ThaiMantis, LilBunnyRabbit, and I might actually all be the same person, just posting under different names. Or, I could really be a computer, programmed to analyze thread topics and post random strings together, from a database on related topics. I suppose you could get me to show up in a lab so you could measure me, but since I possess a free will, I might decide that I don't want to participate. So, you have to look for a different type of evidence. Are there people that you know, who also have met me? Are the things that they say about me consistent? Do the things that I write (or create) show signs of a consistent personality, will, purpose, or design? I find that the God I worship meets the consistency check for this type of evidence, but that chi/ki as described on this thread does not. This is why I believe in one and not the other, and not from some hypocrisy--I genuinely investigated the claims of both.
If you start trying to explain the connection to the mugger, he'll eventually fall asleep or go and watch the paint drying channel on digital!
Because the phenomena claimed by the eatern disciplines as you refer to them, claim to have a direct, physical effect on the world. If it has a direct physical effect on the world, it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then there is no effect in reality. Whether or not there's anything outside reality is a matter of personal belief, but you do not need to believe in cars to be hit by one, and you can tell if a car hits something. If you're claiming that chi can actually have an effect, then that effect is measurable. Make up your mind, either chi does not have a physical effect on the world, at which point science cannot measure it, or it does, in which case it can be tested and measured.
to Capt Ann; 1-yes, i agree about matter being another form of energy... 2-although the equation itself does not explicitily state what i have suggetsed, i have spent considerable time thinking about the philosophical implications of the equation and i feel that what i have suggested, although not expressed particularly succinctly, does have validity. 3-regarding your aside; and? i wasn't talking about philosphic relativity (although i do subscribe to the notion that absolute truth may be a fallacy, in a non-scientific sense); i agree with you and einstein, his theory does provide evidence for the defining of constants...did you miss what I said about the velocity of light? 4-please make a valid suggestion as to what exists in our universe which, when fully analysed, does not consist of either energy in the form of potential, energy in the form of light or energy condensed into atomic structure (considering here that the atomic level is a point of reference and accepting that atoms make big stuff and atoms themselves are composed of sub-atomic forces/particles) 5- regarding the laboratory statement, LBR says it all the time. 6- the straw man as you put it was not my creation (but if he was he would obey the same physical laws as i do hehehe ); all i can say is that i can see the holes in the logic; but i also understand the position you are holding and i do agree (up to a point) with the existence of aspects of personality, will and understanding as being 'alive' as creative forces in our universe, but i still maintain that their are many aspects of the scientific community which fall foul of a logically inconsistent approach when it comes to matters of faith and spirit.
i do see where you are coming from on this LBR; try this logic (i don't know if its true...i just had a moment of intuition as I thought about why peolpe claim to experience chi, yet instruments can't detect it) Say their is a form of psychological energy, which is what our thoughts actually are. Objectively, our thoughts are just electro-chemical impulses in the complex network of our brains, but to us, subjectively, our thoughts are our being. They have colour, texture and vitality. But you can't measure them. Sure you, can measure the energy spikes moving down the dendrites and axon's of the neuron by implanting electrodes or you can use EEG to measure the far-field potentials of large groups of neurons operating collectively. But you can't use this data to tell me what someone is thinking! So you can't prove thought, as we experience it, exists. But our thoughts do have a discernable and measurable effect on our world as they drive the actions we all carry out every day!
You can prove that there is brain activity, and that there are different types of activity in different areas when people are thinking about or reacting to or doing different things. Not only that, but our thoughts work through the medium of our body, utilising our body's actual capabilities. We cannot perform telekinesis, or telepathy, or any such. We need to physically interact with our environment, this is where the difference with chi as has been described comes in. And incidentally I could use that data to give a general impression of what they're thinking.
*hehehe laughs xenmaster as he sees the rabbit sniff around the baited trap...* you are dead right about the thoughts being translated through the medium of the body and you are dead right about that being the difference between my example and the descriptions of chi i agree with you 100%. using the data to give a general impression about what they are thinking? yeah, i'll give you some agreement hear, but we really are long way from being able to read precisely the complex combination of images, words, impressions and emotions which all interact to give us our moment to moment personal experience of life. but you do agree with me that there exists a subjective, internal landscape of memory and thought which, though undeniably in existence for everyone of us, cannot be PROVED in the laboratory? ...we can only assert that exists in someone else because; 1- we assume their brain/mind gives rise to the same subjective experiential phenomena as us 2- we can deduce through observation of their actions that their actions are directed with some form of purpose 3- we can prove the brain is operating because we can measure the signals before i continue, do you accept this logic?
You however are also assuming that the internal landscape is anything other than a product of complex interactions of chemicals, nerves, and various other stimuli and interactions. I do not believe that this is the case. Either way though, while it cannot be proved in a laboratory it can be experienced by everyone. Chi cannot. You can also test people on their experience of it, and check their accounts against others.
Really great thread folks. Capt Ann and Bunny, I know that you two hate it when people like us read "Theoretical Physics for Dummy's" or some other silly book made for us members of the great unwashed masses and start jumping to wild conclusions. It reminds me of a guy I met by chance one day who upon hearing that my Sensei was 8th Dan said: "Wow, so he must know how to levitate then!” The truth is that people like us are not smart enough to speak the language of science with any real fluency, but we are smart enough to realize that our collective understanding has been, and will in the future, be shaped by it. As people educated in the subject you could do us all a great favor by helping us filter out some of these wild assumptions that we make about what these theories really do imply. Xenmaster may be way off the mark on some things, but I have jumped to many of the same conclusions he has. It seems to me that it would be fair to say that eastern mystics and physicists are asking the same questions: Who are we? What are we? Where are we going? What is our relationship to this place we are in? Etc... The Physicists wants to explain how everything works according to one idea and produce the language to talk about it. Mystic wants to experience the unity directly. I think that it is also fair to say that some of their answers sound awful familiar. Could you tell us what your take is on what Quantum Physics implies concerning how we understand our surrounding? What theory CAN be used to apply to our everyday thinking? WishinIhadabrainMartialartsnobout!
no i'm not assuming that...you are assuming i am assuming that...i am merely describing the subjective experience you cannot prove it is being experienced by everyone if someone joined the class of an art which developed chi awareness, they too could have the subjective experience...it's experience is not restricted to an elite and gifted few. i asked, yes or no if you accepted the logic of my two previous posts...indulge me and suspend your disbelief...i ask again, do you accept the logic of my two previous posts?
