why is chi kung rubbish

I figure that would come from seeking genuine understanding. That sort of demands that one move past assumption and speculation and verify one's beliefs and preconceptions.

Spoiler

(That's science.)

Otherwise people tend to get drawn into believing whatever feels best for them at the moment. The result always has been ignorance and stagnation as far as I've seen. It's a huge problem in the martial arts. I'm sure this has been posted but this dude could have actually become a competent martial artist in the time he spent cultivating his fantasy.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I"]Kiai Master vs MMA - YouTube[/ame]
Growth comes from critical self-examination and testing, not from resting on pleasant assumptions. So far, the only thing that sets any of the practices associated with chi apart from thoroughly understood mundane mechanics is assumption.

 

You should probably give up watching television, it's not good for you.

Probability is simply the likelihood of things happening in a particular way, simple as that. It is used heavily in quantum mechanics because at that scale there is a limit to the information you can gather about a particle. This is why we refer to quantum particles as probability waveforms.

I could go on, but I don't think you're likely to get it anyway so I'll save my breath.

The 'mere' act of measuring or observing does nothing to the event as such. In the case of observation, you can observe by bouncing photos off a particle and detecting them (other particles may also be used, such as electrons), however this 'bouncing' obviously causes a change in the momentum of the particle being observed - which cannot be accurately predicted.

As for measuring events and the whole waveform collapse thing, it's very simple. Quantum effects apply only in ridiculously simple systems - by measuring a quantum effect you are entangling it in a complex system, which causes the collapse of the waveform. Observation doesn't enter into it.

 

Sounds like this matter of Science being some embodiment universal investigation has its acceptable limits. Are we, then, limited to Newtonian Physics?

The sense that I am getting is that in its way, Science is approached in much the same way as some people approach Religion. There seem to be some people who like M who view it as just one more "map". There are others who are considerably more dogmatic. Lastly there are those who seem to want to discount anything "not-Science".

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Excuse me, Bunny, but this seems to speak to the very Heart of our discussion.

So far the embodiment of people's responses to my position appears to be that observation, replication, measurement and judgements seem to trump all---excepting M's fine post. Probability, as a tool in Science, seems to represent a point at which Science begins to falter as a function of measurement and observation. This has been a large part of what I have been communicating all along.

IMHO there is a point at which Science can no longer be of service, for a variety of reasons, and I have questioned about these. Beyond this point we have to use a "different Map". I personally do not believe said "different map" is automatically "rubbish" or "hocus pocus".

You may be familiar with a recent movie "What the Bleep do we know?". Regardless of how one feels about some of the theories presented in that movie I appreciated that the producers were willing to investigate a point at which Science in the conventional sense begins to experience its limits.

You seem to have a real problem with this where I do not. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Thank you for the clip. I think this is an excellent example of what happens when things are misunderstood from the OTHER extreme. If I am understanding the clip, the premise seems to be that the MA master is able to direct some sort of force as a weapon and was "owned" by the person (MMA?) who used physical force. IMHO this thinking is as flawed as if one were to say that Physical Force trumps everything else. Thanks again.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Said map is hocus pocus - there is no attempt to critically examine, to make accurate predictions and test them against reality, or to actually do anything other than speculate wildly about flying teapots.

Quantum mysticism, nothing more. Waste of time and money and yet more anti-rationalist propoganda.

Very much so, yes. Tell me - the map I subscribe to has allowed us to do just about everything we now do. What does yours allow other than navel-gazing and innappropriate capitalisation?

No, the premise is that the kiai master believes he can direct some sort of force as a weapon. Evidently, as seen in the clip, he cannot.

 

In my "library" there is room for more than one map.

You are satisfied with where your map takes you, and you very much like the view. Thats all to the good. For myself, I am interested in other maps...even if I am not completely sure where those maps with take me, or if I will ever get back. I am also willing to accept that some maps are "forgeries", "fakes" or totally mis-drawn. I accept this because ---well--- "Laminaria digitata happens". However, what I won't do is slavishly attach myself to a single map and limit my travels to only within its borders. Some "navel-gazers" such as Neils Bohr are capable of producing much-modified maps...and completely new maps as in the case of that other "navel-gazer"---Albert Einstein. I don't know how one quanitifies the experiences of Theresa of Avila or John of the Cross. And... I am comfortable in this "not knowing" as apparently you are not. I am also comfortable with accepting limits to Science where you may not be. I am certainly comfortable in not deprecating events and activities which are not in line with my belief system and apparently you are not. Just people being people.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

People with mental illness or certain mental proclivities and a deep and overriding faith in something will interpret unusual things in the light of that faith and become convinced that something mystical happened, where really it was all in their own perception?
That pretty much stands for all religious visions and convictions for me.
People in heightened or vulnerable mental states become convinced of all sorts of nonsense.
Why is Teresa of Avila any different or special?

 

You misunderstood Hannibal. He was saying that few people on this forum are qualified enough to talk about Quantum Mechanics/Physics. I for sure can't! But obviously the science has something to it, as just recently the Higgs Boson was discovered, a particle (?) that was theorized to exist over a decade ago.

No No No No No!!!! Relegion is faith and belief. Science is taken on fact, evidence, proof, testing, and peer review. The two couldn't be anymore opposite.

What's M?

But you must understand that most people don't view the world as "science" vs. "not science". Scientific method is a set of tools that allows us to discern "reality/fact" from "fantasy/humbug". So what we're really doing is discounting anything that fails the scientific method; thus being humbug.

 

Well let's see shall we. Both Neils Bohr and Einstein did not simply wiffle about their thoughts - they worked out how to test them. They then proceeded to test them. Their theories produced predictions which accorded with their observations. Thousands of repeated tests have shown the same, by many other people. These tests do not claim to require decades of devotion and training - the speed of light can be measured with a laser pointer, reasonably powerful electric motor and a mirror (and some basic understanding of mathematics.

They never claimed anything mystical. Neither claimed knowledge of any higher power, or supreme Truth. They simply showed that the theories they had modelled reality more effectively than existing theories.

This is what separates the scientific method from navel gazing.

I can think of a lot of ways to quantify their experiences, but most of them would be innappropriate to this discussion.

Why would a tried and tested method of approaching the world have limits? As people keep on trying to get through to you (apparently unsuccesfully), it is a method. The method is that you observe, you develop a theory to explain the observations, you use that theory to work out specific predictions of what will happen, and you test those predictions. If they are wrong then you accept that and go back to the start. If you do not manage to prove your theory wrong, and no one else does, then you accept it for the time being.

Just give me one shred of evidence, one single test, for any of your theories.

You are still determined to call science a belief system I see. It is not. It is a method of approaching the world in such a way as to avoid wasting time on things which have no evidence.

All you've managed to do so far is repeatedly highlight your lack of understand of the scientific method, and science as a whole. Next you'll be telling me you believe in homeopathy.

 

To be honest I'd say that in light of what we know of mental health today Teresa would probably be diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. Maybe similar to what John Nash suffered from?

Hmmm...invisible people are indistinguishable from people that aren't actually there and are actually in your mind.
I'm still unsure why you'd present such a woman as having anything worthwhile to contribute to human knowledge at all.

 

I like Christopher Hitchen's views on Teresa. Essentially allowing for the suffering of the poor and the sick so that she may reach enlightenment, or w/e the Christian version is.

She evidentally was not that great a person.

 

Wrong Teresa mate.

 

The reason that I present her is exactly for the response that you provided. By definition, Psychology and Psychitry are sciences (IE. bodies of knowledge). The simple fact regarding these two "bodies" is that we know very little about how the mind works or why. In our current condition, we take an MRI of a Human Brain under certain activities, get a result and now think that we "know" something. Nothing wrong with that; everyone needs a hobby. But we may be coming down to a fundamental definition of what it means to "know". According to current Science, Theresa of Avila may have just been a very "sick" or "unstable" person. Thats Science having it say. From another "map" Theresa of Avila was capable of perceptive abilities the rest of us lack. You might be interested in some of the research that has developed regarding Schizophrenics in this matter. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Bruce, a simple explanation of how using a experiment changes the observed, with a Quantum flavor.

There is a bowling ball rolling down an infinitely long bowling lane. Because of the scale the only way to determine how fast it is moving is to smack it with another bowling ball.

Because we know the speed and direction of the bowling ball we are throwing we can determine the speed of the other ball by viewing the results of the impact.

Of course by smacking ball A with ball B we have changed the direction and speed of ball A.

Nothing mystical there.

 

Part of the definition of science, if you're choosing to use it to mean a body of knowledge, is that said knowledge must be able to be critically and rationally examined.

We know rather a lot actually, and more every day.

Just to repeat once more, evidence please.

I'm always interested in psychological or sociological research, but haven't been keeping up with it so much recently. Which research are you referring to that ascribes extrasensory perception to schizophrenics?

 

Sorry. I abbrev. a lot of I.D. & U.M-s. M = M1kjobs.

I understand what you are writing. WHere we seem to get hung-up is that

a.)Science is not an absolute tool for discerning all levels of reality all of the time.

b.) Not all things that fail the test of Science are automatically "humbug".

c.) Not all things that are untestable according to the rules of Science are "humbug".

d.) Not all people who hold to a non-Scientific position are "wrong". They may know as much or as little about their specialty as a Scientist does about his.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

This is true. It's a shame though that that map is untestable and to be honest not very useful. Just because you can think it doesn't make it true.

It's like the old sailor's maps that by today's standards are not very good. Only on this map instead of here be monsters written in the deep waters it says here be special powers.

If your map shows a mountain and another map doesn't and when you look you can't see a mountain it doesn't mean the mountain is invisible. It simply means that it may be time to buy a new map.

 

True, it is simply the best tool.