# Ki is a hoax



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

I am starting this thread so all the people who do not believe in ki have a thread in which they can express their views and try to reach a consensus. In this way they won't have to argue with people who believe ki exists (in whichever way it works for them) on threads where people are discussing ki.

So my challenge to all you doubters is: 

I believe ki exists. I just don't know what it is. 

Without using the words 'trick', 'fraud', 'magic', 'levitation', 'telekinesis', 'supernatural' or 'mystical' and without posting videos from YouTube or the like which may or may not be real, please put forward a case for the *NON* EXISTENCE of ki.

:asian:


----------



## blindsage (Mar 24, 2009)

I don't know if 'chi/qi/ki' is a legitimate 'thing' or not, I continue to withhold my judgement.  That being said, my skeptical side says most of what I have seen that gets attributed to chi/qi/ki that I have been able to confirm as legitimate demonstrable and repeatable effects seem to be better explained by other means i.e. a deep understanding of body mechanics and grounding, or the benefits of long term consistent exercise, or body conditioning, etc.  And some of the more fantastical things I've seen that have been attributed to chi/qi/ki have almost always been demonstrated to be fraud or farce.  This is not to say that I don't believe in chi/qi/ki, it is to say that I haven't seen or experienced anything up to this point that actually corroborates its existence that can't actually be explained in some other fashion.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2009)

I wouldnt call it a "hoax" that implies that its was fabricated for nefarious purposes. I think its a "belief" and you all are free to believe it. I just think its by far more "faith" than science.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2009)

K-man said:


> I am starting this thread so all the people who do not believe in ki have a thread in which they can express their views and try to reach a consensus. In this way they won't have to argue with people who believe ki exists (in whichever way it works for them) on threads where people are discussing ki.
> 
> So my challenge to all you doubters is:
> 
> ...


Interesting challenge.

But it can't be done. 

You can't prove a negative like that; you can only disprove a particular instance of supposed "ki."  And not even that very well... You'll always be able to counter with what amounts to "but I say that's ki..."


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2009)

As I've pointed out here, K, the burden of proof is on you. You're the one who's positing something as a candidate for existence; it's up to you to provide sufficient reasons for others to accept that the likelihood of its existence is greater than the likelihood of its nonexistence. Genuine science has been able to do that with every one of its 'battle tested' results. So far, you have offered nothing even vaguely comparable. Without meeting that burden of proof, your OP is simply a request for people to disprove the existence of something which doesn't have enough connection with reality to _be_ disprovable. 

And again, please note that the other thread began with an OP which tried to link ki to actual science. So it isn't a thread which ki-skeptics have the slightest reason to avoid... and I'm pretty sure that we're _not _going to avoid it.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2009)

Prove the non-existance of Leprechauns.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Prove the non-existance of Leprechauns.



Or invisible purple snargs.

Sorry, K, but you've recycled one of the classical logical fallacies.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Interesting challenge.
> 
> But it can't be done.
> 
> You can't prove a negative like that; you can only disprove a particular instance of supposed "ki." And not even that very well... You'll always be able to counter with what amounts to "but I say that's ki..."


 

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. IMO people cannot prove or disprove ki. If I want to believe in ki then it is real for me. Remember, perception is the reality. If ki works for me then it is my reality. I don't have to prove it. By telling the people that believe in ki that ki doesn't exist, when they are training it day after day, is arrogance. I can accept that most MA practitioners have never experienced ki in the form that I understand it. Others will obviously have a different understanding which is the reality for them. Surely there are enough people about who claim to have experienced ki for others to consider that ki, in whatever form, may exist, even if we don't understand exactly what it is. :asian:


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> Remember, perception is the reality.



No, perception is *not *reality.  The bleatings of pseudo-intellectuals and hardcore postmodernists aside.  Reality is unitary, and that same reality is perceived differently through the very fallible sense organs and reasoning processes of us upjumped apes.  The only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing.  Ki does not meet this standard.

Consider: according to your perceptions, the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it.  According to your perceptions, there is no quantum reality.  According to your perceptions, the tricks of optical illusions are in fact real.  We know all of these things are not true.

Reality is a harsh mistress.  Chi balls won't stop your attacker no matter how much you believe in them.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> Thank you, I couldn't agree more. IMO people cannot prove or disprove ki. If I want to believe in ki then it is real for me. *Remember, perception is the reality.* If ki works for me then it is my reality. I don't have to prove it.



So if you believe, and perceive, that for you the acceleration of gravity is one hundredth what it really is, then jumping off a skyscraper will have no more impact on you than jumping off a step a few inches high?

The people who believed in spontaneous generation, because they saw flies emerging from decaying meat... spontaneous generation was real, eh?

If you believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, then the earth really is flat and the sun revolves around it?






K-man said:


> By telling the people that believe in ki that ki doesn't exist, when they are training it day after day, is arrogance.



No, it's not. It's simply shorthand for the truth: you're positing the existence of something whose existence you can provide no evidence for _apart from your own belief in it._ That's evidence for your belief, no question. But it's not evidence for what you believe _in_. And what does 'training ki' consist of, such that it reflects some interaction between 'ki' and the world? If people are 'training ki', then presumably there's some measurable result of that training that points to the existence the specific thing you're calling ki. Well, what precise results are we talking about here, eh? What does 'training ki' consist of, to set it apart from any other particular activity? If they _weren't_ training ki, how could we tell that? What would the difference be?




K-man said:


> I can accept that most MA practitioners have never experienced ki in the form that I understand it. Others will obviously have a different understanding which is the reality for them. Surely there are enough people about who claim to have experienced ki for others to consider that ki, in whatever form, may exist, even if we don't understand exactly what it is. :asian:



No, all you've provided evidence for is that you had an experience. You _think_ that that experience was a reflection of something about the world. So does someone who's hallucinating under the influence of a fever, or a drug, or psychosis, or extreme suggestion. What you haven't provided evidence for is what it is that that experience was an experience _of_. Go to the visual perception section of any major science center and experience some of the effects, and then try to convince yourself that the content of your experience necessarily mirrors _any_ kind of reality.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 25, 2009)

i believe in Chi

I dont know what it is, and I certainly dont understand it, but i have absolute faith that it exists, I have seen it. And felt it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 25, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i believe in Chi
> 
> I dont know what it is, and I certainly dont understand it, but i have absolute faith that it exists, I have seen it. And felt it.



What does it look like?  What does it feel like?


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 25, 2009)

On the whole "my mind makes my reality" issue... Im no philosopher but I think there are nuances to this statement. How I choose to view the world and interact with it IS within my mind...my "reality" so to speak. I experience the world within my vrain through my senses. However there is also another reality where forces are going to have their effect on you reagardless of your "internal reality". If we are both tossed off a cliff we are both going to fall even if you believe that you can fly. The physical world obviously exists..a bullet will kill you in the same way it will kill me. How I percieve the event may be different from yours but the end result will be the same. People seem to routinely confuse the "internal reality" with the "physical reality". 

The problem I see with "Ki" belief as "internal reality" is that most "Ki believers" think that Ki is within everybody and can be controlled as either a healing force or a weapon. How can a person believe that Ki is an "internal reality" and at the same time believe that it can be manipulated in or against others regardless of their belief?


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> No, perception is *not *reality. The bleatings of pseudo-intellectuals and hardcore postmodernists aside. Reality is unitary, and that same reality is perceived differently through the very fallible sense organs and reasoning processes of us upjumped apes. The only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing. Ki does not meet this standard.
> 
> Consider: according to your perceptions, the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. According to your perceptions, there is no quantum reality. According to your perceptions, the tricks of optical illusions are in fact real. We know all of these things are not true.
> 
> Reality is a harsh mistress. Chi balls won't stop your attacker no matter how much you believe in them.


 
Isn't it amazing how a discussion cannot take place without knocking someone, in this case pseudo-intellectuals and hardcore postmodernists, who probably think they have a valid point of view. 

Perception *is* my reality. If I believe you to be an honest and decent person, then to me that is what you are. If I believe you to be arrogant and rude, then to me, that is what you are. If in the face of all the evidence I perceive the earth to be flat, that is my reality, even if the reality is flawed. If I can be shown rationally that the earth is in fact spherical and indeed rotates around the sun, then my perception will change and I have a new reality. I dispute your claim that the only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing. Rigorous empirical testing will not determine whether you are rude or not. That is perception that cannot be measured but could be discussed. By the same token, if you can demonstrate to me that what I experience each week for 4 hours, at high financial cost, is not real then I will thank you for saving me a great deal of time and money.



> 'Ki does not meet this standard.'


 How can you impirically test Ki? Everyone's perception of ki is different.



> 'Chi balls won't stop your attacker no matter how much you believe in them.'


Where did you get this notion? I have never met anyone who claims to use 'chi balls'. How did it get anywhere near this discussion?


----------



## FeederOfTrolls (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> Isn't it amazing how a discussion cannot take place without knocking someone, in this case pseudo-intellectuals and hardcore postmodernists, who probably think they have a valid point of view.
> 
> Perception *is* my reality. If I believe you to be an honest and decent person, then to me that is what you are. If I believe you to be arrogant and rude, then to me, that is what you are. If in the face of all the evidence I perceive the earth to be flat, that is my reality, even if the reality is flawed. If I can be shown rationally that the earth is in fact spherical and indeed rotates around the sun, then my perception will change and I have a new reality. I dispute your claim that the only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing. Rigorous empirical testing will not determine whether you are rude or not. That is perception that cannot be measured but could be discussed. By the same token, if you can demonstrate to me that what I experience each week for 4 hours, at high financial cost, is not real then I will thank you for saving me a great deal of time and money.



The problem here is that "your reality" is also my reality, and Exile's reality, and Empty Hands' reality. However, there is a disagreement about what is in that reality. To be fair, there have been several ancient and modern philosophers that have posited the belief that we all interpret a different version of the mass delusion that we call reality... but the philosophy of Existential phenomenology is what you're describing here, and the criticism of said philosophy is quite legitimate.

Now, you state that 'ki' exists and I can accept that, but I haven't seen it, felt it, or otherwise witnessed evidence of this existence. I ask that you provide evidence to back your claim, without rancor or insult, so that I can know that what you state is true.

What evidence? Well, something I can reproduce from the same inputs that you use to witness 'ki'. Otherwise, I ask that you respect my skepticism as I cannot see it, feel it, or otherwise witness it and I have only your unproven and untested word that 'ki' is real. 

As you say, empirical evidence is not the only way to experience the world, but it is the only way to prove the existence of something to others. And when you make a claim you need to be able to back it from people who, respectfully, question that claim.

Also, and I say with with respect from one intelligent human being to another, perception is not always reality. If perception was always reality we would not have the model of the universe that we do, we would not need forensics science to solve crimes, we would not, in fact, have a lot of the things that we use every day. Perception is what your senses tell you, but you can't always believe your eyes.  This is why empirical evidence and repeatable demonstrations are so important to human beings, so that we can demonstrate the reality of otherwise mystical and inexplicable phenomena to one another and provide a good framework for debate of their root causes.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> Isn't it amazing how a discussion cannot take place without knocking someone, in this case pseudo-intellectuals and hardcore postmodernists, who probably think they have a valid point of view.



Whether they actually _do_ have a valid point of view, of course, isn't the same as whether they _think_ they do. Unless you want to change the meaning of 'valid' to mean, 'whatever some particular person thinks about what they believe.' In which case, of course, no problem... 



K-man said:


> Perception *is* my reality.



You haven't answered a single one of the questions posed to you in response to this statement in any of the earlier threads, K. If you think something is true, that makes it true? If you think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, an example both EH and I raised earlier in our posts, that means that the earth really is flat and the sun really goes round it? If you think you're Napoleon, that means you _are_ Napoleon? Just what do you think the content of this assertion actually amounts to?




K-man said:


> If I believe you to be an honest and decent person, then to me that is what you are. If I believe you to be arrogant and rude, then to me, that is what you are. If in the face of all the evidence I perceive the earth to be flat, that is my reality, even if the reality is flawed.



So what you're saying is, you use the word reality in a private sense, where it is synonymous with what you believe. Ah. In that case, saying 'I believe that up is down and down is up is real' means nothing other than that you hold that belief. So we then need a word for that which actually is the case, whether or not you or I happen to believe it. Call 'what actually is the case' something like reality-prime. Great. So ki is real, no argument. But we also agree that you have yet to show that it's real-prime. So far as I can tell, you're just reinventing the wheel here. Let's just use the word 'reality' in its normal meaning&#8212;that which _is_, whether or not you, I or anyone else happens to know what it is. In that case, what you're really saying is, 'If I believe you to be an honest and decent person, then I believe you to be an honest and decent person', etc. 'If I believe the earth is flat, then... well, I believe the earth is flat.' No argument there!  But proving that any of it is _real_... well, that's the problem, innit!?



K-man said:


> If I can be shown rationally that the earth is in fact spherical and indeed rotates around the sun, then my perception will change and I have a new reality.



Translation: you now have changed beliefs. Your belief better matches the available evidence. Regardless of what you believe, however, the universe is a certain way (hence, when you jump off that skyscraper, you will be killed, no matter how slowly you _believe_ you're going to fall.)




K-man said:


> I dispute your claim that the only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing. Rigorous empirical testing will not determine whether you are rude or not.



Come on, now, K, you must _know_ that this is a red herring as an example! We're not talking about attitude and your attribution of a certain attitude to someone else. Rudeness is not a concept that corresponds to the source of replicable quantitative measurements, is it?  We're talking about the mechanics of the world, observable phenomena which can be measured, systematically observed and rigorously tested in terms of compliance with various hypotheses. Ki isn't about rudeness, or self-esteem, or anything like that; ki is supposedly an explanation for certain material effects in the world. Bait-and-switch doesn't help the cause of your argument. 




K-man said:


> That is perception that cannot be measured but could be discussed. By the same token, if you can demonstrate to me that what I experience each week for 4 hours, at high financial cost, is not real then I will thank you for saving me a great deal of time and money.



Who's saying that your experience isn't real? What we're asking you to do is provide support for a certain claim&#8212;namely, that that experience reflects a particular set of facts about how the world is structured. If all you're saying is, you feel tremendous energy, power, enlightenment&#8212;fine, that's what you're feeling. If you're saying that your subjective sensations reflect something about the structure of reality, then sorry, you'd better be able to back that up. Under certain circumstances, two absolutely parallel lines will appear to every neurologically normal person as curving away from each other. Tell me they look curved, to you&#8212;fine. Tell me they _are_ curved because they _look_ curved to you... now you're in big trouble!



K-man said:


> How can you impirically test Ki? Everyone's perception of ki is different.



If you can't even identify what it is that your experience of ki is an experience _of_, you're going to have a very hard time persuading anyone besides yourself that there's anything at all to what your interpretation of that experience _is_.


----------



## tellner (Mar 25, 2009)

The classic version of this is Russell's Teapot.


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

exile said:


> So if you believe, and perceive, that for you the acceleration of gravity is one hundredth what it really is, then jumping off a skyscraper will have no more impact on you than jumping off a step a few inches high?
> 
> The people who believed in spontaneous generation, because they saw flies emerging from decaying meat... spontaneous generation was real, eh?
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry but this post *is* arrogant. Sorry, my perception of this post is that it is arrogant. To me that is reality! Your first three statements are absolute rubbish which can be quite easily shown, with current knowledge to be false. They were never my perception, or my reality and they have no place in proving or disproving ki.

_



			By telling the people that believe in ki that ki doesn't exist, when they are training it day after day, is arrogance.
		
Click to expand...

_I stand by this statement. It is not the truth as you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of ki, and it is arrogant and presumptive of you to debunk my training without knowing anything of it. If you genuinely would like to know about my training of ki then feel free to PM me. I came to this forum originally to find other practitioners who are training ki, not as an apologist for it. It seems that every thread that someone starts involving ki ends up with emotive people smothering any decent discussion. Hence my reason for starting this thread.

I did not, nor have I ever provided ANY evidence as to the existance of ki. I only said that to me ki is real. So we sink into emotive language of hallucinating under the influence of a fever, or a drug, or psychosis, or extreme suggestion. I'm sorry, my temperature is 37deg C, I don't take any medication or drugs, I don't train after drinking, I don't suffer from psychosis or other mental condition and I doubt whether I am being placed under extreme suggestion. 

You asked a question 





> And what does 'training ki' consist of, such that it reflects some interaction between 'ki' and the world?


 I presume this question was retorical as you seem to have answered your own question.

Since I started this reply I see there is another post from exile so I will post this and address the next.


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The problem I see with "Ki" belief as "internal reality" is that most "Ki believers" think that Ki is within everybody and can be controlled as either a healing force or a weapon. How can a person believe that Ki is an "internal reality" and at the same time believe that it can be manipulated in or against others regardless of their belief?


 
Great question.


----------



## FeederOfTrolls (Mar 25, 2009)

tellner said:


> The classic version of this is Russell's Teapot.



That was an excellent example of modern philosophy that I hadn't encountered to date. Thanks!


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

FeederOfTrolls said:


> Now, you state that 'ki' exists and I can accept that, but I haven't seen it, felt it, or otherwise witnessed evidence of this existence. I ask that you provide evidence to back your claim, without rancor or insult, so that I can know that what you state is true.
> 
> What evidence? Well, something I can reproduce from the same inputs that you use to witness 'ki'. Otherwise, I ask that you respect my skepticism as I cannot see it, feel it, or otherwise witness it and I have only your unproven and untested word that 'ki' is real.
> quote]
> ...


----------



## FeederOfTrolls (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> FeederOfTrolls said:
> 
> 
> > Now, you state that 'ki' exists and I can accept that, but I haven't seen it, felt it, or otherwise witnessed evidence of this existence. I ask that you provide evidence to back your claim, without rancor or insult, so that I can know that what you state is true.
> ...



Well, that is certainly fair enough. If I'm ever over on that side of the pond I will stop by. I'd be very interested in witnessing this. 

As far as respect of belief versus skepticism, give the teapot link above a read. Skeptics, myself included, often feel that unproven statements are best not repeated for fear that those who are not skeptics will believe them without proof. This may be irrational, you are certainly entitled to state your claim, but I believe this is the motivation behind voracious attacks on personally held beliefs. Fair? No. But definitely human nature and to be fair the refutation of 'ki' in this thread hasn't been too rancorous, though perhaps a bit heated at times. 

Should you or your sensei ever desire to have measurements done, there are a variety of measurements that might help. For example, a CAT scan (if he can control his 'ki' that well) before, during, and after might indicate some neural processes that are not directly observable. You get the idea. Also, credible and unbiased witnesses are good but you are correct; this would be a difficult claim to prove.

Best of luck in you MA training!


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

exile said:


> Whether they actually _do_ have a valid point of view, of course, isn't the same as whether they _think_ they do. Unless you want to change the meaning of 'valid' to mean, 'whatever some particular person thinks about what they believe.' In which case, of course, no problem...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Exile, I have to go out to dinner tonight! This arguement will last for a long time and I'm not wilting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I am going to start at the end.


> If you can't even identify what it is that your experience of ki is an experience _of_, you're going to have a very hard time persuading anyone besides yourself that there's anything at all to what your interpretation of that experience _is_.


It is not that I cannot explain what my experience of ki is, I can. As to what is causing me to experience what I do, I cannot understand, let alone describe. Within that context I would say that I have a perception of what is happening that becomes my reality. (To you it may be a teapot
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) I am not trying to persuade anyone about anything. I am asking to be able to discuss matters of ki with other people who already believe that they have some understanding of ki. 



> You haven't answered a single one of the questions posed to you in response to this statement in any of the earlier threads, K.


I am sorry if this is the case. Perhaps you could re-post them then as simple questions that I might answer one by one.


> Translation: you now have changed beliefs. Your belief better matches the available evidence. Regardless of what you believe, however, the universe is a certain way (hence, when you jump off that skyscraper, you will be killed, no matter how slowly you _believe_ you're going to fall.)


The skyscraper analogy is not the same as perception relating to ki. If I fall down there must be a reason. I perceive it to be 'x'. You, on the other hand suggest that the real reason is 'y'. I consider the situation, agree with you that your idea is more appropriate and my perception is changed. We might both be wrong as the real reason is 'z' and neither of us recognised that. Perceptions change to suit the information fed to our brain.



> Come on, now, K, you must _know_ that this is a red herring as an example! We're not talking about attitude and your attribution of a certain attitude to someone else.


 
Red herring to a point but based on reality. I believe that attitude has a big part in the training of ki. I'm sorry but it would take all night to tell you why. It's more a topic for private discussion. 


> Who's saying that your experience isn't real? What we're asking you to do is provide support for a certain claimnamely, that that experience reflects a particular set of facts about how the world is structured. If all you're saying is, you feel tremendous energy, power, enlightenmentfine, that's what you're feeling.


I must have misread a number of the posts. My *perception* is that a number of people are suggesting that my experience isn't real. The only support for my claim is available any time here in Melbourne. Unfortunately it is not a practical solution for those on the other side of the world. I make no claim about how the world is structured. The only claim I make is that ki can be utilised in your training to enhance your techniques. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 25, 2009)

What is it that "ki" is supposed to do for you martial arts wise?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 25, 2009)

Imo (here goes) Ki and all its comparable systems is a way to control your body through meditation.

The human body can do a lot of things that are normally thought impossible. For example, someone I know once was admitted to the psych ward because he reacted badly to certain meds and had to be controlled.
The room he was in was home to an 80 year old frail woman who had issues.
At one point that woman 'flipped' (sorry but I have no better word) and rammed her fist through a procelain washbasin that was over an inch thick.
I could not have done this.

The brain controls the body through various means. Hormones, the nervous system, the blood stream, the metabolism, etc. It also controls experience by managing the sensory input and prioritizing.

I have also seen a yogi on Guinness world records fold himself in a little box, which was then submersed in water for 7 full minutes. He survived by putting himself into a trance that virtually shut down his metabolism.

So if you can consciously control the body and the mind, you will have a controlled application of the super powers that can be unlocked. And by using meditation / breathing techniques / ki / kuji-kiri, you can learn to do this.
But here is the thing : If you can use techniques to control the mind and body and take over the automatic processes, then this also means that if you dont know what you are doing, you can royally **** yourself permanently.

The human brain / body is an incredibly complex piece of machinery, and we still dont understand how it really works. Experimenting with e.g ki without knowing what you are doing is like going into a nuclear power plant, and then pulling various levers and pushing buttons, wondering out loud gee, what happens if I do this. In the best case, nothing happens. Worst case, you experience your private little Tjernobyl.'

I believe in ki, kuji, and all those things as systems that you can use to have control of your body by taking over the automatic processes.
I do NOT believe in invisible energy flows that can be controlled by the mind, but not measured in any way.

So if you can use ki to make your arm so strong that it won't bend... yes, I can believe that. But your ki won't allow you to affect other human beings, unless through hypnosis, persuasion or mass hysteria.

See the following examples:

This is derren brown, a stage performer who is a convinced skeptic, and shows he can perform a no touch knockout by manipulation:





This is a case of mass hysteria, persuasion:





This is a case of the same, except the outsider doesn't believe it and kicks some ki ***:


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 25, 2009)

Just to lighten the mood.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

Ki is the Japanese way of reading the Kanji for Qi.

Qi literal meaning means the steam coming from cooked rice.

Thus I have proven Qi.

When you speak about Qi you have 2 catagories 1.the religious use 2. the TCM use. 

In these catagories it is further broken down into what type of Qi are you talking about. Because the Chinese and Japanese do not speak English they spoke Chinese and used the word Qi to describe energy the Japanese used the word Ki from the reading of the Hanzi to describe energy.

When it is translated into English it simply means energy. 

There is no magical,mystical anything however when used in a religious manner such as Taoism yes it can have a magical mystical meaning but that is more of a religious belief then the simple term energy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> I am starting this thread so all the people who do not believe in ki have a thread in which they can express their views and try to reach a consensus. In this way they won't have to argue with people who believe ki exists (in whichever way it works for them) on threads where people are discussing ki.
> 
> So my challenge to all you doubters is:
> 
> ...


I consider 'ki' to be the exercise of control over one's breathing and heart-rate. The ability to do this effectively enable you to do things that a regular person cannot do. 

Now, I don't include in that 'things that regular people cannot do' anything mystical, such as levitation. I've never seen any levitation that is anything more than well developed gluts, quads, and core muscularature and a developed ability to jump with one's thighs in a chicken wing position by pressing them into the ground and propelling the body upwards.

This is jumping, and it is a type of jumping _that regular people cannot do_. It requires the flexibility to flex one's knees at an angle lower than that of a flat plane with explosive power.... just like jumping when standing. Needless to say, it also requires a goodly amount of breath control.

Ki as a mystical force that one can use to knock one's opponents out has been proven to be fraudulent or a delusion on the part of those who practice it, such that it only works on fellow believers (generally students in Dilman's school).

Lastly, K-Man, you issued what _could_ be considered an unfair challenge, in that you ask people to make a case but will not allow them to cite video referrences or allowing them to use the word, 'fraud.' If that is what a doubter believes ki to be, or more specifically some of the promoters of ki to be, then they have every right to use such a term, particularly if the person in question has been proven fraudulent.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

K-man said:


> If I want to believe in ki then it is real for me. Remember, perception is the reality. If ki works for me then it is my reality. I don't have to prove it.


Not true.  

Perception is *not* the same as reality.  There are people who perceive that they are great fighters.  When they are tested, they are demolished.  They cook up excuses and reasons for this apparent contradition between the event of their defeat and their perception, still believing in their perception.  But their perception is incorrect: they just weren't as good a fighter as they thought they were.

People perceived for centuries that the earth was flat.  That _perception_ was incorrect, as in _reality_, the earth is indeed *not* flat.

You've invited a discussion wherein you've *asked* people to provide *proof *that something doesn't exist.  Once you ask for proof, you cannot use this sort of circular logic.  You must refute what is said with *proof* of your own.  Not only that, you must do so without using any of the words or links that you have barred skeptics from using.  

Remember, *you* issued the challenge.  Don't be offended when it is accepted in earnest.

Daniel


----------



## searcher (Mar 25, 2009)

Here is my shortened version of what I feel Ki/Chi is.    I have no scientific proof one way or another and I am not sure how I would go about geting it, since we are talking about a "spiritual" item.

My take is that back in the day that the ancient Chinese and Indian mystics were onto something that well ahead of their time, nerve impulses.    Nerve impulses are really nothing more than electricity that travels through the body.    I beleive that the ancients were very good at biofeedback and were able to gain control over their nerve impulses much the same way we use biofeedback to control breathing and heartrate or even how nervous or scared we get.   The "felt chi" would be nothing more than causing a build up of electrical energy, much the same way a short circuit or the electrical currents build up heat.    To explain the buildup in physical power, the monks or ??? would just cause a buildup of extra neurotransmitters into the muscles along with some hormone buildup that would activate more muscle fibers and, in turn, give the individual more power.


Please understand that this is my own abreviated take on Ki/Chi and currently has no scientific evidence to back it up.    I am just letting you knwo what I think and I am NOT bashing your views on this subject.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

searcher said:


> Here is my shortened version of what I feel Ki/Chi is. I have no scientific proof one way or another and I am not sure how I would go about geting it, since we are talking about a "spiritual" item.
> 
> My take is that back in the day that the ancient Chinese and Indian mystics were onto something that well ahead of their time, nerve impulses. Nerve impulses are really nothing more than electricity that travels through the body. I beleive that the ancients were very good at biofeedback and were able to gain control over their nerve impulses much the same way we use biofeedback to control breathing and heartrate or even how nervous or scared we get. The "felt chi" would be nothing more than causing a build up of electrical energy, much the same way a short circuit or the electrical currents build up heat. To explain the buildup in physical power, the monks or ??? would just cause a buildup of extra neurotransmitters into the muscles along with some hormone buildup that would activate more muscle fibers and, in turn, give the individual more power.
> 
> ...


I'd agree with that.  Heck, that's perfectly reasonable.

Daniel


----------



## sparky12 (Mar 25, 2009)

Wow, is this a hot topic or what? IMO, to those who have not experienced chi, it does not exist. To those that have experienced it, it is unmistakable, and does exist. I don't think either side will ever convince the other.
Regards, Don


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

Personally, I believe that 'Ki' or 'Chi' exists, but the debate is in what the nature of ki or chi is.  I don't believe it to be a product of the mystical, but biophysics.

Daniel


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2009)

sparky12 said:


> Wow, is this a hot topic or what?* IMO, to those who have not experienced chi, it does not exist. To those that have experienced it, it is unmistakable, and does exist. *I don't think either side will ever convince the other.
> Regards, Don



I'm sorry, Sparky, but I think the way you've put things here&#8212;and K-man has done exactly the same&#8212;captures in a nutshell the problem with those who 'believe in ki'. So I think it's worth going over (and over) again the crucially flawed hidden premise in what both of you have said, which is in the part I've bolded.

As always, the Bard got it right. Look at what Theseus says in _Midsummer Night's Dream_:

_Such tricks hath strong imagination
That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!
_

Theseus' point is that there are two separate things going on in any experience: (i) the sensation of the experience itself, and (ii) the _source_ of that experience, independent of the sensation or the one experiencing it. The two are not the same: the bear of your fear may well be a bush. Contrary to what K seems to be saying, there's no arrogance in the least in Theseus' point that (i) and (ii) are inherently distinct and that only evidence can establish that any given (ii) is the external source of (i), which is all that any of us are saying&#8212;well, that plus the observation that no one who 'believes in ki' has yet actually supplied any particular evidence along these lines at all. 

By the same token, the sensation of joy inherently points us towards some _external _source for that sensation. Conscious experience always comes equipped with a compass needle pointing back into the world as the source of that experience. But just as Theseus is noncommital about the existence of an actual 'bringer' of some sensation of joy, and explicit in identifying the mistake of confusing the supposition of a bear with its reality, it's generally the case that you can't automatically tell from what you experience just what caused that experience. There is a huge literature, for example, on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony&#8212;people constantly invert right and left in their perception of some event, claim that two or three people were involved when clear and unequivocal camera recordings show only a single person, and so on and on and on. 

So while no one is denying the reality of the experiences that you, TF and K-man have had, what is at issue is the source of these experiences. And this is where what K is saying about 'perception is reality' runs into big trouble. Because, in spite of his dismissal of the sun-revolving-around-the-flat-earth example and all the others we've brought up, saying that perception is reality directly entails that if you believe/perceive something, it's true simply for that reason. Sorry, no sale. Your belief is a fact, no question&#8212;about your mental state or attitude towards the world;  but to confirm that the world works according to that belief, you need to supply evidence. Suppose, however, that you maintain that there is no way that evidence can possibly bear on the topic one way or the other, as K has done&#8212;he's said repeatedly that _ki_ cannot be either proved or disproved. Do you not see that now you're boxed into a situation in which the claim that 'ki exists' is meaningless, since you're also saying that there's no way to determine whether whatever it is you're experiencing corresponds to the way the world is, or _doesn't_ correspond to it.

In the end, then, all we're left with is your statement that you're experiencing something. Logically, there is no weight at all to support your claim that what you're experiencing corresponds to something about how the world is set up. No one will dispute that you're experiencing _something_, I don't think&#8212;what's at issue is the source of that, and if you're not going to provide any evidence in support, then once again, all you have is confusion of the sensation itself&#8212;the bear&#8212;with what's out there in the world. And that's far more likely to be a bush...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

sparky12 said:


> Wow, is this a hot topic or what? IMO, to those who have not experienced chi, it does not exist. To those that have experienced it, it is unmistakable, and does exist. I don't think either side will ever convince the other.
> Regards, Don


The divide lies in that those who claim to have experienced chi make those claims to those who have not. 

The discussion always starts here, as without someone makeing the claim that they have experienced and/or can manipulate chi, there is not opportunity for skepticism. 

The problem arises when the hearer of the claim says, 'wow, that sounds cool. Can you show me how it works.' Then the claimant is either unwilling or unable to do so. 

This is different than belief in God. I believe in God, but I am not telling you that by believing in God that I can produce a visible effect, such as knocking a man out at forty paces. I'm telling you that I have put faith in documents written thousands of years ago. That's my personal belief, but it doesn't make any claims of abilities that I can reproduce and teach to others. Nobody can *execute* the existence of God and nobody can be *taught* _to execute_ the existence of God.

Claiming to be able to manipulate chi is, to a great extent, the equivalent of me telling you that I can manipulate your joints. When you say, show me, I can execute a wristlock on _you_ and work your wrist in such a fashion so as to bear you to the ground. I demonstrate that _I_ can do this, and I can then show you how to execute the same technique. Then _you_ can execute the technique on _me_. 

Since people actually claim to be able to teach Chi and consider it a part of the martial arts and indeed, base martial arts upon it, then they claim that they *can execute* techniques that *require* chi, such as knocking out a guy at forty paces. At this point, you have moved from belief in a _theory_ to performance of a _technique_.

And since those who claim the existence of chi claim that it has martial application, the techniques *must* be replicable against a _noncompliant_ opponent. When a top student of George Dilman agrees to demonstrate this to National Geographic on camera, can knock out his believing students, but cannot effect in the least some snarky journalist, it looks like he's a con man. And when Dilman makes some lame excuse about how lifting your little toe can negate the chi effect, he comes off like a conman who's been caught.
************ 
*Edit: *Another issue in this discussion is that the OP does not define chi or ki in any specific way.  He just says, 



K-man said:


> I believe ki exists. I just don't know what it is.


 
Somehow, I doubt that he is open to ki being mere biophysics, otherwise he'd have simply started a thread with that premise as a means of explaining ki.  But it *appears* from the issuance of a challenge in the OP and one of his later remarks about the thread not dying anytime soon that what he wants is a lengthy debate.  Defining ki as biophysics isn't likely to produce much debate.

Either way, he has started a thread around a nebulous concept that he himself apparently cannot define.  Not the best ground to stand on when issuing a challenge.
************
The bottom line is that you cannot claim that you can manipulate a force in an SD application and claim to be able to confer the skill to do so to others *unless *you can replicate it on someone whom you haven't trained as a nice compliant partner.

So far, no verifiable evidence has been presented that _anybody_ has _ever_ passed that test. 

Daniel


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2009)

Who cares? 

And this is as pointless as the MMA vs TMA stuff

If you believe or don't believe you can't argue with a stone is will always be a stone.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 25, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The bottom line is that you cannot claim that you can manipulate a force in an SD application and claim to be able to confer the skill to do so to others *unless *you can replicate it on someone whom you haven't trained as a nice compliant partner.
> 
> So far, no verifiable evidence has been presented that _anybody_ has _ever_ passed that test.
> 
> Daniel



Someone able to do this could earn a cool million bucks at randi.org
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Who cares?
> 
> And this is as pointless as the MMA vs TMA stuff
> 
> If you believe or don't believe you can't argue with a stone is will always be a stone.



Xue, I don't think it's pointless&#8212;as long as you accept that the purpose of the discussion is not to persuade someone on the opposite side, but to lay bare the logic and evidence base of the arguments. Remember those debates I and many other people used to have with Last Fearner about the 2,000+ year old history of TKD? His claim that since we couldn't _disprove_ his own particular version of the monks-hiding-in-the-hills story (which that kind of claim always boils down to when it turns out that there isn't one shred of evidence for the ancient origins of some modern TMA), there was just as much reason to believe it as there was to believe the history supported by massive documentation and reliable historical records. When it was pointed out to him that we also couldn't disprove the hypothesis that TKD was invented a year ago by space aliens who telepathically imposed the relevant memories into the minds of a number of people picked at random, as part of a study of Earthling psychology, he was indignant... but never actually managed to show that _his_ unprovable story was better founded than the space aliens story. The long drawn out arguments were in the end very useful, because they brought to light a good deal of just what the evidence base for the KMAs is, and what that base does _not_ provide any support for. 

The key point is, I and the other historical realist types weren't trying to persuade LF. We were trying to lay out the key aspects of that evidence base, and what it's possible to infer from it in a way which meets the 'space aliens' test, and what's not possible. My goal wasn't change LF's mind, but to make a certain case before an interested, objective reader with no preconceptions about the matter. And you're not out of this kind of fight yourself, amigo&#8212;what about all those people out there who are convinced in their bones that the Shaolin Temple really is the point of origin for all the CMAs, and to hell with known history, eh? If you challenge them on that, you're not trying to change _their_ minds so much as to persuade the as yet unconvinced reader of the discussion that the Shaolin origin theory doesn't hold water, period.  

This almost exactly the same kind of debate, transposed to a different domain. Here too I think setting out the structure of the argument ultimately does serve the same purpose.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 25, 2009)

No one is saying ki doesn't exist, they're saying prove it. If you say 'I have experienced it, and you can too, but the only way to do so is in person', there's nothing wrong with that. The question is how do you know what you are experiencing is ki? I've done some qigong, taijiquan, and bagua and I've experience the hot tingling feel of 'energy' in my hands, but the only reason I've ever had to believe it was ki was because someone said 'Feel that? That's ki.' 

What the skeptics among us are asking is how do you know it's 'ki'? I don't know that the exercises I'm doing don't just increase blood flow to my hands causing an increase in heat and a tingling sensation. It could be explained, conceivably, by either one. The skeptics are asking how do you know it's ki and not something else. They are also asking, since the 'cultivation' and use of ki is, supposedly, something that can be taught and felt between people then it should be measurable and repeatable in some form or fashion. Ki practitioners say that it is. 

Now here's where the breakdown happens, in multiple situations where a skeptic has gone to a ki practitioner and ask for an expression of ki to be demonstrated and tried to document it the practitioner has been unable to back up their claims on a skeptical unwilling individual, thus casting doubt on the veracity of their claims and those of other ki practitioners. 

Ki very well may exist, and you may have to experience it directly to know that, but if it does exist there should be a repeatable method to measure it and way to describe it so that non-practitioners can have some conception of what it is without resorting to vague, semi-mystical terminology.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 25, 2009)

blindsage said:


> No one is saying ki doesn't exist, they're saying prove it.


 
Actually, I think plenty of people have stated that they believe it doesn't exist, if not in this particular thread, then in others.



> If you say 'I have experienced it, and you can too, but the only way to do so is in person', there's nothing wrong with that. The question is how do you know what you are experiencing is ki? I've done some qigong, taijiquan, and bagua and I've experience the hot tingling feel of 'energy' in my hands, but the only reason I've ever had to believe it was ki was because someone said 'Feel that? That's ki.'
> 
> What the skeptics among us are asking is how do you know it's 'ki'? I don't know that the exercises I'm doing don't just increase blood flow to my hands causing an increase in heat and a tingling sensation. It could be explained, conceivably, by either one. The skeptics are asking how do you know it's ki and not something else. They are also asking, since the 'cultivation' and use of ki is, supposedly, something that can be taught and felt between people then it should be measurable and repeatable in some form or fashion. Ki practitioners say that it is.


 
I understand your position here, and it certainly creates a frustrationg situation.

I myself do believe in qi, but I cannot state with strong certainty that I have "felt" it or experienced it in a clear way.  In my taiji practice, I do get the warm feeling in the palms at times, but not always.  Is that qi?  Maybe, or maybe as you suggest, it's just blood flowing thru my hands more strongly from my exercise, or something.  

I've certainly never been able to do anything magical with it, nor do I expect to be able to, and I am a strong skeptic of those who claim that they can.  I believe the "no-touch knockout", or throwing qi-balls and stuff is nonsense.  If anyone actually developed their qi to this level, I think they would be very very very very few and far between, yet any yokel who has been practicing qi-gong and/or taiji for a decade or more (often less) seems to want to believe and claim that they can do it.   I guess some people just wanna feel special or something.

In my opinion, real qi is subtle and difficult to pin down.  Most people are unable to do so, including many who teach taiji and qi-gong, regardless of what they claim or believe.  It takes a lot of training and focus to become aware of it, much less strengthen and control it.  Most people never gain this ability.  I think the results of being able to do so are mostly subtle as well.  One might be justified in asking "why do it then?"  It's a good question.  We just do it.  I believe that even if the results are subtle, they can help, and it leads to an overall improvement in health and in martial practice.  Sorry, I can't get much more specific than that, and that failure on my part doesn't bother me.  I just recognize my own very imperfect understanding of the topic.

At any rate, my sifu and my sigung describe their qi in a certain specific way: they state that when doing their qi-gong, they can feel the "energy" sloshing around on the inside of their body, almost like a fluid.  Sigung says it feels like he is taking a shower on the inside.  And Sigung is a tremendously accomplished taiji guy in Beijing, a personal student of Chen Fa Ke, and one who helped the Chen family reclaim their taiji heritage after the cultural revolution, when a lot of the old ways had been forgotten after a decade or more of severe repression.  He remembered much of what most had forgotten, and he helped train the next generation of Chen Family leaders. 

He has been an absolutely formidable fighter, accepting challenges into his 70s.  I have never had the opportunity to meet him, but my classmates have accompanied Sifu to Beijing to study with him, and they just had no explanation for what this man can do.  He could generate power in ways that just defy explanation.  I'm talking weird angles, in weird directions, with only a slight shrug of the shoulders, not just thru a punch or a kick like one would expect.  My classmates felt this and experienced this while training under him.

Is this qi?  I don't have any other explanation for it, so I accept it as such.  These are my personal beliefs.  I am not concerned that others do not believe in qi, for whatever reason.  Perhaps they have simply never experienced it in a convincing way.  Perhaps they are too wrapped up in Western Science to be able to look at things in a different way and accept that maybe qi is just different, and not measurable by Western science, at least not yet.  I guess I don't care.  I'm not surprised by it, and it doesn't matter to me that there are lots of skeptics.  I'm not really interested in trying to convince anyone. I've given my thoughts, you can take them or leave them, it's up to you.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 25, 2009)

In the other thread where I think this debate started...I never stated that Ki was necessarily a hoax.  I did say that a lot of typical demonstrations of ki were more akin to tricks than actual demonstrations of ki.  I also felt that a lto of the typical explanations of ki didn't hold water.  

however, I further wnet on to elaborate that many of the effects of ki were, in my expereince, very real.  The difference is that i feel that there are better explanations for the phenomenon than ki (which has become a bit of a catch all phrase for a lot of stuff).

My argument (towards the end) was that it could be more benefiical to focus on developing the knowledge and language out side th emetaphyscial to describe these phenomenon, how they are taught, and how they can be utilised.  

I cannot disprove the existence of Ki.  however, I've not seen a credible demonstration of it that couldn;t be more easily exaplined by something else.  I feel that this does not take anythign away from various ki/chi cultivation prafctices or the internal arts that utilize these concepts.  Aikido, t'ai chi, etc...very good, strong and powerful arts int he ahnds of a competent practitioner.  I just wonder if a change in the nomenclature and thinking might be of beneift.  Maybe not...just something to think about.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2009)

blindsage said:


> No one is saying ki doesn't exist, they're saying prove it. If you say 'I have experienced it, and you can too, but the only way to do so is in person', there's nothing wrong with that. The question is how do you know what you are experiencing is ki? I've done some qigong, taijiquan, and bagua and I've experience the hot tingling feel of 'energy' in my hands, but the only reason I've ever had to believe it was ki was because someone said 'Feel that? That's ki.'
> 
> What the skeptics among us are asking is how do you know it's 'ki'? I don't know that the exercises I'm doing don't just increase blood flow to my hands causing an increase in heat and a tingling sensation. It could be explained, conceivably, by either one. The skeptics are asking how do you know it's ki and not something else.


If someone told me that they call that sensation ki and left it at that, no problem. Ki is as good a word as tingle. But if that was the end of it, then there wouldn't be much skepticism, discussion or debate. 

You have well stated (bolded) where the skepticism and debate begins:


blindsage said:


> They are also asking, since the *'cultivation' and use of ki is, supposedly, something that can be taught and felt between people* *then it should be measurable and repeatable in some form or fashion. Ki practitioners say that it is*.


As soon as an instructor says, "I can show you how," you have a claim of knowledge, application, and transferrability of that knowledge.



blindsage said:


> Now here's where the breakdown happens, in multiple situations where a skeptic has gone to a ki practitioner and ask for an expression of ki to be demonstrated and tried to document it the practitioner has been unable to back up their claims on a skeptical unwilling individual, thus casting doubt on the veracity of their claims and those of other ki practitioners.


This is the problem. The claims go beyond simple existence and application. They go into the fact that these some of guys and gals (usually the ones that seem to have the greatest financial stake or ego at stake, oddly enough) want ki to be _*the force.*_ 

Once you get into claiming that you can use the force, unless you execute all of your techniques through the medium of film with the aid of George Lucas' special effects team and budget, you can't use the force.

If I stick with saying that Ki is biophysics and essentially breath control and metabolic control through biofeedback and meditation techniques, I can either reproduce the results or find sound documentation for them by others who have. I could then say, legitimately, that I use my Ki to sustain me through several matches and marshall its power when I need explosive strikes.

But as soon as I start claiming that I can force-push my opponents, I am in a position of claiming to do something that not only can I *not* reproduce, but for which there is no verifiable evidence that anyone else can.



blindsage said:


> Ki very well may exist, and you may have to experience it directly to know that, but if it does exist there should be a repeatable method to measure it and way to describe it so that non-practitioners can have some conception of what it is without resorting to vague, semi-mystical terminology.


Well, I think that myself, Searcher, and probably others have defined it pretty reasonably. 

But few ki proponents and claimants want to hear biophysics. They want to use the force. And they want you to _believe_ that they can use the force. Athletes and singers use breath control and regulate their metabolic rates in order to do what they do; Ki proponents and claimants need something special.

George Dilman wants you to believe that he can force push an opponent and that he has taught others to do the same. But the only people who seem to be vulnerable to it is his own students and some guy from Blackbelt mag. who provided no video. Personally, I believe that his students have been conditioned through excessive cooperative partner drills and that the BBmag guy watched enough of those same drills to subconsiously get with the program (I'm being generous, because the only alternative is that he lied in the article, but I'm not willing to make that accusation).

Daniel


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2009)

exile said:


> Xue, I don't think it's pointlessas long as you accept that the purpose of the discussion is not to persuade someone on the opposite side, but to lay bare the logic and evidence base of the arguments. Remember those debates I and many other people used to have with Last Fearner about the 2,000+ year old history of TKD? His claim that since we couldn't _disprove_ his own particular version of the monks-hiding-in-the-hills story (which that kind of claim always boils down to when it turns out that there isn't one shred of evidence for the ancient origins of some modern TMA), there was just as much reason to believe it as there was to believe the history supported by massive documentation and reliable historical records. When it was pointed out to him that we also couldn't disprove the hypothesis that TKD was invented a year ago by space aliens who telepathically imposed the relevant memories into the minds of a number of people picked at random, as part of a study of Earthling psychology, he was indignant... but never actually managed to show that _his_ unprovable story was better founded than the space aliens story. The long drawn out arguments were in the end very useful, because they brought to light a good deal of just what the evidence base for the KMAs is, and what that base does _not_ provide any support for.
> 
> The key point is, I and the other historical realist types weren't trying to persuade LF. We were trying to lay out the key aspects of that evidence base, and what it's possible to infer from it in a way which meets the 'space aliens' test, and what's not possible. My goal wasn't change LF's mind, but to make a certain case before an interested, objective reader with no preconceptions about the matter. And you're not out of this kind of fight yourself, amigowhat about all those people out there who are convinced in their bones that the Shaolin Temple really is the point of origin for all the CMAs, and to hell with known history, eh? If you challenge them on that, you're not trying to change _their_ minds so much as to persuade the as yet unconvinced reader of the discussion that the Shaolin origin theory doesn't hold water, period.
> 
> This almost exactly the same kind of debate, transposed to a different domain. Here too I think setting out the structure of the argument ultimately does serve the same purpose.


 
Let me think, to get sucked into a pointless argument based on unrelated examples that could be taken as condesending (although I don't take it as such) and be part in part responsible for it going on or not Ad nauseam like the MMA vs TMA posts of the past and the future and of course wait to be called jingoistic again (not by you) or nothmmm let me think

I choose not

Basically the only thing want to say at this point is that I am the only one willing to admit I am a stone. And as one stone to another you cant argue with a stone because when it is all said and done it is still a stone. And I simply do not have the time for these things anymore.

Later guys.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Let me think, to get sucked into a pointless argument based on unrelated examples that could be taken as condesending (although I don't take it as such) and be part in part responsible for it going on or not Ad nauseam like the MMA vs TMA posts of the past and the future and of course wait to be called jingoistic again (not by you) or nothmmm let me think
> 
> I choose not
> 
> ...



Xue, I know you are a stone.  I know this cuz, YOU ROCK!


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 25, 2009)

I personally view ki as the force of one's intention. Bodily energy is put into strong emotions, and such intentions energize people into commiting certain acts. You really like some girl? You build up bodily energy feeling strong emotions toward her which manifests ans an intention (wanting to ask her out) whihc results in action (actually asking her out).

I think intentions can be felt by people certain martial arts schools do sakki tests that allow one to feel the killing intent of another and avoid a blow. This is the evidence I use for my interpretation of ki. 

I do not believe one can knock someone out with magic or "posion" another person's ki by striking meridians. I think ki is merely the manifestation of a person's will power, and if people are sensitive enough to their environment and rely on all their senses they can pick up on a person's ki, but I think that is the extention of it. I have not experienced any mystical things involving ki as I interpret it.


----------



## geezer (Mar 25, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> I choose not
> 
> Basically the only thing want to say at this point is that I am the only one willing to admit *I am a stone.* And as one stone to another you can&#8217;t argue with a stone because when it is all said and done it is still a stone.* And I simply do not have the time for these things anymore.*
> 
> Later guys.


 

Whoa...an impatient stone! Who'd a thunk.

And Daniel... (key the ominous martial music) wheeze, click, puff... wheez, click, puff... (now imitating the stentorian voice of James Earl Jones) *regarding the force,* ...wheeze, click, puff... _*I find your lack of faith disturbing...*_

Oh, and another thing that is disturbing. If you have a reasonably high level of skill and can do a few cool martial stunts, your business will be way better if you explain these techniques in terms of chi or ki than if you resort to not-so-mysterious attempts at explaining things in terms of everyday laws of physics. After all, the assumption is that if you have experienced chi and can use it, you _must be_ a more advanced martial artist than someone who hasn't... even if the other guy can perform at exactly the same level. So when asked about chi, a lot of instructors, get evasively vague and mystical rather that lose a few students who are wedded to these romantic notions (regardless of their veracity).


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 25, 2009)

imo, kman is talking about projected intention and/or extroverted processing.  im part way through a email discussion with him, and this is what i am getting thus far....not woo woo at all.  problem is he is using the "k" word, and that has far too many adverse associations connected to it.

far as the earth being round or flat, i really dont know.  sure, they tell me it is one way or another, but i dont 'see' or 'feel' that.

perception might not change gravity, but it sure as hell affects how you to respond to the not only the effect, but even the threat of it. 

reality might be the 'same' for everybody, but how they approach 'it' is quite varied. 

like they say, 'martial arts is ninety percent from the neck up'

regards.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

There is so many posts on the subject that I will try to address the ones I think are important questions:



> No one is saying ki doesn't exist, they're saying prove it. If you say 'I have experienced it, and you can too, but the only way to do so is in person', there's nothing wrong with that. The question is how do you know what you are experiencing is ki?


 Prove Ki exist no problem. Ki simply means energy in Japanese and Q is Chinese(However CHI is read in Japanese as Blood were in Chinese Blood is read Xue confused yet?) the you can read into that word as much as you want but simply means energy thats it. Again we have to first speak about what type of Qi are we talking about Human Qi,Earth Qi,Ghost Qi the list can go on. Second is are we speaking about Qi in a religious meaning or in a TCM meaning because different catagories of Qi have different meanings. But Ok lets assume it is Human Qi(human energy) What does human energy mean exactly? We can say Human energy is any energy produced by the human body to produce a function. Chinese thought is the mind(Yi) generates a thought which guides Qi. In english this translates as the mind has a thought sends the impulses and you are able to pick up the cup. Bioelectromagnetic energy may be another form of Qi according to Jwing Ming Yang's defination.
However being that there is at least 32 different Qi it really depends on the catagory we are talking about.



> hot tingling feel of 'energy'


 I could go on and say well the Laogong point expels Qi and you can feel it and etc etc.
But what you are feeling is blood(xue) and in some text it is said where ever blood goes Qi follows. In certain Qigong exercise they mimic lifting weights and other modern exercises. You will also feel the muscles get heavy this is the muscles tensioning,relaxing increasing,decreasing blood in this manner you can control the duration,contraction of the blood flow.
This is called external method or Waigong training. When you practice breathing durations,length,frequency you are adjusting the oxygen and Carbon dioxide exhange this is called Neigong training or internal training.
Again nothing mystical is going on.


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 25, 2009)

yi-chi-li.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 25, 2009)

I just found absolute PROOF of the ability to cultivate Chi!!!!!!!!




















_Sorry, I couldnt' resist._


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 25, 2009)

Chi-Late


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2009)

I know Chi exists.   I found it at a Filipino grocery near Boston.  

http://www.soyana.ch/index.php?page=178


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The divide lies in that those who claim to have experienced chi make those claims to those who have not.
> 
> The discussion always starts here, as without someone makeing the claim that they have experienced and/or can manipulate chi, there is not opportunity for skepticism.
> 
> ...


 
I have to sleep sometime then I wake up to find more fires to extinguish! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> The discussion always starts here, as without someone makeing the claim that they have experienced and/or can manipulate chi, there is not opportunity for skepticism.


There is ALWAYS the opportunity for skepticism. It is how that skepticism is expressed that leads to a spirited, robust discussion such as we are having or whether it offends people and stifles the debate.


> The problem arises when the hearer of the claim says, 'wow, that sounds cool. Can you show me how it works.' Then the claimant is either unwilling or unable to do so.


Agree totally 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so come and train with us. When you explain in logical terms how a particular move works, without referring to ki .. great. I'm all for learning. My sensei is always happy to show anyone, hands on.


> Claiming to be able to manipulate chi is, to a great extent, the equivalent of me telling you that I can manipulate your joints. When you say, show me, I can execute a wristlock on _you_ and work your wrist in such a fashion so as to bear you to the ground. I demonstrate that _I_ can do this, and I can then show you how to execute the same technique. Then _you_ can execute the technique on _me_.


Great analogy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. First part is easy ie demonstrate and show, second part to execute the same technique back ... not going to happen without a lot of time and effort. If it was that easy I would be outperforming GD. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> Since people actually claim to be able to teach Chi and consider it a part of the martial arts and indeed, base martial arts upon it, then they claim that they *can execute* techniques that *require* chi, such as knocking out a guy at forty paces. At this point, you have moved from belief in a _theory_ to performance of a _technique_.


This is one area where I have some skepticism myself. I have never seen or felt any demonstration of ki at a distance. I am not saying that it can't be done but please do it to me so I can experience it. My experience has been at the hands-on level, up close and personal. What I am saying is that using ki can enhance a technique.


> And since those who claim the existence of chi claim that it has martial application, the techniques *must* be replicable against a _noncompliant_ opponent.


And that is exactly how we train, time after time against a non-compliant partner. Sometimes it works for me, more often than not it doesn't. Depends on the partner and their level of training. I haven't been able to resist the techniques of my sensei *yet*, but I'm working on it. In my own dojo in training it works most of the time stationary. In trying to apply it in a kumite situation, I'm nowhere near that level.


> Edit: Another issue in this discussion is that the OP does not define chi or ki in any specific way. He just says,
> _*"I believe ki exists. I just don't know what it is."*_


For this I unreservedly apologise. :asian: When I started this thread it was in a fit of pique when I felt that the other ki thread was being hijacked. My tongue was placed firmly in my cheek and I was being deliberately obtuse. I believe this thread has developed in a very reasoned way, especially when we look at the controversial nature of the topic.


> Somehow, I doubt that he is open to ki being mere biophysics, otherwise he'd have simply started a thread with that premise as a means of explaining ki. But it *appears* from the issuance of a challenge in the OP and one of his later remarks about the thread not dying anytime soon that what he wants is a lengthy debate. Defining ki as biophysics isn't likely to produce much debate.


I am open to anything. I will read every post and agree or disagree. In some instances we will just have to agree to disagree. I will not try to impose my understanding on anyone. You are correct, I don't believe ki can be explained as biophysics but that is just my opinion. As to the remark about the thread not dying, that was a remark about how active, thoughtful and inciteful forum members have been. :asian: 


> Either way, he has started a thread around a nebulous concept that he himself apparently cannot define. Not the best ground to stand on when issuing a challenge.


Once again, I apologise. I set a task worthy of 'Mission Impossible', should you wish to accept it. (This tape won't self-destruct in 10 seconds) Superb effort so far though.


> The bottom line is that you cannot claim that you can manipulate a force in an SD application and claim to be able to confer the skill to do so to others *unless *you can replicate it on someone whom you haven't trained as a nice compliant partner.
> 
> So far, no verifiable evidence has been presented that _anybody_ has _ever_ passed that test.


Open challenge. Come and train we us and make up you own mind. Two choices: Total BS ... or ... maybe there is something to ki after all.


----------



## newy085 (Mar 25, 2009)

I have to jump on the bandwagon that beleives in ki, but not the mystical forces, way. When it is described like that I always think of it as what the midichlorions? in Star Wars are.

I believe that ki is more focus or spirit (as in fighting spirit). The ability to centre your mind and body. I believe it is reach through extreme focus, putting your whole mind and body about reaching a single outcome. I think this is the reason that mothers are able to lift cars to get their kids out, and people are able to perform amazing feats when theirs or someone they love's life is in the balance.

I think that training the ability to focus, in complex situations would be beneficial to maybe reaching some of these potentials without external stimulus.

But like always, this is just the way I see the world, I have no reasons or proof.


----------



## newy085 (Mar 25, 2009)

I got so into my post that I forgot the original reason I was posting. I live in Brisbane K-Man, so if your keen to catch up, it would be great to get together and 'swap notes'. I have no experience in ki training, but I have an open mind and a strong chin.

Send me a PM if your interested.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Imo (here goes) Ki and all its comparable systems is a way to control your body through meditation.
> 
> The human body can do a lot of things that are normally thought impossible. For example, someone I know once was admitted to the psych ward because he reacted badly to certain meds and had to be controlled.
> The room he was in was home to an 80 year old frail woman who had issues.
> ...


Now, you really are naughty Bruno!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I asked for no bad words and no videos! However, since they are here, let's have some discussion.
In particular video no. 3. His perception may have been his reality or he wouldn't have put up the cash. Bad decision!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is the type of situation that gives ki a bad rap. It is so far from my understanding that I don't know what's happening. But let me put up a proposition. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS MY BELIEF. Suppose as I was told as a young karateka body + ki = strong. Suppose, as I am told and I read in articles on ki, that ki exists in all living beings. Is it possible for one being to have a stronger ki than another? That is certainly along the line of the training I partake in. It may then follow that the MMA fighter had stronger ki (albeit in a different form to that which was possesed by the karateka) and his ki steamrollered the other guy. Just a possibility. The other explanation is "Pride cometh before the fall."

The second video is interesting. This is one that I can go along with the auto suggestion explanation. If you watch the people falling they fall back in a stiff body attitude, like a pole falling. If you look back to the kiai master's students falling, they collapse, as if their support has been removed. This goes more in line with my understanding.

The first video is intriguing. (I actually went through all eight of the Bullshido tapes.) If the student was not part of the setup, so to speak, we have to accept that it was the 'suggestion' of Derren Brown that caused him to collapse as if he where hit in the stomach, when obviously he was not. When the demonstration was conducted from behind the student could not see Derren and, as far as I can tell, there was no noise to indicate a blow was coming. Yet with Derren's 'punch' the student collapses. Forgive me if I have missed something here. Was it Derren's mind playing with the student's mind, auto-hypnosis or whatever, or something else? How did the student know when to collapse? The video (Bullshido 2 of 8) does say that the power that we have to marvel at is the power of the human mind. :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2009)

K-Man, I appreciate your response. 

Let me ask you this: how do you define 'Ki' or 'Chi'? To an extent, such a discussion depends, to a great extent, on how the term is defined. Since you asked for skeptics to actually disprove the existence of ki, you'd have to define what it is that they're supposed to disprove.

Ki as simply being energy? Well, nobody would argue the existence of energy.

Ki as 'the force' as in an actual, real life equivalent to 'the force' in Star Wars? Different matter.

Since you say that you don't believe that it is biophysics, I assume that you must have at least some idea of what you think it is.

I say that I'm not a skeptic regarding Ki. But what do _I_ mean when I use the term? Just so that, for the purposes of discussion, you know what page I am on:

I am referring to the phenomenon that in the west, is mostly used only in regard to the martial arts, which allows those who can manipulate it to seemingly be stronger, have more endurance, or be faster, or tougher when they make use of this 'phenomenon.'

I define it as the energy within the human body, and the control of it allows us to maximize our efforts by using that energy more efficiently. A simplistic definition, but that is my essential belief on the subject.

So my question to you is, what page are you on in this regard?
*****
*Edit:* Regarding the topic of your thread, I would like to respond to that as well.  No, I don't believe that Ki (or Chi, Qi, or whatever other terms are extant for the same thing) is a hoax.

I do believe that unscrupulous and/or self deluded individuals perpetrate the hoax regarding their abilities as related to Ki and their ability to manipulate it.
*****

Thanks,

Daniel


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 26, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> *Edit:* Regarding the topic of your thread, I would like to respond to that as well. No, I don't believe that Ki (or Chi, Qi, or whatever other terms are extant for the same thing) is a hoax.
> 
> *I do believe that unscrupulous and/or self deluded individuals perpetrate the hoax regarding their abilities as related to Ki and their ability to manipulate it.*
> *****
> ...


 
I agree with what you are saying here, Daniel.  In my opinion, the vast majority of what is presented as "proof" of qi, particularly the no-touch-knockout type stuff and other similar magic trick things, is worthy of heavy skepticism and downright disbelief.  But in my opinion, that doesn't negate for me the existance of qi, nor the benefits of practices designed to develop its potential.  It's just something different from how many people want to present it, or want to pretend what it is.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm sure we've danced around this particular tree a few times now?  Very interesting to hear everyones comments and opinions tho' :tup:.

Does Ki exist?  The awkward answer to tht is "It depends" . 

Is it an external mystical force that we learn to channel?  I don't think so.  Is it, then, an internal mystical force that we learn to channel.  Again, I don't think so.

Ki is a useful concept that allows us to voluntarily self-delude ourselves about the physical capabilities of our bodies and thus allow us to overcome those 'limits' that we all learn to impose upon ourselves as we grow up.  

It is through use of Ki that I can punch through boards, break limbs and generally hurl people around.  It allows me to 'augment' myself to achieve what I might otherwise fear I could not (and thus fail).  

It is through a variant of Ki that I can 'read' what an opposing swordsman is going to do, even tho' he or she is static.  Through the same variant, I attempt to confuse them about what I am going to do.  Does this mean that Ki makes me psychic?  

I much prefer the more prosaic explaination that by focussing on making use of Ki (_zanshin_ as it is termed in this useage) I free up those parts of my mind and senses that tie in to observation and interpretation to isolate and interpret barely perceptable movements in a persons posture and muscles.  Similarly, it allows me to surpress or misdirect those same changes in myself.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 26, 2009)

In my dojo we sometimes practice intention sensing.

Ocssionally we blindfold ourselves and throw rubber shuriken at each other to see if we can dodge them. Most people when properly focused can dodge 7 out of 10 and some can consistantly do 10 out of 10. We make sure we don't "time" each shuriken throw so it isn't a lucky guessing game.

I think there is a bit more to ki than just psychological influence, I tend to think that if a person can be "hit" by ki it is because they are sensing his will and intention and he realizes when that intention gets strong so there is a noticeable change they may cause the guy on the recieving end to react in different ways.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2009)

To ascribe such 'sensing' to something preternatural and unprovable is a very slippery slope to my mind.  

Literal Blindfolding or simply not being looking in the direction of the 'threat' does not prevent you picking up cues from your environment to the existence of that threat.  Humans are much better at this then we give ourselves credit for.  

A good example of this is a study I read ages ago, about the ability of men to sense the prescence of women in a building (a warehouse if I remember rightly), without any of what we might term be 'normal' clues.  In the end it was determined that the test subjects subconsciously picked up on natural scent molecules (the infamous phermones) as they were more 'accurate' when the women were around the peak of their fertility cycle.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 26, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> In my dojo we sometimes practice intention sensing.
> 
> Ocssionally we blindfold ourselves and throw rubber shuriken at each other to see if we can dodge them. Most people when properly focused can dodge 7 out of 10 and some can consistantly do 10 out of 10. We make sure we don't "time" each shuriken throw so it isn't a lucky guessing game.
> 
> I think there is a bit more to ki than just psychological influence, I tend to think that if a person can be "hit" by ki it is because they are sensing his will and intention and he realizes when that intention gets strong so there is a noticeable change they may cause the guy on the recieving end to react in different ways.


Just for fun -- try it sometime with someone not playing the game.  Grab your little sister, neighbor, whatever... and see if it still works.

Lots of the time, when we can do something like that in a controlled environment, it's because everyone is subconsciously or unconsciously "playing along" and they're giving a cue that they aren't even aware of.  

I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just stating a possibility.  Because I also know that you CAN pick up something that does tell you to move, react, whatever, to a threat that you can't explain how you sensed it.


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 26, 2009)

> I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just stating a possibility. Because I also know that you CAN pick up something that does tell you to move, react, whatever, to a threat that you can't explain how you sensed it.


 
absolutely.  it's just subconcious is all. 

if something moves in your visual field, or makes an audible noise, then it can be detected.   it might not upstream very far, but you definately get something that makes you trigger.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Let me ask you this: how do you define 'Ki' or 'Chi'? To an extent, such a discussion depends, to a great extent, on how the term is defined. Since you asked for skeptics to actually disprove the existence of ki, you'd have to define what it is that they're supposed to disprove.
> 
> Ki as simply being energy? Well, nobody would argue the existence of energy.
> 
> ...





> Let me ask you this: how do you define 'Ki' or 'Chi'? To an extent, such a discussion depends, to a great extent, on how the term is defined. Since you asked for skeptics to actually disprove the existence of ki, you'd have to define what it is that they're supposed to disprove.


As I said before, with all apologies because this thread has developed in a way I didn't envisage, I didn't define anything as it was an invitation for people to fight among themselves.
I honestly do not know what ki is. I don't believe it is something that can be measured with a multimeter or any other scientific instrument. I don't believe it is mystical or magical. I don't believe its use involves trickery, except in the sense that we may be using our mind to confuse the mind of our opponent. I don't believe it is involved with hypnosis or suggestion but I am willing to accept its use could be related. In each of these instances one mind is influencing another. I don't believe it involves levitation and I don't believe anyone could influence an inanimate object with ki. So what does this leave? To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move. Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. Used in conjunction with pps it enhances the effect of the technique. Is it energy, well it seems that it is in some circumstances, but it is a 'mind energy' rather than the energy we think of in a conventional sense. 'Star wars', ??? a bit 'out there' for me, not anywhere near my experiences.

The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.


> I am referring to the phenomenon that in the west, is mostly used only in regard to the martial arts, which allows those who can manipulate it to seemingly be stronger, have more endurance, or be faster, or tougher when they make use of this 'phenomenon.'


I believe this is half right. Stronger, yes ... more endurance ... yes because you are using much less energy. But now we can be confusing softness (biophysical) and ki. Faster ... definitely not, use of ki means we do not have to be as fast. Tougher .. certainly not. As soon as you posture you are tensing your body and ki goes out the door. I believe a person using ki will be exercising humility and be totally non-threatening. In fact it is the non-threatening nature that allows you to enter the opponent's space. 


> I define it as the energy within the human body, and the control of it allows us to maximize our efforts by using that energy more efficiently. A simplistic definition, but that is my essential belief on the subject.


I agree with what you have stated with the addition that its effect can be manifested outside of the body.


> I do believe that unscrupulous and/or self deluded individuals perpetrate the hoax regarding their abilities as related to Ki and their ability to manipulate it.


Agree 150% and herein lies the problem for genuine practitioners. :asian:


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think there is a bit more to ki than just psychological influence, I tend to think that if a person can be "hit" by ki it is because they are sensing his will and intention and he realizes when that intention gets strong so there is a noticeable change they may cause the guy on the recieving end to react in different ways.


 
Good description.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2009)

Also complete nonsense. 

Honestly, the New Age movement has a lot to answer for with this false "all opinions are equally valid and should not be laid bare to scrutiny" malarkey.

If you want to claim something then have proof of it. If you want to make extraordinary claims, then have extraordinary proof, not portentious sounding mumbo-jumbo.

I fully believe that we have not yet uncovered how all aspects of the physical universe interact and behave. After all we still have to join together the science of the very small and the very large in a convincing fashion.

That means that there is room for theory and speculation to fill the gap, so to speak. There is, however, a distinction between specious wishful thinking and extrapolation from observed events.

As is clear, this is something that empassions me somewhat, so understand that I mean not to belittle or insult but do the text-based equivalent of a thrown bucket of water to startle and awaken rational thought.


----------



## exile (Mar 26, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Honestly, the New Age movement has a lot to answer for with this false "all opinions are equally valid and should not be laid bare to scrutiny" malarkey.
> 
> If you want to claim something then have proof of it. If you want to make extraordinary claims, then have extraordinary proof, not portentious sounding mumbo-jumbo.
> 
> As is clear, this is something that empassions me somewhat, so understand that I mean not to belittle or insult but do the text-based equivalent of a thrown bucket of water to startle and awaken rational thought.



I agree 100%, Sukerkin. So let's just take a couple of wee examples that, nonetheless, serve as miniatures for the whole lamentable exercise in confusing the bush with the bear.



K-man said:


> I honestly do not know what ki is.
> 
> To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move.



If one starts by acknowledging that s/he doesn't actually _know_ what ki is, it seems pretty odd to then go on to call it a force, which is something very specific: a measurable change in the momentum (mass x velocity) of a physical system. That's what force is, in any but a figurative/literary use of the term (as in, 'the forces of history' or whatever). Clearly, a mind force has nothing to do with momentum. So what is it? _What does "mind force" denote that's any *clearer* than what 'ki' denotes??_ The substitution of a vague, problematic notion with no clear definition for a term from another language and vastly different culture which has no clear, unproblematic translation isn't exactly progress, eh? Basically, all this amount to what is often called 'handwaving'. It certainly doesn't supply any more information than 'ki' itself does&#8212;which is itself very little...



K-man said:


> Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. :asian:



Ah, the unbendable arm. As Redmond pointed out in his great essay on ki, this is one of the workhorses of ki-salesmanship, a real showpiece, because it never fails. And why should it? It's the simplest possible form of biomechanical trickery in the book. 

Here's a nice, accessible  account of how this parlor trick works:




> The explanation of the unbendable arm is that it is not a feat of "energetics," but of mere physical strength, albeit proper use of strength. When the demonstrator first introduces unbendable arm, you are asked to "make a fist" and/or "use all of your muscle" to keep your arm from being bent. You do this by tightening the "big-bellied" muscles of the arm-the biceps specifically. When the demonstrator applies pressure to your arm, it bends because the muscles you have engaged are not the muscles needed to resist the pressure on your arm but are, in fact, the exact muscles that move your arm in the same direction as his pressure, i.e. the biceps bend the arm.
> Now don't think that hypnosis or suggestibility are at work here, for they are not. What is at work here is your unfamiliarity with the task at hand and the directive to "use all of your muscle." These conditions, which seem reasonable when first presented, set you up to use the wrong muscles. Once engaged, you fail the task due to improper use of your strength.
> 
> When you are "told the secret," you are directed to open your hand and relax and to extend your energy. This is the correct set-up for the proper use of strength because it is in extending your arm that you engage your triceps muscles. Your arm cannot be bent because you are able to use the triceps muscles that extend your arm. This is the proper use of strength for the task.
> ...



In the same way that Uri Geller's spoon- and other object-bending tricks were old hat in the community of stage magicians to which he belonged before marketing himself as a genuine paranormal paragon&#8212;_well_ before his own apprenticeship in that craft (Randi has discovered records of 19th century professional magical performances in which nearly identical tricks to Geller were performed by accomplished stage magicians of the time)&#8212;what you have here is an almost trivial use of basic mechanical properties of objects, often dressed up in pseudo-Asian mystical vocabulary, to create an effect which is surprising only because most people don't know how objects (in this case the human body) actually work. I think the unbendable arm, in this respect, probably represents an excellent, very _representative_ instance of ki. 

Of course, if you want to include biomechanics and the rest of the kitchen sink under the heading of ki, fine. Then it's no longer a 'mind force', whatever that is, but simply a one syllable word for everything that could possibly contribute to any martial effect, physical or psychological. Very explanatory, that!


----------



## Uchinanchu (Mar 27, 2009)

Prove chi/ki exists?  Hmmm... I was under the impression that the Chinese medical profession has roughly six thousand years worth of 'proof' with the development of all the treatments that are still used today, even amoung many western taught M.D.s

As far as documented proof, again, the Chinese are fairly meticulus when it comes to 'prooving' its (chi) existance, when the treatments prescribed (that involve the manipulation of meridian lines) actually work and cure the patients.  

Maybe a better thread to have started here would have been, "Do Chi masters really exist, and can they really do what they claim?"  There has been a lot of speculation, assumptions, and outright ignorance (not only here) as to what 'Chi' is.  If you want a proper definition, ask a TCD and be done with it.  If you wish to argue the existance of Chi, then argue it with someone actually quailified to back up their side of the story, (aka- a medical doctor trained in its applications).

Sorry, I am not trying to belittle anyone here, or start an argument for (or against) the existance of chi.  What I am saying is that instead of bickering amoungst ourselves on an issue, and making alot of suppositions (educated or otherwise), we should take a closer look at valid information that is available to us.  

Just my humble two cents worth.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 27, 2009)

{Ambassador Swanbeck}Bickering! I, sir, do *not* BICKER! This is an outrage!!{/Ambassador Swanbeck} :lol:.

Seriously, interesting points with regard to the focus of the thread.  

I can't get into debating the ins-and-outs of the Chinese medical community (tho', if I remember rightly, we do have a member whose wife can) but that wasn't really what we were talking about - at least it wasn't what I was talking about.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 27, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Literal Blindfolding or simply not being looking in the direction of the 'threat' does not prevent you picking up cues from your environment to the existence of that threat. Humans are much better at this then we give ourselves credit for.


 
Perhaps this is what "ki sensing" actually is. It doesn't really matter to me. The only thing I care about is whether or not I can pick up on danger cues and project them to others. Maybe thinking about harming someone creates a chemical that can be picked up in the air by other people who are paying attention and they respond in a certain way because of it. It isn't like mindreading or anything hoky like that. I just know that when I'm blind folded and my instructer swings a sword at me or throws shuriken at me I can effectively avoid it.


----------



## exile (Mar 27, 2009)

I find it kind of bizarre that we're even _having_ this conversation.

We have a one syllable word from another language that comes loaded with profoundly different background assumptions from anything in Western culture; people who 'believe' in it cannot identify what it is, explicitly claim that its existence is not provable, and can offer no phenomena whose existence requires whatever it is this syllable denotes, as vs. well-understood properties of the material world. Yet this syllable is supposed to denote something which _interacts_ with the material world enough to give rise to specific effects (the unbendable arm effect, almost inevitably, gets hauled out as a prime example to show how misguided all us killjoys are, in spite of the fact that, as I already pointed out, there is a very simple, anatomically very well supported account of _exactly_ the unbendable arm effect, reflecting nothing that we don't already know about how opposing muscle sets work at joints in the human body. The fact that I was first shown the unbendable arm trick in the early 1960s by a middle-school classmate, who I can guarantee did not 'train in ki', lol, always made it pretty clear to me that the effect wasn't something in the least exotic, even before I started reading work by people like Martin Gardner and James Randi about how simple effects get dressed up in mystifying nonsense to help justify the agendas of paranormal hucksters). 

So here's something we have (as  Ninjamom keeps pointing out) no agreement about even among those urging it on us, and no replicable evidence which the thing this word is supposed to mean is the explanation of choice for. And yet people are seriously talking about this hypothetical whatever as though its existence doesn't need to be defended, and as though the problem is simply that we don't really know what 'it' is?

So far as I can see, the normal way of proceeding is that you first establish that we need to assume there's something there, and only then do you go on to try to determine what it is. Trying to determine what something is in the absence of any evidence that something is there (as vs. your subjective sense that something is there, which is very different from evidence for it) seems utterly... well, bizarre.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Just for fun -- try it sometime with someone not playing the game. Grab your little sister, neighbor, whatever... and see if it still works.
> 
> Lots of the time, when we can do something like that in a controlled environment, it's because everyone is subconsciously or unconsciously "playing along" and they're giving a cue that they aren't even aware of.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just stating a possibility. Because I also know that you CAN pick up something that does tell you to move, react, whatever, to a threat that you can't explain how you sensed it.


 
I have and it does so long as they are not consciously trying not to be receptive to it. Does it work 100% all the time with everybody? No, but then again nothing ever does.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and for that paragraph on the explanation for how the unbendable arm works. Some people (i.e. ME) would say that to properly engage those muscles one needs to focus and have proper intention or else they fail to engage those muscles. Well to me that focus and intention IS ki. I don't believe there is an actual "force" of energy or something that is coming out of my arm when I do it, that's just visualization that gets you in the proper mindset to do it accurately. Its probably the same thing a person does when they think about gettin heavy and become much more difficult to move.

Personally I think "ki" can be explained by biophysics, but since I have nothing else to call these combined elements at work I refer to it as ki.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 27, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Honestly, the New Age movement has a lot to answer for with this false "all opinions are equally valid and should not be laid bare to scrutiny" malarkey.



Amen.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 27, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> Prove chi/ki exists? Hmmm... I was under the impression that the Chinese medical profession has roughly six thousand years worth of 'proof' with the development of all the treatments that are still used today, even amoung many western taught M.D.s
> 
> As far as documented proof, again, the Chinese are fairly meticulus when it comes to 'prooving' its (chi) existance, when the treatments prescribed (that involve the manipulation of meridian lines) actually work and cure the patients.
> 
> ...


 
6000 years of practice doesn't necessarily mean the archaic _explanation _for why the treatments work is correct. There is also a body of western medical research that shows that there are demonstrative, replicatible benefits from chinese medicine that utilize a chi meridian framework for explaning the effects i.e. acupuncture. That same research also shows that the effects of acupuncture are not 100% consistent with the TCM explanation. There are plenty of notable instances in which the effect is different than that claimed by the TCM practioner or that there is no effect at all. So, yes I would love to have more knowledgable people on here debating this, but no, your claim that they've got 6000 years so there's your 'proof' doesn't hold water.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 27, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Honestly, the New Age movement has a lot to answer for with this false "all opinions are equally valid and should not be laid bare to scrutiny" malarkey.


 
aye, as someone who lives near the center of the newage universe, I've gotta agree.  There's a lot of truth in this.

There are free publications around here that advertise all kinds of classes in newage crystal sucking energy healing dirt eating dryad farming unicorn taming past-life experience claptrap.  Sometimes I read thru them just for the entertainment value.  If I had some money to throw away, I might sit in on a class just out of morbid curiosity.  Then again, people get rich off other's morbid curiosity...


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 27, 2009)

I'm glad the OP brought this up, as I have what is (hopefully) a good analogy:
Ki is a model. For example, the CPU in your computer is a model. You don't care about what each of the transistors in it do, what matters is that it works.
So, if a marital artist uses what appears to be Ki, it doesn't really matter what "Ki" is. Is it technique, mindset, spiritual powers? Who cares. If you can use the _model_ that is Ki to enhance your martial art, more power to you.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 27, 2009)

JBrainard said:


> I'm glad the OP brought this up, as I have what is (hopefully) a good analogy:
> Ki is a model. For example, the CPU in your computer is a model. You don't care about what each of the transistors in it do, what matters is that it works.
> So, if a marital artist uses what appears to be Ki, it doesn't really matter what "Ki" is. Is it technique, mindset, spiritual powers? Who cares. If you can use the _model_ that is Ki to enhance your martial art, more power to you.


 
I asgree that Ki is a model.  My problem is that so much extra junk has been added/attached/thrown-at-to-see-what-sticks to the model that, for me at elast, it's lost its relevance.  There are better models out there that better get at what I need.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 27, 2009)

JBrainard said:


> I'm glad the OP brought this up, as I have what is (hopefully) a good analogy:
> Ki is a model. For example, the CPU in your computer is a model. You don't care about what each of the transistors in it do, what matters is that it works.
> So, if a marital artist uses what appears to be Ki, it doesn't really matter what "Ki" is. Is it technique, mindset, spiritual powers? Who cares. If you can use the _model_ that is Ki to enhance your martial art, more power to you.


 

That's what I was trying to get at in one of my earlier posts, *JB*, I clearly went 'around the houses' a bit too much .  

That is a very useable analogy that gets the idea across nice and plain :tup:.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 27, 2009)

blindsage said:


> 6000 years of practice doesn't necessarily mean the archaic _explanation _for why the treatments work is correct. There is also a body of western medical research that shows that there are demonstrative, replicatible benefits from chinese medicine that utilize a chi meridian framework for explaning the effects i.e. acupuncture. That same research also shows that the effects of acupuncture are not 100% consistent with the TCM explanation.


 
In fact, that body of research shows that there is no measureable difference between the results of actual TCM accupuncture by trained practitioners using chi meridians, and random pin pricks. Scientific double-blind trials of accupuncture for specific ailments/issues have shown benefit to accupuncture, compared to a placebo, but all of that benefit evaporates when the placebo used is something called 'sham accupuncture' (i.e., the patient is told they are receiving accupunture, but are instead receiving random needle-pricks at arbitrary locations, unrelated to any 'meridians').

Scientific double-blind studies have shown a measureable benefit to accupuncture for the specific issues of pain reduction. Since 'sham accupuncture' also works to exact same degree, the body's natural release of endorphins and opioids seems to offer a better explanation (i.e., an explanation that better fits all the evidence) than the existence of any chi meridians in the body.  This body of evidence therefore offers measureable evidence the chi meridians (at least as described in TCM) do not exist.

Also, the accupuncture that works the best, according to recent measured medical research, involves the application of an RF field to the inserted needles. To the best of my knowledge, ancient Chinese accupuncturists did not have AC generators to produce these fields and did not apply them in any of their accupuncture. Basically, the science of accupuncture is progressing without any need for something called 'qi' and without the existence of any meridians in the body, in exactly the same way western medical science is progressing without the need for leeches or four humours in the bloodstream.


----------



## K-man (Mar 28, 2009)

exile said:


> If one starts by acknowledging that s/he doesn't actually _know_ what ki is, it seems pretty odd to then go on to call it a force, which is something very specific: a measurable change in the momentum (mass x velocity) of a physical system. That's what force is, in any but a figurative/literary use of the term (as in, 'the forces of history' or whatever). Clearly, a mind force has nothing to do with momentum. So what is it? _What does "mind force" denote that's any *clearer* than what 'ki' denotes??_ The substitution of a vague, problematic notion with no clear definition for a term from another language and vastly different culture which has no clear, unproblematic translation isn't exactly progress, eh? Basically, all this amount to what is often called 'handwaving'. It certainly doesn't supply any more information than 'ki' itself doeswhich is itself very little...
> 
> Ah, the unbendable arm. As Redmond pointed out in his great essay on ki, this is one of the workhorses of ki-salesmanship, a real showpiece, because it never fails. And why should it? It's the simplest possible form of biomechanical trickery in the book.
> 
> ...





> If one starts by acknowledging that s/he doesn't actually _know_ what ki is, it seems pretty odd to then go on to call it a force, which is something very specific: a measurable change in the momentum (mass x velocity) of a physical system.


Dirty pool! I am the first to say I DON'T KNOW! I was then asked to try and define my understanding of ki. That is why I specifically avoided the word 'force' and used 'mind force'. Then you use that as an excuse to go off on a rant about 'parlor tricks'. What of the first three words don't you understand ... I or don't or know? This gets to me. Either you have experienced ki or you haven't. If you have experienced a trick then I am sorry. If you have experienced what I call ki then by all means describe what you felt and why you thought it wasn't ki. 



> Ah, the unbendable arm. As Redmond pointed out in his great essay on ki, this is one of the workhorses of ki-salesmanship, a real showpiece, because it *never fails*. And why should it? It's the simplest possible form of biomechanical trickery in the book.


And talking of unbendable arms, you are right about the biomechanics, and probably 95% of all so called ki may be attributed to biomechanics. I have no truck with that. It is the 5% I don't understand that I am talking about. And there a virtually NO unbendable arms that I can't bend, biomechanics or not!
By your description above, if I do a hip throw have I used biomechanical 'trickery' or biomechanics? If it is the latter why have I used biomechanical 'trickery' for an unbendable arm? Cut the emotive language. That was the reason for asking for that in the OP. This thread has been worthwhile as demonstrated by the large number of members have been following it. Let's try to keep the debate clean. I don't believe in magic and I am not into trickery. 

I attended a seminar yesterday, hosted by a very highly regarded and highly ranked practitioner. During the course of the seminar he went out of his way to explain how some of the things he was doing did not involve ki. In fact he stated "I do not believe in ki". His very next sentence was, "now, as you reach out think out to the wall". How else to you train ki than by extending out with your mind. (BTW, the seminar was great.)

Thank you *exile* for bringing Uri Geller into the debate. I was totally unaware of his martial arts prowess. Houdini would be a good one to go for next or maybe Magical Merv! I'm sure there's some way you could use them to obfuscate the discussion.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 29, 2009)

> 6000 years of practice doesn't necessarily mean the archaic _explanation _for why the treatments work is correct. There is also a body of western medical research that shows that there are demonstrative, replicatible benefits from chinese medicine that utilize a chi meridian framework for explaning the effects i.e. acupuncture. That same research also shows that the effects of acupuncture are not 100% consistent with the TCM explanation. There are plenty of notable instances in which the effect is different than that claimed by the TCM practioner or that there is no effect at all. So, yes I would love to have more knowledgable people on here debating this, but no, your claim that they've got 6000 years so there's your 'proof' doesn't hold water.


 Every time I see any of these studies either positve or negative the studies never say what points are being used. Also just because someone is an Acupuncturist and this is in America does not mean they know what they are doing. Because Acupuncture schools in America the student roughly goes for 2yrs which is not really enough time to grasp TCM. If you are going to make a claim that  research shows Acupuncture is not 100% consistent with TCM explanation or any other research claim then you need to provide exactly what points were used,what was the diagnosis,and what additional supplement was used(I have yet to see a TCM doctor not provide herbal treatment an addition to Acupuncture) Other wise statements such as "research shows" either for or against Acupuncture does not mean much without the whol story.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 29, 2009)

> In fact, that body of research shows that there is no measureable difference between the results of actual TCM accupuncture by trained practitioners using chi meridians, and random pin pricks. Scientific double-blind trials of accupuncture for specific ailments/issues have shown benefit to accupuncture, compared to a placebo, but all of that benefit evaporates when the placebo used is something called 'sham accupuncture' (i.e., the patient is told they are receiving accupunture, but are instead receiving random needle-pricks at arbitrary locations, unrelated to any 'meridians').


 Where were the Acupuncture points being used? What meridians were used? Where were the actual pin pricks being used?
I have read these types of research and I have not seen any of it say the qualification of the TCM practicer,nor the points being used. 



> Scientific double-blind studies have shown a measureable benefit to accupuncture for the specific issues of pain reduction. Since 'sham accupuncture' also works to exact same degree, the body's natural release of endorphins and opioids seems to offer a better explanation (i.e., an explanation that better fits all the evidence) than the existence of any chi meridians in the body. This body of evidence therefore offers measureable evidence the chi meridians (at least as described in TCM) do not exist.


 Again if we are going to compare Sham Acupuncture with TCM Acupuncture we need to know what points were used by both parties. I am sure you can see the flaw in this comparison. I see a problem lays in what a meridian is. You think it is some sort of mystical things. http://home1.gte.net/res709yy/lung.jpg This is the Lung merdian notice point 1 and 2. There 2 points are used in opening the lung you can try pressing with your fingers breathing in and out to see how the points work.



> Also, the accupuncture that works the best, according to recent measured medical research, involves the application of an RF field to the inserted needles


 Well Acupuncturist in some cases warm the needle with Moxibustion and other heat treatments so again nothing new here.

I have already proven the existance of Qi in my posts both literally by the Hanzi character: &#27683; and the English meaning of the word.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 29, 2009)

Some science discoveries on the meridians:



> In February 1937 the prestigious British Medical journal carried an article by Sir Thomas Lewis describing a hitherto unknown network of cutaneous nerves.' He called it the 'nocifensor system' and deduced, from his experiments, that it was an independent cutaneous nerve system, unrelated to known pathways and unconnected to the autonomic nervous system. It was composed, not of nerve fibres, but a network of thin lines, similar to meridians.


 


> In 1985 Pierre de Vernejoul at the University of Paris carried out a definitive and much-quoted experiment. He used a radioactive marker, technetium 99m, which he injected into subjects at classic acupuncture points. He then used gamma camera imaging to track the subsequent movement of the isotope. He was able to show that the tracer migrated along the classic meridian lines, travelling quite quickly: a distance of 30 cm in 4-6 minutes. [P. de Vernejoul _et al_., 'Etude Des Meridiens D'Acupuncture par les Traceurs Radioactifs', _Bull. Acad. Natle. Med_. Vol. 169 (22nd October 1985): 1071-5.] As a control he made a number of random injections into the skin (not at acupuncture points) and also injected the tracer directly into veins and lymphatic channels. There was no significant migration of the tracer at other sites than an acupuncture point. What this simple but helpful study proved beyond doubt is that meridians are definitely real 'vessels' but they conform to no macroscopic anatomical structures whatever.


 


> French researcher, Pierre de Vernejoul, confirmed Kim's results in 1985. He injected radioactive technium into the acupuncture points of patients and found it migrated along the classical Chinese acupuncture meridian pathways for a distance of 30 centimeters in four to six minutes.
> It seems there are many hidden materials in North Korea. I think North Korea must make the materials public, even if it rejects the theory, so foreign researchers with highly advanced equipment can decide whether the Bonghan Theory is true, says Kong Dong-chui, an amateur researcher, who lately wrote a book on Kim and his theory.
> Kim called the meridians "Bonghan Ducts" and said they had many more functions than the classical meridians of acupuncture. He named a fluid flowing through them "Bonghan fluid." To prove the existence of a circulatory system unknown to western medicine, he injected the radioactive isotope P32 into a rabbit's duct and charted its spread. The P32 outlined a system of fine ducts, measuring between 0.5 microns and 1.5 microns in diameter, invisible except with an electron microscope, that matched the classical acupuncture meridians. Western researchers had used stains for microscopic analysis to search for the acupuncture meridians, but the dyes destroyed the milk-white ducts and prevented the system from being detected. The fluid in the ducts has twice as much adrenalin as blood, and ten times as much at an acupuncture point. As adrenalin is one of strongest organic stimulant, Kim concluded that the ducts were high-energy passages. The fluid is also rich in amino acids and oestrogen, and has nearly twice as much hyaluronic acid as sperm. This Kim said, showed its close relationship to the reproductive system. Kim even set forth a theory on how acupuncture works, but Dr. Kim Jeng-bum, a general practitioner in Seoul, says he thinks it heals the body by revitalizing the meridians and correcting imbalances in the flow of energy. ... Yonhup


 It would have been nice if they provided the Acupuncture points and meridians used.


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2009)

K-man said:


> Dirty pool! I am the first to say I DON'T KNOW! I was then asked to try and define my understanding of ki. That is why *I specifically avoided the word 'force' *and used 'mind force'.



You _didn't_ avoid the word 'force', K. Quite the contrary:



			
				K-man said:
			
		

> *To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. *Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move. *Think unbendable arm and lowered centre*.



Exactly where are you 'avoiding' the word 'force' here, K? You're saying it's a force, and can be directed, and for those of us who are quite happy with force being change in momentum, we should think of it as a 'mind force', which naturally makes everything clear. And then you bring in the unbendable arm as an example. 




K-man said:


> Then you use that as an excuse to go off on a rant about 'parlor tricks'. What of the first three words don't you understand ... I or don't or know? This gets to me. Either you have experienced ki or you haven't. If you have experienced a trick then I am sorry. If you have experienced what I call ki then by all means describe what you felt and why you thought it wasn't ki.



You've had an experience which you're labeling ki. As an example of ki, you trotted out one of the oldest parlor tricks in the book. (We'll get to the specifics below). And then when I call attention to the fact that this&#8212;your first concrete example of ki in several pages of thread&#8212;is indeed a parlor trick, you respond with 'Didn't you understand that I said "I don't know"?' Well, K, _you_ brought up the unbendable arm as an example of ki, as per the quote above from your previous post. And yes, it is a parlor trick. So why are you complaining when I point out that your very own first example of the supposed phenomenon you're trying to defend/illustrate is a simple biomechanical effect? Instead (as readers can see for themselves), you're acting that though the parlor trickery of the unbendable arm is a nonsequitur, that bringing it up was a rant, and so on. The fact is, you got caught. You gave as a example of this mysterious thing (something that you can't (dis)prove, that can only be experienced, etc.) a kid's trick whose basis in muscular anatomy is completely understood, and now you're claiming that  _I'm_ bringing in something irrelevant when I point out that it's nothing more than a simple consequence of antagonistic muscle action at a joint. :lol:

And again, saying, 'Well, I experienced something, and I can't say just what it is, so there, that's evidence that ki exists'&#8212;which is what your 'evidence' boils down to&#8212;may say something about you, and your standards of verification, but it says _nothing_ about whether there's anything there that _needs_ to be explained.   




K-man said:


> And talking of unbendable arms, you are right about the biomechanics, and probably 95% of all so called ki may be attributed to biomechanics. I have no truck with that. It is the 5% I don't understand that I am talking about.



Well, once again, what we would like to know is, what does that '5%' consist of? What phenomena are you specifically referring to? Could we have some _actual examples of something_, please?



K-man said:


> And there a virtually NO unbendable arms that I can't bend, biomechanics or not!



Uh... say what?




K-man said:


> By your description above, if I do a hip throw have I used biomechanical 'trickery' or biomechanics? If it is the latter why have I used biomechanical 'trickery' for an unbendable arm?



Someone is using trickery if they then try to convince me that the hip throw is evidence for anything other than the construction of joints, their manipulation by muscles, and very simple principles of Newtonian mechanics. Which is what you were doing when you brought in the unbendable arm as evidence for/illustration of 'ki', since clearly, you aren't equating ki with biomechanical leverage, eh?&#8212;after all, if that's all it was, then you'd hardly be saying, at the same time, that you... don't.... know. Your argument only makes sense, by your own lights, if the person in question is using the hip throw to convince me that something _else_, something hidden and not reducible to what we currently know about human myoskeletal anatomy, is the source of this effect. And if they are, well, yes, that's trickery.  Of exactly the Uri Geller type. See below.



K-man said:


> Cut the emotive language.



Emotive? I don't think I'm the one getting, uh, worked up here, K. All I'm asking for is some actual replicable evidence (that doesn't turn out to be like the unbendable arm, which _you_, I have to repeat, were the one to bring up), and some consistent reasoning in arguing from _it_, on the one hand, to the conclusion that we need to assume that something (which you persistently refuse to define, or identify, beyond saying you 'feel' it) exists that isn't covered by familiar properties of the physical universe, on the other.



K-man said:


> That was the reason for asking for that in the OP. This thread has been worthwhile as demonstrated by the large number of members have been following it. Let's try to keep the debate clean. I don't believe in magic and I am not into trickery.



Good. Then let's agree that your own example of the unbendable arm, and any number other such effects out there, have nothing to do with the case at hand. So what is the 5% residue that you are claiming _isn't_ reducible to the same simple kind of explanation as the unbendable arm? Why not just tell us what that 5% consists of? A simple list of replicable effects that defy reductionist explanation and establish that something metaphysical&#8212;literally, beyond our current account of physical phenomena&#8212;is called for. We're all attention. _What are they?_




K-man said:


> Thank you *exile* for bringing Uri Geller into the debate. I was totally unaware of his martial arts prowess.



What gave you the impression that I was bringing up Geller because he had something to do with MAs? The relevance of Geller is that (i) he used perfectly ordinary effects to create the impression that he was manipulating some unseen source of power, thereby supposedly establishing that this source exists, and that (ii) under controlled conditions, in which all of his actions were carefully monitored and a few simple precautions were taken, he was unable to duplicate _any_ of his stage performances.

See the connection now?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2009)

K-man said:


> As I said before, with all apologies because this thread has developed in a way I didn't envisage, I didn't define anything as it was an invitation for people to fight among themselves.


Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.


Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.


If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.


I don't believe it is mystical or magical. I don't believe its use involves trickery, except in the sense that we may be using our mind to confuse the mind of our opponent. I don't believe it is involved with hypnosis or suggestion but I am willing to accept its use could be related.
In each of these instances one mind is influencing another. I don't believe it involves levitation and I don't believe anyone could influence an inanimate object with ki. So what does this leave?[/quote]

To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move.[/quote]

Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. Used in conjunction with pps it enhances the effect of the technique. Is it energy, well it seems that it is in some circumstances, but it is a 'mind energy' rather than the energy we think of in a conventional sense. 'Star wars', ??? a bit 'out there' for me, not anywhere near my experiences.[/quote]

The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2009)

Firstly, disregard my above post.  My computer is a lousy piece of junk.  Mods, please delete my above post, if you would.



K-man said:


> As I said before, with all apologies because this thread has developed in a way I didn't envisage, I didn't define anything as it was an invitation for people to fight among themselves.


Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.



K-man said:


> I honestly do not know what ki is.


Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.



K-man said:


> I don't believe it is something that can be measured with a multimeter or any other scientific instrument.


If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.




K-man said:


> I don't believe it is mystical or magical. I don't believe its use involves trickery, except in the sense that we may be using our mind to confuse the mind of our opponent. I don't believe it is involved with hypnosis or suggestion but I am willing to accept its use could be related.
> In each of these instances one mind is influencing another. I don't believe it involves levitation and I don't believe anyone could influence an inanimate object with ki. So what does this leave?


It leaves you with Jedi mind tricks.  Or it leaves you with biophysics and psychology.  Psychology won't work on a nonliving subject, so you're correct about it not working on inanimate oobjects.



K-man said:


> To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move.


I would not term it in this way, but a mind force is essentially biophyisics.  The mind is, after all, a part of the human biological make up.



K-man said:


> Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. Used in conjunction with pps it enhances the effect of the technique. Is it energy, well it seems that it is in some circumstances, but it is a 'mind energy' rather than the energy we think of in a conventional sense. 'Star wars', ??? a bit 'out there' for me, not anywhere near my experiences.


Leveraged strength.  Anyone can learn this, and it has nothing to do with Ki.  I can do this and I can demonstrated to a student how to do it.  



K-man said:


> The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.
> Since you don't know what it is, by your own insistance, then your assessment of the ability to measure ki and that it is "really not possible" for it to be biophysical is one that you cannot support and really shouldn't make so long as you preceed the comment with statements of ignorance regarding the subject.
> 
> As for Dilman, being an accomplished martial artists by no means prevents him, or anyone else, from being a charlatan.  If anything, it makes it worse; he's accomplished, thus he knows that chi balls and no touch KO's are nonsense, but he pedals it anyway, even after it was disproved in his school on film by National Geographic.  Incidentally, if he had been able to reproduce the no touch KO, National Geographic would have eaten it up and come back for desserts.
> ...


----------



## tellner (Mar 29, 2009)

K-Man, let's be clear about this. You made a challenge. And you got trounced on every level. Now you're left with nothing except "But I want to beeeeliieeeve!" 

This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on. Otherwise your next ploys will be personal attacks. From there it just gets ugly.


----------



## K-man (Mar 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> K-Man, let's be clear about this. You made a challenge. And you got trounced on every level. Now you're left with nothing except "But I want to beeeeliieeeve!"
> 
> This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on. Otherwise your next ploys will be personal attacks. From there it just gets ugly.


 
Yes, I made a challenge. I don't believe anything I believe has been explained or rebutted. I have made no personal attacks but expressed my frustration at the references back to magic, mysticism, trickery, hoax etc etc that I do not believe in either. I have been asked what I think ki is and I have said "I don't know". When asked what it seems to be, whatever I say to try and explain what I feel is challenged, as if I am stating a fact. So let's look afresh, I am not making any claims as to what ki is. 
Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki. Any discussion here is acedemic as they don't know what the discussion is really about. The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki. The third group are those that have experienced something that has been termed ki that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them.



> This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on.


Not a personal attack, but the sort of comment that is designed to cause offence.


----------



## K-man (Mar 30, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.
> 
> By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2009)

One comment that I wish to make, K-man.  I'm not sure who said that if it couldn't be measured, it doestn't exist, but I'm not of that opinion myself. 

Any who hold religious or spiritual beliefs that involve a deity or spirit beings of any sort, likewise believe in the existence of that which cannot be measured.  I am included in this category.

Inability on the part of humanity to currently measure something is not proof, if you will, of nonexistence.  There was a time when we couldn't measure anything, yet everything that we commonly measure now still existed.

There are also certain abstracts that are 'immeasurable' by scientific means, yet we agree that they exist.  A person's creativity cannot be measured, yet it does exist.  Even though we use terms such as, 'I'm not that creative' or 'he's more creative than that guy', both of which denote quantity, we really don't have a means of measuring raw creativity.  But we all agree that it exists.

If Ki falls into the category of biophysics, then it can indeed be measured, though we don't currently have the ability to measure certain aspects of biophysics as well as other aspects.

In any case, measurable or not, results of a technique are measurable.  If I can deliver a no touch KO (I cannot), then the time it takes for me to execute the technique can be measured, the size of the target can be measured, the distance that I move the target can be measured, and the force with which I moved the target can be measured.

Many of the things that we "measure" are not measurments of the thing itself, but measurements of the result of those things when applied to something that we can measure.  A thermometer is actually providing you with a measurement of the movement of mercury, which is graded to correspond with the temperature of the human body.  Since we know how how mercury reacts to applied heat, we use the reaction of mercury to determine the temperature of something else.  So we don't actually measure the heat itself, but the measurable results of heat as applied to the mercury.

So, if I claim to be able to teach the manipulation of _something _(be it ki or anything else), then am essenitally claiming to be able to produce either a _measurable_ result, such as a human body being moved with an amount of force, or a discernable result, such as causing someone to drop their guard and be open to me, be it my attack or my suggestion that they 'go home and rethink their life.'  If I claim to be able to teach it, and claim that it has *martial* application outside of the dojo students, then I need to be able to replicate my *results* within the dojo with the class for teaching purposes, and on uncooperating/noncompliant subjects as well.

It is not the _existence_ of ki that is the problem, but the claims of those who supposedly teach you how to manipulate it within the martial arts and the nature of how Ki is defined that are the points of contention.

Daniel


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 30, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> One comment that I wish to make, K-man.  I'm not sure who said that if it couldn't be measured, it doestn't exist, but I'm not of that opinion myself.
> 
> Any who hold religious or spiritual beliefs that involve a deity or spirit beings of any sort, likewise believe in the existence of that which cannot be measured.  I am included in this category.
> 
> ...


As an expansion on this...

The Catholic Church recognizes miracles.  However, for it to qualify as a miracle, every other explanation has to be proven wrong.  Cures must be total, spontaneous, and occur without or despite medical intervention, for example.  It's not easy to qualify something as a miracle...

When you make extraordinary claims for ki/chi/energy, you must provide extraordinary evidence.  Does our body have energy channels, and do these channels have an effect on health and ability?  Sure; at the very least, the nervous system has an energy component.  But if you start to claim that you can disrupt my ki and make me collapse -- you're going to have to prove it.  To the exclusion of things like hitting me upside the head hard enough to knock me out.

Under the right circumstances, I've "pulled" or "frozen" people using something.  It's not a big effect -- but I've been on both sides.  It happens.  I don't claim that it's ki; I don't know what it is and I've not been very successful teaching it to others.  It's very likely and very possible that it's simply the result of subtle psychological manipulation...  Don't know.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2009)

K-man said:


> Yes, I made a challenge. I don't believe anything I believe has been explained or rebutted. I have made no personal attacks but expressed my frustration at the references back to magic, mysticism, trickery, hoax etc etc that I do not believe in either.



You say you don't believe in trickery. But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that _of course_ 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothing&#8212;not one word&#8212;to identify what that 5% is. You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe. The fact is that, since you won't provide the necessary information about the fact that you think support your belief, all we have is your repeating over and over that you believe in it. Fine, no one doubts that. But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one _hell_ of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. Don't like it? Then provide some evidence.  

Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation. 



K-man said:


> I have been asked what I think ki is and I have said "I don't know". *When asked what it seems to be, whatever I say to try and explain what I feel is challenged, as if I am stating a fact.* So let's look afresh, I am not making any claims as to what ki is.



Actually, you have yet to say one word about what ki seems to be. You have yet to identify even a single experience that you think a concept called 'ki' is necessary to provide an explanation for. You have yet to provide a single explicit reason why someone, being told that there something called ki which you believe exists, would be inclined to agree with you that it exists.  To make a long story short, you've said virtually nothing about ki that has any content. And this is kind of remarkable, considering how much you've posted on it.



K-man said:


> Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki.



Well, you tell us, K: you yourself don't know what ki is, so tell us why you think there's such a thing in the first place. You have studiously avoided providing even a hint of criteria for others to use in deciding whether or not they'd experienced ki, so how can anyone possibly have any clue what you're talking about? _What are the 'symptoms' or 'sign' or whatever of 'ki'??_ Give us a LIST, OK? We're waiting, all ears, to hear just what these tokens of ki-hood are.  I've asked you before for these; Ninjamom has asked you, and you've been totally silent. You have nothing to say about what it is that constitutes and experience of ki. Well, _you_ started this thread, remember, giving the impression that you actually intended to discuss the issue. But you've avoided saying anything substantive that can be evaluated, to an extent that makes it doubtful that you really do want to defend your position. 




K-man said:


> Any discussion here is acedemic as *they don't know what the discussion is really about. *



You have got to be kidding. We keep asking you to make clear what this ki is that you think the discussion is about, or how to recognize it at least, and you say, you don't know so far as the first is concerned, and you're stone silent on the second. And then you have the sheer brass to say that 'they don't know what the discussion is really about'... like, you _do???_ :lfao:



K-man said:


> The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but *I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki.*



Since by your own inisistence you don't know what ki is, and have nothing to say about what something has to be like such that it gets called 'ki', this last statement is pretty vacuous.




K-man said:


> The third group are those that have experienced *something that has been termed ki *that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them.



Termed 'ki' by _whom?_ Not by themselves, since by your own assumptions, they don't believe in it. Not _ki_ by anyone else, because who else would know what the people you're referring to _have_ experienced except themselves? And _why_ would it have been 'termed ki'??See, this is the problem with your 'reasoning': over and over, it turns out to consist mostly of words strung together that add up to nothing coherent. 

Those are just a few of the gaping holes in your claims&#8212;they don't really merit the description 'argument'. Because as things stand, what you've offered is, as Sukerkin pointed out earlier, mumbo jumbo. No facts, no consistency, no reasoning. 




K-man said:


> tellner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mostly, it's the sort of comment that's 110% _true_. And the fault is yours, alas, because you're just not carrying out the crucial components of a debate: an explicit statement of your position, the specific evidence for it, and a point-by-point defense of your reasoning to that position in the face of the other side's critique. So what do you _expect?_


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2009)

quick question for those who do not believe in Qi:  do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice?  This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?  

I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?

As I've stated before, I believe that most of the teachers of these arts do not themselves have an adequate understanding nor mastery of their own qi, and are teaching the internal arts as a primarily external art.  I don't think they necessarily are doing it on purpose, I suspect that most of them BELIEVE they have mastery of their qi, but they are fooling themselves or have been fooled by others.  So having experience with these arts under the wrong teacher can also lead to a denial of Qi, but at least I'd like to know if you folks have made any effort in that direction during your martial careers.

I suppose yoga could also be counted among these arts, tho I believe the common healthclub yoga class falls into the same category as the deluded taiji teachers.  I think most of those people are teaching a purely physical exercise version of yoga, and have likewise lost most or all internal connections.  But under the right teacher, yoga could, I suspect, be a valid avenue as well.

Anyway, just curious.  Thanks.


----------



## K-man (Mar 30, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Under the right circumstances, I've "pulled" or "frozen" people using something. It's not a big effect -- but I've been on both sides. It happens. I don't claim that it's ki; *I don't know what it is and I've not been very successful teaching it to others. It's very likely and very possible that it's simply the result of subtle psychological manipulation...* Don't know.


 
Could that be referred to as ki?  I believe the biggest problem with accepting ki is that it is so difficult to teach.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 30, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> quick question for those who do not believe in Qi: do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice? This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?
> 
> I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?
> 
> ...


 
AIkido was my first serious martial art (6 years), also studied some Taijiquan.  I used to really believe in the ki explanations....I don't now.  Like I said before, I don;t discount the observed effects, jsut many of the explanations.  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## K-man (Mar 30, 2009)

exile said:


> You say you don't believe in trickery. But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that _of course_ 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothingnot one wordto identify what that 5% is. You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe. The fact is that, since you won't provide the necessary information about the fact that you think support your belief, all we have is your repeating over and over that you believe in it. Fine, no one doubts that. But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one _hell_ of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. Don't like it? Then provide some evidence.
> 
> Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation.
> 
> ...


Exile, I appreciate the time you have taken to put together you posts but you are so far off the mark I am tempted to leave them totally alone. 


> But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that _of course_ 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothingnot one wordto identify what that 5% is.


Your example of the simple trick of the unbendable arm is just that. A trick. I can bend most unbendable arms. The test for ki is the unbendable arm that doesn't bend!
I never said 95% of ki is biomechanical. Here is my post.


> And talking of unbendable arms, you are right about the biomechanics, and probably 95% of all *so called* ki may be attributed to biomechanics. I have no truck with that. It is the 5% I don't understand that I am talking about. And there a virtually NO unbendable arms that I can't bend, biomechanics or not!


If you read what I wrote carefully you will see that I agreed with you. I said that 95% of what some people call ki is in fact explained by biomechanics. There is a small percentage probably much less than 5% that defies logical explanation that I ascribe to ki. As I have said, most 'unbendable' arms I can bend. Granted, they are much stronger when done without muscle tension, but they are not 'unbendable'.


> then you say nothingnot one wordto identify what that 5% is.


What part of 'ki' don't you understand.


> You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe.


What are you asking exile? You want me to tell you what ki is? I have stated time after time what I feel is ki. Nothing anybody has written has explained what I feel to my satisfaction. I am not trying to convert people to the 'religeon' of ki. I have my understanding and others have theirs. What pisses me off is when people who want to have a discussion about ki have their thread hijacked by those intent on saying they are poor misguided fools with weak minds and no understanding, tricked into believing something that doesn't exist. Everyone is entitled to their belief and their understanding.


> But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one _hell_ of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. *Don't like it?* Then provide some evidence.


The only evidence is practical, hands on. Come and train with us, then comment. 


> Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation.


Because ki is an intangible and very difficult define you statement loses sense in the context of this discussion. Read the posts, I have put forward my thoughts and you disagree with my interpretation. It's a free world, sometimes we have to agree to disagree.


> Actually, you have yet to say one word about what ki seems to be. You have yet to identify even a single experience that you think a concept called 'ki' is necessary to provide an explanation for. You have yet to provide a single explicit reason why someone, being told that there something called ki which you believe exists, would be inclined to agree with you that it exists. *To make a long story short*, you've said virtually nothing about ki that has any content. And this is kind of remarkable, considering how much you've posted on it.


Why use 10 words when you can use 98? I believe ki exists and it can be demonstrated to my satisfaction. You might believe God exists and that can be demonstrated to your satisfaction. I believe ki can be demonstrated by *some* people with the unbendable arm. I don't care if you don't believe what I believe.


> Well, you tell us, K: you yourself don't know what ki is, so tell us why you think there's such a thing in the first place. You have studiously avoided providing even a hint of criteria for others to use in deciding whether or not they'd experienced ki, so how can anyone possibly have any clue what you're talking about? _What are the 'symptoms' or 'sign' or whatever of 'ki'??_ Give us a LIST, OK? We're waiting, all ears, to hear just what these tokens of ki-hood are. I've asked you before for these; Ninjamom has asked you, and you've been totally silent.


If you took a little more time reading the posts and less time ranting you would have read "*To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move. Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist."* Now you have demolished this proposal to your satisfaction and asked for more. I am a simple man exile. I have no thesis to provide you. What I have said above is what I have experienced and what I experience twice a week, every week.


> Well, _you_ started this thread, remember, giving the impression that you actually intended to discuss the issue. But you've avoided saying anything substantive that can be evaluated, to an extent that makes it doubtful that you really do want to defend your position.


Obviously you didn't read the OP so I will repost it for you:
*I am starting this thread so all the people who do not believe in ki have a thread in which they can express their views and try to reach a consensus. In this way they won't have to argue with people who believe ki exists (in whichever way it works for them) on threads where people are discussing ki.*

_*So my challenge to all you doubters is: *_

_*I believe ki exists. I just don't know what it is. *_

_*Without using the words 'trick', 'fraud', 'magic', 'levitation', 'telekinesis', 'supernatural' or 'mystical' and without posting videos from YouTube or the like which may or may not be real, please put forward a case for the NON EXISTENCE of ki.*_

At no point did I say I would provide any evidence. I made a simple statement and set some conditions, that you didn't read, chose to ignore or did not understand. 


> You have got to be kidding. We keep asking you to make clear what this ki is that you think the discussion is about, or how to recognize it at least, and you say, you don't know so far as the first is concerned, and you're stone silent on the second. And then you have the sheer brass to say that 'they don't know what the discussion is really about'... like, you _do???_ :lfao:


Again, you didn't read the post!
_Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. *The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki. Any discussion here is acedemic as they don't know what the discussion is really about.* The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki. The third group are those that have experienced something that has been termed ki that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them._
You took one segment out of context.
I would have thought what I wrote was self evident. If you have never seen ki or anything being called ki how can you possibly give informed opinion?


> Since by your own inisistence you don't know what ki is, and have nothing to say about what something has to be like such that it gets called 'ki', this last statement is pretty vacuous.


Once again, read the post.
_The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but *I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki.*_
We seem to be getting quite abusive here. What don't you understand in what I wrote? Someone sees something called ki that turns out to be a trick or an illusion and calls it. What I said is "what was demonstrated was not ki. It was a trick or an illusion". What is *vacuous* about that. If I said your posts were inane, stupid or lacking intelligence you might take that as offensive. For those who don't know what I am talking about please look up *vacuous* in your dictionary.


> Termed 'ki' by _whom?_ Not by themselves, since by your own assumptions, they don't believe in it. Not _ki_ by anyone else, because who else would know what the people you're referring to _have_ experienced except themselves? And _why_ would it have been 'termed ki'??See, this is the problem with your 'reasoning': over and over, it turns out to consist mostly of words strung together that add up to nothing coherent.


Termed ki by the person performing the technique. Termed ki because that is the term used in MA circles. Termed ki because there is no other explanation. And, exile, if you are calling my posts incoherent, please reread yours.


> Those are just a few of the gaping holes in your claimsthey don't really merit the description 'argument'. Because as things stand, what you've offered is, as Sukerkin pointed out earlier, mumbo jumbo. No facts, no consistency, no reasoning.


Thank you for your considered opinion. I accept on behalf of all other practitioners who use ki or are trying to learn how to use ki that what we are using is _'mumbo jumbo'_. I'm sure your comment has contributed enormously to the discussion.
You didn't even quote Sukerkin accurately:
_*If you want to claim something then have proof of it. If you want to make extraordinary claims, then have extraordinary proof, not portentious sounding mumbo-jumbo.*_
This is quite a valid statement in its context. Sukerkin was not, I believe, stating that ki did not exist, merely that if someone is making an extraordinary claim, and I acknowledge that ki is an extraordinary claim, then you need extraordinary proof, not Mumbo jumbo. He did not say what I had offered was mumbo jumbo!


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2009)

I do, however, think that you need to recognise a losing wicket when you're on one, *K*.  It would seem that, no matter how you strive, you're not going to be changing anyones mind on this.  

Whilst persistence is often a positive trait, it is sometimes necessary to accept that continuing to 'bang the drum' when the parade is over is a counterproductive measure; I suspect that it can only serve to harden peoples attitudes rather than sway them.


----------



## K-man (Mar 30, 2009)

The sad part is, I am not trying to change anyone's mind!


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2009)

K-man said:


> What I have said above is what I have experienced and what I experience twice a week, every week.



K, go to this site.

Look at the triangle. Yes, you'll _see_ lines connecting the three vertices. When you have high quality graphics on paper in front of you, the lines are _really_ sharp. Now cover the 'pac-man' circles with your fingers, and the lines disappear. They were never there. You see them, on paper or the screen, but they don't _exist_ on the paper or screen. You experienced something that wasn't there in the world. It was there in your brain, the result of how the brain computes visual images. Contrary to what you said in a very early post in the other ki thread, perception isn't reality. If it were, the lines would still be there when you covered the circles. Go on, follow the links provided, for some extremely clear examples of this classic visual illusion.

Your whole argument is based on your assumption that the way you experience something necessarily corresponds to the way the world is. The illusory triangle is just one of thousands of such examples which make it clear that there is not one shred of support for that assumption. You have experiences that you attribute reality to. You have provided not one iota of evidence that those experiences correspond to something out there in the world&#8212;just as your experience of the triangle perimeter does not have anything to do with whether or not those lines exist on the screen itself, on the paper itself. _How easy is a bush supposed a bear_, eh?

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and you've provided none, except your own experience. Like your experience of the lines you see in the illusory triangle, that are not out there... 'in here', no question, but not out there. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the ki which you claim is there really _is_ out there. Your subjective sense that there's 'something there' counts no more as evidence for that something than your perception of the missing parts of the triangle lines counts as evidence for their existence _out there_. 

Is it clear _now?_


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2009)

Interesting bit of reading here:

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TaiChi Stanford.pdf

The individual in the article, Chen Xiang, is a senior student under Feng Zhiqiang in Beijing, who is also my sifu's teacher.

It doesn't answer any real questions about Qi, but it makes it clear that the researchers were very interested in his capabilities and didn't find it entirely easy to explain.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting bit of reading here:
> 
> http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TaiChi Stanford.pdf
> 
> ...



They do the same kind of stuff at OSU with phenomenally gifted athletes in several disciplines&#8212;track and field, football and so on. They have unbelievably advanced scanning and simulation technology here (big surprise, eh?) and one of the most advanced sport physiology labs in the world, probably. The thing is, extraordinary athletes _all_ perform at what look like the extreme limits of possible action. The folks at the Stanford lab don't sound as though they're looking at some external force, or source or anything like that. They are just trying to see what particular combination of factors enables off-the-charts performances like that... and given time, they'll find them, just as our computational physiologists do here with athletic prodigies.

I'm glad you brought up this kind of example, because it raises an issue that seems to me entirely parallel. Srinivasa Ramanujan was an Indian mathematician, an amateur, who had a gift for computing surrealistically difficult integrals to yield analytic solutions that most mathematicians would take one look at and say, time for a numerical approximation, there's no way you can figure out a simple algebraic solution for something like that. The story is here, if you're interested. He was taken under the wing of the great English mathematician Hardy, encouraged and ultimately vindicated in his most daring work. No one has come close to Ramanujan in this regard except may for John von Neumann. Do we have reason to assume that there is some particular quality xhu out there that we need to explain what Ramanujan did, defying as it seems to do normal human possibilities? Or what the great American chess player Pillsbury did in the 19th century, playing a hundred simultaneous games, winning them all, and then, a month later, able to play _backwards from the final mate position_ any of the games he had played in the exhibition? Or the mind of Freeman Dyson, the greatest physicist never to win the Nobel Prize, who, confronted with a completely fresh problem by a colleague&#8212;is there a number which, if you write it down, take the rightmost digit making it up, and move it to the left end of the original, will yield a number exactly twice the original?&#8212;paused briefly and said, in the presence of a number of his colleagues at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, 'Of course there is, but the smallest such number is eighteen digits long', and proceeded to write that number down on the spot? Are we going to account for these seemingly supernatural abilities of the human mind by actually appealing to the supernatural, or metaphysical, and so on? When you're performing particularly well, effortlessly, flawlessly, is it because there's something 'out there' you're tapping into, some _entity_... or is there simply some combination of factors which every so often produces that 'state of grace' feeling that rewards every one of your movements and actions? I've had that happen to me a few times when I was a ski racer, and a few times skiing in wicked mogul fields when everyone else was crashing and burning on the 30% grade, and I was just _gliding_ down. Was it because of some external _force_, or _mind force_, or similar bit of obfuscation? No, it was just because, for that little bit of time, I was doing everything right, without trying. Someone wants to call _that_ ki&#8212;fine, though I don't see the need. But there wasn't anything _out there_ that I was controlling, or working, or training. It was just me and my skis.


----------



## tellner (Mar 30, 2009)

Flying Crane, I'm one of the skeptics. My background isn't extensive, but I've had a couple years each of Aikido and Taiji.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2009)

exile said:


> They do the same kind of stuff at OSU with phenomenally gifted athletes in several disciplinestrack and field, football and so on. They have unbelievably advanced scanning and simulation technology here (big surprise, eh?) and one of the most advanced sport physiology labs in the world, probably. The thing is, extraordinary athletes _all_ perform at what look like the extreme limits of possible action. The folks at the Stanford lab don't sound as though they're looking at some external force, or source or anything like that. They are just trying to see what particular combination of factors enables off-the-charts performances like that... and given time, they'll find them, just as our computational physiologists do here with athletic prodigies.
> 
> I'm glad you brought up this kind of example, because it raises an issue that seems to me entirely parallel. Srinivasa Ramanujan was an Indian mathematician, an amateur, who had a gift for computing surrealistically difficult integrals to yield analytic solutions that most mathematicians would take one look at and say, time for a numerical approximation, there's no way you can figure out a simple algebraic solution for something like that. The story is here, if you're interested. He was taken under the wing of the great English mathematician Hardy, encouraged and ultimately vindicated in his most daring work. No one has come close to Ramanujan in this regard except may for John von Neumann. Do we have reason to assume that there is some particular quality xhu out there that we need to explain what Ramanujan did, defying as it seems to do normal human possibilities? Or what the great American chess player Pillsbury did in the 19th century, playing a hundred simultaneous games, winning them all, and then, a month later, able to play _backwards from the final mate position_ any of the games he had played in the exhibition? Or the mind of Freeman Dyson, the greatest physicist never to win the Nobel Prize, who, confronted with a completely fresh problem by a colleagueis there a number which, if you write it down, take the rightmost digit making it up, and move it to the left end of the original, will yield a number exactly twice the original?paused briefly and said, in the presence of a number of his colleagues at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, 'Of course there is, but the smallest such number is eighteen digits long', and proceeded to write that number down on the spot? Are we going to account for these seemingly supernatural abilities of the human mind by actually appealing to the supernatural, or metaphysical, and so on? When you're performing particularly well, effortlessly, flawlessly, is it because there's something 'out there' you're tapping into, some _entity_... or is there simply some combination of factors which every so often produces that 'state of grace' feeling that rewards every one of your movements and actions? I've had that happen to me a few times when I was a ski racer, and a few times skiing in wicked mogul fields when everyone else was crashing and burning on the 30% grade, and I was just _gliding_ down. Was it because of some external _force_, or _mind force_, or similar bit of obfuscation? No, it was just because, for that little bit of time, I was doing everything right, without trying. Someone wants to call _that_ kifine, though I don't see the need. But there wasn't anything _out there_ that I was controlling, or working, or training. It was just me and my skis.



Interesting stories, particularly about the mathemeticians and chess masters and such.  It illustrates how powerful and incompletely understood the human brain really is.

I think that the translation that many like to use for qi = energy, may be part of the problem.  It may work as a direct translation, but I'm not sure it captures the true nature of the phenomenon.  

Qi is often described as an energy that permeates everything in the universe.  I dunno about that.  What I suspect it MAY be (and this is just me speculating) is an ability to tap into a function of the brain that most people are unable to tap, or at least aren't able to do it consciously or consistently.  Hence, your moments of perfection while skiing the moguls.  Not something you can do every time, but for at least that one run, your were PERFECT.

I've read that most people only use some 10% or so of their brain's capacity.  I don't really know what that means, exactly.  Is the other 90% pure memory storage?  Or are there possibly deeper reasoning and computation capabilities that most people never delve into?  I don't know.  But maybe what we have come to label as "Qi" is simply the ability to tap into some deeper region of the mind that is often out of reach for most people.  Maybe there are some hidden "switches" in the unused portions of the brain that sort of get triggered thru the internal martial arts.

Maybe qi-gong exercises somehow bring us into reach of some deeper region of the brain, or something.  Maybe the internal arts capitalize on this and enable the accomplished to use this deeper brain capability to drive their practice and their martial technique.  And the result is sort of a tubo-charged performance, and "energy" driving your technique.  What we call "qi".

I've always said that I believe it is subtle and tricky and not easily grasped.  I don't believe that the average taiji student EVER truly grasps it, yet they all want to believe (and want to convince you) that they have from about the second week forward.  Most of it is nonsense.  But I think there are some who are really accomplished, and they rise to a level far above the average, and they do it thru effortlessness.  This ability is what has simply become labelled as "Qi", a Chinese term that has been brought to the West and kept in use for lack of a better description.

I don't know much about Chinese culture, to be honest.  And I don't know much about how Chinese culture affects how the Chinese think about and ponder things.  But it seems to me that they found something that works, and they accept it and label it as "qi".  It's the Western culture that is obsessive about giving everything a scientific label and description.  There may yet be a Western scientific label and description to be had regarding qi, but I'm simply not convinced that it's been truly figured out yet. And I think discarding it as nonsense is short-sighted.

You commented about similar studies done on elite athletes.  I think Sifu Chen from the article is in something of a category all his own, in comparison to the type of elite athletes that are probably most often tested.  I am admittedly making a big supposition in saying that, because I don't really know much about who has been tested in this way.  But my point is that Sifu Chen is an elite taiji man.  But I'm not sure he would fit the bill of "elite athlete" when compared to sprinters, high-jumpers, pole-vaulters, hammer-throwers, skiers, weight-lifters and such.  I don't believe he trains with the same kind of physicality that those others would.  Granted, when he was younger I believe he trained in some external arts, Northern Shaolin or something.  But now he practices his taiji, and he practices it as a viable martial art.  But he spends HUGE amounts of time practicing his qi-gong, putting far more emphasis on that.  Sifu has told me that Sifu Chen has (or had) a job as a night watchman somewhere.  It was a quiet shift.  He would spend the whole night standing around doing his qi-gong exercises in between making his observational rounds and stuff.  That is the focus of his training.  Not running sprints or running for endurance, or lifting weights or flipping tractor tires.  No.  He does mostly qi-gong.

When Sifu Chen would visit and give seminars, he would always place heavy emphasis on the importance of qi-gong, far more so than on practicing the taiji forms.  That's part of my own problem:  I like practicing forms, and I don't like practicing qi-gong so much.  So my own development has remained very rudimentary, but that's my own problem and I accept it.  I remember grasping his arm in my hands.  And then he decided to move.  And it was like trying to hold an oak tree from swaying in the wind.  I could simply feel this power in his movement, if he wanted to move _there_, nothing I could do would stop him.  And he didn't need to beat me down to get thru me.  He could just walk thru me.  Effortless.

At any rate, I suspect the true nature of qi may be more connected to the uncharted capabilities of the brain rather than an external force.  It just may be that the Chinese described it in this particular way, and were content with that description.  It's the nosey Westerners who want to dissect and label everything and aren't happy with anything short of a scientific explanation.

So that's my take on it, anyway.  Far less than perfect, but it's what I got.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 31, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> quick question for those who do not believe in Qi: do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice? This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?
> 
> I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?
> 
> ...


 
I've done a little qigong in the past, and I'm a relatively new student in Bagua and I'm starting Taiji soon.   I'm open to the idea of Qi, but as with all things I'm a skeptic.  I'm not saying I do or don't believe in it, I'm saying give me something to work with, and folks aren't really doing that.  I'm interested in experiencing qi, but I'm also not going to assume anything I experience in qigong practice can be explained by some undefinable 'force'.  Maybe it can be, and maybe I will define it that way eventually, but I'm not going to assume that's the explanation, and since it doesn't seem particularly logical to me, I'm going to exhaust all other explanations first.  But as a famous vulcan once said, take away the impossible and what you have left must be true.  I don't disbelieve in qi, I just want to exhaust all other explanations first.

And just to the issue of only using 10% of our brains, its a myth.  http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 31, 2009)

On the 10% of the brain thing:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 31, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting stories, particularly about the mathemeticians and chess masters and such. It illustrates how powerful and incompletely understood the human brain really is.
> 
> I think that the translation that many like to use for qi = energy, may be part of the problem. It may work as a direct translation, but I'm not sure it captures the true nature of the phenomenon.
> 
> ...


 
Good post FC.  I agree with most of it.  However, where we disagree, I think is the crux of the matter.

I agree...most people do not function at full cpacity.  They do not tap into all of their potential.  Often, the 10% nof the brain thing comes up...that's a bit of a fallacy.  In actual fact, we use all of our brains pretty much all of the time.  Makes no sense to have large chunks of grey matter (the biggest energy sink in our body) going unused.  However, by and large, we only have concious access ot about 10%.  We don;t have ot think about breathing, circulation, hormonal balance, etc....all that happens at a subconcious automatic level.  Through training, some people can influence that to a degree....but for the most part, the brain/body runs without a lot of help from that bit that makes soemone themselves (often called the mind).

I totally agree that the idea of being in the zone, doign something in that moment of perfection is similar to what a lot of people refer to as ki experiences and concede that both parties may be using different terms to describe the same phenomenon.

However, tapping into ones brain, while it might explain how one performs at extraordinary levels of physical/mental ability, does not explain adequately things like chi/ki healing...teh ability to project ki...to disrupt/cahnge others' energy.  This, to me, is one of the big claims of chi/ki.  That an advanced practitioner can lay his hands on or near someone and effect change in that person.  These claims don't seem to jive with physics.  Nor have they stood up to simple experimentation.

My favorite example is an elegant study taht was put together by a 10 year old girl.  She learned about chi and about how a particular qigong master could heal with touch.  She met this guy, he demonstrated how his palms could get warm, he showed her teh tingly touch demonstration.  She then proposed he do the same thing to some random volunteer.  First he'd do his thing as normal and most of the people reported sensing someting.  They repeated the process, but this time with a curtain between himself and the people.  They'd put their hand through the curtain and then indicate when they sensed the qigong master doing his thing.  This time no one could tell when he was manipulating/extending chi.  

So, can ki be used ot explain how people accomlish extradoinary physical and mental feats?  Sure...but again I contend there is better, less loaded and more accurate language to do the same thing.  the minute you start addin gon the projection stuff...teh claims get more out there and that mnuch harder to substantiate.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 31, 2009)

K-man said:


> The sad part is, I am not trying to change anyone's mind!


Don't be disengenuous.  

The very nature of this challenge to prove that you are in the right.  Thus, to win your challenge, you must therefore change the viewpoint of others.

The fact that you've couched this in a 'prove me wrong' fashion does not alter that.  You only did this because you know that you cannot prove the existence of Ki, so you've taken the rout of trying to get the skeptics to prove that it doesn't.  Your intent is to show that skeptics cannot disprove something that you believe in. 

If you had simply started a thread about how wonderful Ki is in a sectio of the forum dedicated to Ki based arts and received skeptical responses, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the skeptic to disprove you.

But you went to general martial arts and said, 'prove me wrong.'  So please do not belittle yourself by pretending that you're not looking to change the minds of others.  

There is not a thing wrong with trying to share your beliefs with others, nor is there a thing wrong with trying to convince others (so long as one is honest about how they try to do so).  

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 31, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> quick question for those who do not believe in Qi: do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice? This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?
> 
> I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?
> 
> ...


No experience in a specifically ki based art.

I do not consider myself a skeptic of the existence of Ki.  I've defined how I view it and am open to the idea that it could go beyond that.

I certainly believe that the human body has a self contained energy and that it can be internally directed, either by the individual or under the guidance of someone else.

But I am skeptical of people who claim that they can levitate and are clearly just jumping by use of their gluts and outter thigh muscles.  I'm skeptical of martial arts instructors who claim to teach a no touch knock out, but cannot perform the technique on anyone outside of those they've spent a considerable amount of time grooming.

I am equally skeptical of so called faith healers.  Knocking people over and yelling out religious sounding talk while passing the basket for donations is the height of sacrilidge.  The more of an event that it becomes the more skeptical of it I become.  Funny how such performances go against the dictates of scripture (speaking of Christian faith healers; I am not familiar with the methods of faith healers outside of the various flavors of Christianity).

Both sets of people are simply charlatans and huxters.  One group calls it Ki, the other calls it Faith.  But a charlatan is a charlatan, no matter what mask they wear.

Daniel


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> On the 10% of the brain thing:
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp


 

Thanks for the link.

Yet Exile has posted some examples related to mathemeticians and chess players that clearly show the brain has extraordinary capabilties that are not fully understood, and that most of us are unable to tap. So maybe the 10% bit is a myth, but I think there is still some level of unknown in the mix.  And I do believe that most of us are not utilizing nearly all of our potential.  Hell, when I take a look around me, I sometimes wonder if people are deliberately operating so far below capacity that I'm often surprised they are able to walk upright.

At any rate, I don't have any proof to back up what I was postulating. I was really just tossing out some thoughts I had on the matter, somthing that seems plausible to me, but I could be way off. Or there could be something to it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> However, tapping into ones brain, while it might explain how one performs at extraordinary levels of physical/mental ability, does not explain adequately things like chi/ki healing...teh ability to project ki...to disrupt/cahnge others' energy. This, to me, is one of the big claims of chi/ki. That an advanced practitioner can lay his hands on or near someone and effect change in that person. These claims don't seem to jive with physics. Nor have they stood up to simple experimentation.


 
I agree, much of this kind of thing ought to be looked at with a heavy dose of skepticism.  I think I've been pretty clear in my postings on the subject that I don't believe in the no-touch knockouts, levitation, or throwing chi-balls to the bewilderment and destruction of one's enemies.  I do, however, believe that there may be something to the ability to disrupt or manipulate another's qi.  As I've stated previously, I think it's all very subtle and not something that just anybody can do.  But I think there might be something to it.  I've not witnessed believeable examples of it myself, but I've heard stories and I would like the opportunity to witness some more from knowledgeable sources, such as Sifu Chen of my article link.  So while I am a believer in qi, I am also very skeptical about most claims.  And the more fantastic the claim, the more skeptical I am.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I am equally skeptical of so called faith healers.


 
Yes, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation put on by a Chinese martial arts sifu and supposed healer.  The presentation was billed as a demonstration of Traditional Chinese healing methods.  I was intrigued enough to go and see what was up.

It was total bunk.  He was claiming to use a no-touch method of qi to heal what ails ya, right on the spot.  Didn't do anything for my knee that had been bothering me for several months at that time.  He also claimed that he could heal your loved ones if you just show him a photograph of that person.  

His main push was to sign people up for a very expensive, week-long course so that he could teach his healing methods to you, and then you could make lots of money by healing those around you.  

Total bull-****, and this is the kind of presentation that really puts a bad spin on the whole qi subject.  If there is really something to it, which I believe there is, it gets such a bad name from people like this that nobody is willing to consider the possiblity at all.

So yeah, as I've stated numerous times now, there is a lot of nonsense in the arena.  But again, I still believe that underneath it all, there is really something there.


----------



## tellner (Mar 31, 2009)

Then there's the language we're dealing with. A professor I had years back described Chinese as "the language of no grammar and a million idioms". Qi means a huge number of things. Off the top of my head I remember...

Breath
Nutrition from food
The energy you lose by being a parent
The energy and life you get from your parents
Whatever it is that powers the world
Technical medical term for vitality/life energy

I'm willing to grant the first four. The last two? Others? If you have a shred of honesty be precise.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 31, 2009)

> Breath
> Nutrition from food
> The energy you lose by being a parent
> The energy and life you get from your parents
> ...


 
I think Xi fits breath best.

Nutrients from food would be Ying Qi.

Energy from parents would be Yuan Jing(IMO DNA)(Jing Zi=semen)Converted into Yuan Qi from Yuan Jing.

What ever powers the world would have to be broken down into energies that occur from the earth like Geothermal to energies in the air like weather. 
Chi in Japanese is blood(In Chinese it is Xue)I don't know if that is what you mean by technical medical you might have to ask a more detailed question and I will try to answer it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 31, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I've read that most people only use some 10% or so of their brain's capacity.  I don't really know what that means, exactly.



It means nothing, because it's a myth.  An extremely common myth, but there is no scientific backing behind it.  There is no scientific reason to believe that there are "dark" regions of the brain containing mysterious abilities waiting to be tapped.

ETA: Oops, should have read ahead.  Sorry FC.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 31, 2009)

Why is it that people don't believe in things that they can not see or touch?  I believe in ki (chi in chinese martial arts) exists.  Chi/ki is a internal energy that can not be seen.  When chi/ki gets blocked and can not flow smoothly through the body thats when you get sick or injured.  It it through the meridians in the body that chi/ki flow.  Accupuncture works on this theory.  I have seen masters do some pretty impressive things by being able to channel/control the flow of their internal energy that a normal person wouldn't be able to do unless he had training in the internal arts.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> *Why is it that people don't believe in things that they can not see or touch?  *I believe in ki (chi in chinese martial arts) exists.  Chi/ki is a internal energy that can not be seen.  When chi/ki gets blocked and can not flow smoothly through the body thats when you get sick or injured.  It it through the meridians in the body that chi/ki flow.  Accupuncture works on this theory.  I have seen masters do some pretty impressive things by being able to channel/control the flow of their internal energy that a normal person wouldn't be able to do unless he had training in the internal arts.



Hmm... like air, you mean, or the existence of prime numbers, or electrons? Stuff like that, that you can't see or touch and that no one believes in?


----------



## tellner (Mar 31, 2009)

JA, the point is that "Qi" can mean many things. It's important to be precise about what is meant when using a word that has so many different possible interpretations.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 31, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> Why is it that people don't believe in things that they can not see or touch? I believe in ki (chi in chinese martial arts) exists. Chi/ki is a internal energy that can not be seen. When chi/ki gets blocked and can not flow smoothly through the body thats when you get sick or injured. It it through the meridians in the body that chi/ki flow. Accupuncture works on this theory. I have seen masters do some pretty impressive things by being able to channel/control the flow of their internal energy that a normal person wouldn't be able to do unless he had training in the internal arts.


 
I believe in a few things that I can't see or touch, and I haven't said I don't believe in chi. But there has to be some experience to back it up, and for those that haven't experienced there should be some logical framework for explaining it. If it is an internal energy, that implies specific things, and should have some way of being measured. Because acupuncture uses this theory to explain why it works, again, doesn't mean that is the actual explanation.  For a looong time some people believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything in the heavens revolved around it, because that was the best explanation they had for what they observed in the sky.  Then they learned they was a better explanation, but it didn't changed what they observed, just their understanding of it.

Most of the skeptics on here aren't saying they won't believe it if someone can prove it to them. They're just asking for proof (some more aggresively than others maybe.) What your saying is "I believe it and experienc it, and the TCM explains itself using this framework, so why don't you believe?". There's a clear answer why not: 1) Those of us who are skeptics _haven't_ experienced it, and 2) no one has given an explanation that seems to have logic behind it. Saying that TCM practioners explain what they do this way, and have for centuries, doesn't give us any real explanation it's just more "they believe it, so why don't you?"

And yes I will be exploring the potential of chi/ki in my qigong and bagua training, so assuming that being a skeptic means dogmatic unbelief is an unfounded assumption.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 31, 2009)

> the point is that "Qi" can mean many things. It's important to be precise about what is meant when using a word that has so many different possible interpretations.


 Qi(&#27683 by itself simply means energy however if we put another Hanzi in front of it like:&#22825;=Heaven we get &#22825;&#27683;(literally Heaven's Qi)Which would be translated as Heaven's energy which is weather.  Here is the Hanzi for breath as inhale:&#21560; this is Xi as in taking a deep breath in.
 This Hanzi means Breath but it means exhale: &#24687;
This Hanzi means inhale/exhale:&#21628;&#21560; and it is Hu Xi. Chinese dictionary uses Qi to mean all these things resulting in quite a confusion.



> gas / air / smell / weather / vital breath / to anger / to get angry / to be enraged


 IMO I think that Qi(meaning energy) and used as a sufixs or a prefix would make more sense in our modern English translation. 

Qi: &#22855;


> strange / odd / weird / wonderful


 
I see where misunderstandings and on top of that used in a religious setting vs a TCM medical setting things can easily get scrambled.

I really would like to see the term demystified and IMO The use of the Chinese words and Hanzi and Japanese word and Kanji are essentially the same as their Western translations(except maybe if used in a religious context)


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 31, 2009)

We practice qi gong forms (standing and moving) in our advanced class, and all the stances and many movements in the sword art I practice are based on gi cheon.

The more I've researched chi/ki, the more skeptical I have become, until I've pretty much written the whole thing off as wishful thinking, and/or an unwillingness to let go of old ideas for the sake of 'tradition'.  Not meaning to rain on anyone else's parade, but just trying to be honest, since you asked for candor in where we stand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> No, perception is *not *reality.



Hmmm, when you think about it, everything is a perception.  Reality is just what people agree upon.  :angel:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Hmmm, when you think about it, everything is a perception.  Reality is just what people agree upon.  :angel:



That said, lets be real a moment.  My teacher used a multimeter to find various acupuncture points on our bodies and these readings corresponded well with what has been found on the charts.  They aren't always in the same spots, go figure, evolution and all.  I've also trained with some fabulous TCM doctors in Tai Chi, there is something to the explanation they have to offer regarding various phenomenon.

In my opinion, chi is an overarching explanation for a number of phenomenon that have been separated or little studied in western science.  As I have read the literature, what people call "chi" reminds me of the "placebo effect" no body really knows how it works, they only know that it somehow does work.  My guess is that there are a lot of biologic phenomenon tied together and that it is incredibly difficult to tease them apart.

"Chi" or what we know it as in our culture, probably represents a mix and mash of phenomenon that are dovetailed by a particular perception.  As a scientist, I'd be very careful about saying that chi is something that "hasn't been proven" and really hanging on to that like a dog with a bone.  

The concept of "chi" may be archaic, but there might be something special behind the various veils of our syntax.

Humans, heh, you are one too eh.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 1, 2009)

blindsage said:


> 6000 years of practice doesn't necessarily mean the archaic _explanation _for why the treatments work is correct. There is also a body of western medical research that shows that there are demonstrative, replicatible benefits from chinese medicine that utilize a chi meridian framework for explaning the effects i.e. acupuncture. That same research also shows that the effects of acupuncture are not 100% consistent with the TCM explanation. There are plenty of notable instances in which the effect is different than that claimed by the TCM practioner or that there is no effect at all. So, yes I would love to have more knowledgable people on here debating this, but no, your claim that they've got 6000 years so there's your 'proof' doesn't hold water.


 
 I agree that it is not 100% affective, but neither is western medicine.  It is only as good as the doctor, and his/her diagnosis.  Honestly, how often have you gone to see a western doctor and been misdiagnosed?  I myself have had both positive and negative results from TCM treatments, but no more so (or less) than that experienced when going to a western doctor.
As for my mention of the 6000 years of 'proof', what I meant was that they have had centuries worth of trial and error in the development of their medical practice, with an end result of undeniable success, so credit should be given where it is due.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Hmmm, when you think about it, everything is a perception. Reality is just what people agree upon. :angel:


 
Eh..the old "if a tree falls in the woods..." philosophy. While the way humans percieve reality is through our senses and experienced in the brain, the piano falling from the 33rd floor will squash each of us flat reagrdless of our varying opinion on "reality". Taking the "reality is as we percieve it" thing too far ignores the fact that "reality" .

It recalls the old zen koan of:

Shuzan held out his short staff and said: "If you call this as short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?" 

While the word/mental conception "short staff" is purely a construct humans use to frame their reality (it could just as easily be called a "horsefeather"), there is still something in the masters hand that can be used to hit the monk upside the head regardless of what its called. As a matter of fact Shuzan should be careful or the monk may just take the staff and hit him with it as a reply to his riddle.

The "Reality is just what people agree upon" statement, while probably agreeable to the zen master would still not be enough.....


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> Why is it that people don't believe in things that they can not see or touch?



You've got it the wrong way around. I fully accept the phenomenon. I just don't buy the explanation. For energy to affect something, there is a need for measurable interaction.

For example, I can lift something through mechanical force, or in some cases through EM force, but I can't just 'will' it to move through telekinesis.
Despite all the stories and arguments, as soon as a scientist and a camera are involved, all demonstrations of exotic events mysteriously fail to work.

But ignoring the con artists and fancy tickery for a moment, biophysics and mental processes are real, do influence the body, and have been scientifically established and reproduced.

Let me tell you a secret: the theory of relativity is NOT a description of reality. Neither is quantum mechanics. For that matter, once you get into QM, the idea of electrons as discrete entities with a finite size becomes absurb. Instead, they are MODELS which describe reality and enable the user to make predictions and conclusions, given a context to which said models can be applied.

Invisible QI energy does not exist as a scientifically measurable entity. But using the model to learn how to control you mind and body is a perfectly valid approach, just like biophysics and mental processes manipulation.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Hmmm, when you think about it, everything is a perception. Reality is just what people agree upon. :angel:


While perception is very important, it is not the same thing as reality.  

Reality is that the earth is not flat, yet for thousands of years, everyone agreed that it was.   

Reality may not be perceived properly, but there comes a point when it rears its head and forces itself upon those unwilling to accept it.  

I have no doubt that George Dilman's student _perceived_ that he could throw a chi ball and knock out a journalist from National Geographic.  All of the other students certainly agreed that he could.  If not, he never would have agreed to attempt it on film.  And yet when he did, he found that he had nothing but a cheap parlor trick that only works on other students prepped by Dilman to fall on cue.  

Actually, it was probably a very expensive parlor trick.  The guy was one of Dilman's top students, so he most likely had a considerable investment in Dilman's organization.

That is the funny thing about reality: it often barges in at inconvenient times.

Daniel


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 1, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Let me tell you a secret: the theory of relativity is NOT a description of reality. Neither is quantum mechanics. For that matter, once you get into QM, the idea of electrons as discrete entities with a finite size becomes absurb. Instead, *they are MODELS which describe reality and enable the user to make predictions and conclusions*, given a context to which said models can be applied.


 
Repeated for emphasis.

^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^
What he said.

But here is where I see the major difference, and why I have pretty much written off chi/ki/qi as a viable model for use in martial arts practice.  Consider the following two situations, each using a different 'model' for martial arts:

1) Joe Physicist is learning aikido.  He learns the basic principles and begins to apply physics as a model.  He understands that all the joint locks seem to work by isolating a small group of muscles, forcing an axis of rotation, and applying an opposing torque using a larger group of muscles.  Using this principle, he is able to create dozens of new self-defense moves, joint locks, holds, and takedowns that he has never seen before.

2) Joe Chi Master is learning aikido.  He believes that an entity called chi allows him to control and direct his thoughts and intentions, have greater endurance, and coordinate his physical movements, timing, and technique.  He is not sure what chi is, and he cannot measure it. He cannot create a new self-defense technique he has never seen by using only his understanding of chi.  All he can do is observe, when a particular technique he has already learned goes extremely well, that it must have been because of chi. 

I hope that any unbiased observer can see that, whether chi exists or not, the first approach offers a superior model.  The first approach can be used to predict and to create.  The second can only offer observations of what has already happened.


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Hmmm, when you think about it, everything is a perception.  Reality is just what people agree upon.  :angel:



But the fact that they agree on it tells you that it's a different order of phenomenon than stuff that there is no such agreement on.

As Daniel says, we connect to the world via the senses. That's all it means when you say, everything is perception. The senses are computational in nature; they take in information from the outside and yield representations that correspond to what we see and hear. Look again at the illusory triangle I linked to earlier. Or the Ehrenstein illusion. Or the really, really eerie Fraser's Spiral illusion. In every case, there are specific properties of the visual cortex which reliably _mis_compute the results of the cleverly designed optical inputs and deliver a false message to the brain, corresponding to our misperception in each case.

Something similar happens with language. When someone speaks to you in your own native language, you _hear_ breaks between the words. Everyone who does not have a measurably damaged neurophysiology and has acquired a first language (i.e., no Genies or Wild Children) hears those gaps, very short breaks in the sound stream. Except, they're not there. An acoustic spectrogram of continuous speech reveals that the flow of speech is indeed continuous. Everyone hears the final sound of _cats_ and _dogs_ as the same sound, yet those are exactly the same sounds that separate _seal_ and _zeal_&#8212;the sole difference! They are phonetically distinct in a major way. Yet the form for the plural in English is perceived as acoustically a single sound, as mandated by the rules of English phonology, even though it's not. Ad infinitum.

So it's not really informative to say that everything is perception, any more than it's informative to say, well, everything in the universe is energy in one form or another. There are critical differences, and the major one is this: reality happens to you _regardless_ of what your perception is. That piano falling on you from the 20th story doesn't give a rat's *** about your perception. If you hallucinate a bridge that's not there over a fifty foot gap between two buildings and try to walk across it, you're gonna be dead. _Your_ reality may be different, but _real_ reality is what counts, in the end.


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 1, 2009)

I feel the need to take a slight tangent to address this whole "perception is reality" thing that keep popping up in these threads.

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect that the phrase comes from popular misinterpretation of psychology (hereafter referred to as pop psychology).  

As a therapist, I've worked with some very clinically disturbed individuals.  I work with people who see/here things that are not there, that hold delusional beliefs, that have very odd sensitivities to various stimulus in the environment.  As their therapist, it is really improtant that I understand as best as I can how they percieve reality.

Why?  because, in order to provide effective treatment, the first thing I need to establish is a strong therapeutic realtionship built on trust.  from there, i can use the tools of my professions to act as an "agent of change" and help change their peceptions and behaviors to better match realioty 9or at the very least be less of a barrier to functioning in day to day life).  If I go in and dismiss everything they say and just look at their behaviors as those of a "crazy person."  We're not going to get anywhere.  They won't trust me and I won;t be able to understand or empathise with them.

Most of the kids I work with have a significant trauma history.  As a lrage male, I need to be very sensitive to my posture, my body language, expressions, tone of voice, etc.  I may not mean to come off as threatening, but it can happen.  From a therapeutic standpoint, it doesn't matter abotu my intentions as my client's perceptions are improtant in this context.  I need to avoid adding or re-traumatizing them.  

however, context is the key.  I think pop psychology has gotten ahold of this idea of perceptions.  it's been passed out through the self-help books, the gurus, the Dr. Phil's of the world.  People now know that how they eprceive the world influences their behaviors.  They know that this can affect how they function in the world.  So, people run with the idea that "perception is reality" forgetting the all important fact that from a therapeutic perspective, ....misattributions (e.g. innaccurate perceptions) need to change or be accounted for for healthy psychological functioning.  That's what  alot of therapy is....reframing, challenging incongruent beliefs, modifying irrational schema, etc. in order to facilitate change.

So, saying "perception is reality" is important...if you are in the business of helping people to chnage their behaviors/thinking or you otherwise need  to understand another person's behavior/thinking.  Any thing else, reality is reality.

Peace.
Erik


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 1, 2009)

exile said:


> There are critical differences, and the major one is this: reality happens to you _regardless_ of what your perception is. That piano falling on you from the 20th story doesn't give a rat's *** about your perception. If you hallucinate a bridge that's not there over a fifty foot gap between two buildings and try to walk across it, you're gonna be dead. _Your_ reality may be different, but _real_ reality is what counts, in the end.


Just ask anyone who purchased 99.00 wallhangars and believed that they had a nihonto because of what some slick salesman or a write up in a Bud K catalogue told them. They were secure in their perception until they tried to either cut or perform kata with them and found that real reality involved a spot welded bolt for a tang. 

Reality intruded in the form of the weld breaking and the blade taking flight, in some cases, terminating its flight by impaling a bystander.

Yes, this has happened. 

Perception does not create reality.  Reality influences perception.

Daniel


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Apr 1, 2009)

All I know is that the Chinese have been using the concept of chi in TCM for 100's of years.  Wheather or not chi/ki exists, whatever the Chinese  have been doing  _*seems*_ to work.  As far as chi as an added energy when fighting I can attest to being on the recieving end of it's effect.  I had a kung fu master hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding.  The pain from the hit covered a large area.  When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand.  The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper.  You can believe this or not but it did happen and this kung fu master said this was a chi strike.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2009)

exile said:


> _Your_ reality may be different, but _real_ reality is what counts, in the end.



Obviously (to me at least) my comment was more tongue in cheek then serious.  In a lot of ways it comes down to semantics, when you say _real_, many people assume there is absolute certitude when it reality (hehe) it's just an assumption.  Sure you can test this assumption and provide support, but that assumption could be wrong no matter how many tests you provide.  

Absolute certainty ended for me when I took a course in modern physics (quantum mechanics - I still don't understand a fraction of what I was supposed to even though I managed to pull an A).  Observers do strange things to our universe, things that are so absurd that they appear unreal.  If you consider all of the permutations of the Young's Two Slit experiment, you'll understand what I mean.

I had a conversation with Elder999 about this very thing.  If you are a lone observer and you are looking at the moon, you perceive that it is there.  When you look away, there is also a chance that it is not there anymore.  You just don't know.  As much as it pissed me off at the time, he's right, you just don't know.  After struggling with the math, there really (hehe) is a chance that it isn't there.

Yeah this all might be a silly mathematical conceit but quantum mechanics also is the most supported theory in the history of science.  It's as _real_ as anything we know and nothing is certain in quantum mechanics.

This doesn't really apply to this conversation because the phenomenon we are talking about is scaled so hugely.  This is just an addendum to a smarmy comment I made tongue in cheek to shake things up.  

IMO, Chi is an explanation that is valuable as a cultural artifact, but there are more accurate ways to describe the phenomenon that people experience as chi.  It's interesting to read some of the papers where TCM methods are studied by western doctors.  That'll shake your thoughts as to whether you think this explanation is still useful.

I am not going to consider people who think they can project their chi and do other crazy things.  As far as I understand, there was never anything in a traditional understanding of the concept that said that those things are possible.  Those things are the fantasy of fakes, frauds, and magicians.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I had a kung fu master hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding. The pain from the hit covered a large area. When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand. The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper. You can believe this or not but it did happen and this kung fu master said this was a chi strike.


As one who is not skeptical of the _existence_ of chi, I would not question your account.  I have heard similar accounts before, and have no reason to doubt them.  

But in such examples, the master isn't throwing chi balls or claiming to knock people out from across the room.  They are focusing their energy into their punch, through an obstacle, and into a target.

I consider such examples the end result of:

Excellent punching technique
Excellent energy control
Excellent focus

When I say energy, I mean breath, physical power, and body mechanics.  Given that the body carries an electic charge, I am open to the idea that an amount of current is also delivered, its deliver facilitated by the action of a powerful punch.   

I am careful in how I define chi, mainly because I do not wish to give the idea that I subscribe to chi balls or no touch ko's.  

And though your example of the phone book means that he did not touch you, per se, he still touched the phone book to direct his force through it to you.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 1, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I had a conversation with Elder999 about this very thing. If you are a lone observer and you are looking at the moon, you perceive that it is there. When you look away, there is also a chance that it is not there anymore. You just don't know. As much as it pissed me off at the time, he's right, you just don't know. After struggling with the math, there really (hehe) is a chance that it isn't there.


Interesting, but I would put money on a 100% chance that if I overrode all automatic safety mechanism and flew the space shuttle directly at the moon and closed my eyes, the moon would be there.  And I would crash into the moon.  If I survived and actually managed to get back to earth, I suppose I could try to sue some quantum physicist for postulating that there was any chance of the moon being "not there anymore" if I simply stopped looking at it.

Sad thing is, as moronic as such a lawsuit sounds, I stand a much greater chance of winning that than that of the moon ceasing to be there when I look away.

Daniel


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> All I know is that the Chinese have been using the concept of chi in TCM for 100's of years.



People have also been navigating, using the 'fixed stars' and other assumptions about the cosmos that are demonstrably untrue, for _thousands_ of years. The Romans were excellent navigators, using a Ptolmeic assumption about the structure of the heavens; and so for that matter were succeeding generations of sailors who would have laughed themselves to death had they heard of Copericus's idea that the earth revolves around the sun. All this serves to as support for the the latter idea? What kind of argument _is_ this, JD3??



JadeDragon3 said:


> Wheather or not chi/ki exists, *whatever the Chinese  have been doing  seems to work.*



Since the issue that the OP thread raised is precisely the question of whether or not chi/ki exists (not that the OP gave us the least idea of just what it is whose existence is under debate; he's insisting the we argument about something which you can't identify unless you've experienced it firsthand, etc., lol), the part in bold is _irrelevant_. Nothing about the existence of chi/ki/Qi depends on that, any more than the Copernican vs. Ptolmeic-epicycle model of the solar system and the cosmos beyond hinges on the fact that the navigators who successfully navigated the seas and oceans of the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth, or was pulled across the heavens by Helios in a big chariot, or whatever, or that the earth rested on the back of a huge turtle, etc. 





JadeDragon3 said:


> As far as chi as an added energy when fighting I can attest to being on the recieving end of it's effect.  I had a kung fu master hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding.  The pain from the hit covered a large area.  When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand.  The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper.



Yeah. And when I had a bad sinus infection once, the pain in one of my own teeth was unbelievable (this has also happened to me when I've had a cold&#8212;though not nearly as bad&#8212;and other people I know have reported tooth pain from nasal tract infections). Had to be a toothache. It _was_ a toothache, a pain in a tooth. But according to my dentist, there was nothing wrong with the tooth. Go get it looked at by your GP, he said, and I did, and got antibiotics for the bacterial infection, and Bob's your uncle. The subjective sensation of pain was real. The subjective identification of the _source_ of the pain had nothing to do with its origins (check out http://www.atlantadentist.com/sinus_infection_tooth_ache.html to see just how common this problem is). Do you see what I'm getting at?




JadeDragon3 said:


> You can believe this or not but it did happen and this kung fu master said this was a chi strike.



I have no reason to doubt this happened. I have no reason to doubt the chap in question told you it was a chi strike, and did so because he believed that's what it was. And the point is... ?


----------



## blindsage (Apr 1, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> I agree that it is not 100% affective, but neither is western medicine. It is only as good as the doctor, and his/her diagnosis. Honestly, how often have you gone to see a western doctor and been misdiagnosed? I myself have had both positive and negative results from TCM treatments, but no more so (or less) than that experienced when going to a western doctor.
> As for my mention of the 6000 years of 'proof', what I meant was that they have had centuries worth of trial and error in the development of their medical practice, with an end result of undeniable success, so credit should be given where it is due.


 
I haven't ever said that TCM practice is a load of crap, or not given credit where it's due, as a matter of fact, if you read what you quoted from me you will see that I said western science has agreed that TCM is doing much of what it claims to do.  What I've called into question and what some western research has called into question, is whether or not the explanation for *why *it works is valid.  I give TCM credit for being valid and effective.  I don't, at this point, believe that chi meridians in the body explain its efficacy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I had a kung fu master *hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding. *The pain from the hit covered a large area. When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand. The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper. You can believe this or not but it did happen and *this kung fu master said this was a chi strike*.


 
well, I don't know what that guy actually did, but I've been able to deliver similar strikes that are definitely NOT qi strikes, unless my qi was purely accidental and I was completey unaware of it.

I first encountered the phonebook test when I was studying wing chun.  It's an interesting test, it enables the receiver to feel and experience the force of the blow, but at the same time the phone book protects him from actual injury (use a THICK phone book, something from a big city).

My Wing Chun sifu pulled out the yellopages and we conducted the test.  I held the book to my chest, and he hit me using the kind of short range power that is developed thru Wing Chun practice.  He's a pretty big guy and he'd been doing wing chun for some 35 years or so.  When he hit me, it felt like my whole body had received a huge electrical jolt.  I just felt deeply rattled, from head to toe.  To my recollection, he never claimed he was using qi.  Rather, he was just demonstrating the power that can be developed thru wing chun practice, and it was impressive.

I then took my turn, and he held the book.  I elected to strike using a Tibetan White Crane method, and my sifu was interested in experiencing that since we had discussed it in the past and he was curious.

In White Crane, we use a very relaxed, full body pivot to drive our power out.  I know that most systems marry the strike with the pivot of the body, but it's my belief that in White Crane we carry this to a greater extreme, in developing the technique.  In fact, our entire system is based on this concept.

When I struck the phone book against his chest using only modest effort on my part, his eyes immediately glazed over, he staggered backwards and let out a groan.  It took him a moment to shake it off, and he said that he literally felt the force of the blow penetrate into his torso like a spear, sort of "bounce" off his spine and drive down into his guts.  He felt that it was one of the most tremendous strikes he'd ever felt, to the point where it was frightening.  We are good friends now, but before he knew me well enough to judge my character, he actually went out of his way to caution me about ever using these techniques, because he felt they were really dangerous and scary, and someone with bad intentions could really be a danger with it.

When I attended my brother's wedding, an old highschool friend of his was in attendance.  His friend had been training kungfu somewhere, and we compared some notes.  We conducted the same test, and I hit with with a White Crane technique, thru the phone book.  SImilar results to what my wing chun sifu felt.   He said he had never been hit like that before.

If my qi had anything to do with this, I was completely unaware of it and I would never make the claim.  I was simply using very efficient, high level physical technique in delivering my strike.  My White Crane sifu actually says that Tibetan White Crane is definitely NOT an internal art.  The way we practice and the way we move, he says, does not allow for the flow and cultivation of qi in the way an internal art like taiji does.  

So in getting back to your experience, I will say this:  it is definitely possible to generate tremendous power in delivering a strike, while remaining surprisingly relaxed, and it has little or nothing to do with qi.  So again, I don't know what that sifu actually did in striking you, but this is the kind of story about which I remain skeptical.  I would have to know more about HOW he struck you, before I would be willing to entertain the notion that it might have had something to do with qi.

Again, I'm a qi believer, but a skeptic when it comes to most claims.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> All I know is that the Chinese have been using the concept of chi in TCM for 100's of years. Wheather or not chi/ki exists, whatever the Chinese have been doing _*seems*_ to work.


Absolutely. It does seem to work. How does that prove, either way, that the explanation for why it works is correct?



> As far as chi as an added energy when fighting I can attest to being on the recieving end of it's effect. I had a kung fu master hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding. The pain from the hit covered a large area. When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand. The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper. You can believe this or not but it did happen and this kung fu master said this was a chi strike.


That's great. I'm glad you had an experience to provide you with evidence that there's something there. But your personal experience is not evidence for anyone but yourself. You're still saying "I know it's true so why aren't you accepting it?" I'm not sure why you don't see the logic problem here. If you have enough personal experience to believe in it, that's perfectly fine, great even. That doesn't translate in any way into proof for anyone else. In addition, as exile said, because the master said it was a chi strike doesn't necessarily make it so. My old Kyokushin Karate instructors, who were very, very good fighters, with plenty of ring and street experience, use to say kung-fu styles were basically a joke for fighting. They had a lot more experience than me, and I generally trusted their opinions, but just because they said it was the case didn't make it so. And I have found through my own experience that they were incorrect.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2009)

Here is a good thread on the existence of chi where I make a good case that at least part of the phenomenon is based on bio-electricity.  I found a lot of good resources for this discussion and I think that these will add to everyone's understanding, including the skeptic.


----------



## tellner (Apr 1, 2009)

There is some TCM which is worth a second, third and twenty third look, especially the vast wealth of herbal knowledge. But "TCM works" is simply not true. We simply know more now about how the body works at every level from the gross anatomical to the basic biochemical than we did thousands of years ago. Eating a cucumber marinated in your own urine will not cure snakebite. The spleen is not the Master Governing Organ and so on. 

Traditional Medicine from Spain to Samarkand had centuries upon centuries of results showing that the Four Humors and Four Elements were a rock-solid foundation for medical theory. But the Scientific Revolution gave us the tools to better investigate these processes. If an honest, non-nationalistic examination of other antique therapies shows that there is verifiable, repeatable value in them well and good. That goes double if we can create a robust theoretical understanding. And I mean that in the strict scientific sense. But until then I'm not willing to bow at any altar, especially if the idol on it is inscribed with "I have not had an original thought in 3000 years. Worship me." That applies to Chinese, Ayurvedic, Islamic, Native American or any other corpus which is making life or death decisions about *my* corpus.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 1, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Interesting, but I would put money on a 100% chance that if I overrode all automatic safety mechanism and flew the space shuttle directly at the moon and closed my eyes, the moon would be there. And I would crash into the moon. If I survived and actually managed to get back to earth, I suppose I could try to sue some quantum physicist for postulating that there was any chance of the moon being "not there anymore" if I simply stopped looking at it.
> 
> Sad thing is, as moronic as such a lawsuit sounds, I stand a much greater chance of winning that than that of the moon ceasing to be there when I look away.
> 
> Daniel


Are you certain than anything persists when you're not directly observing it? Probably not. One of the reasons babies love peek-a-boo is because you GO AWAY when they can't see you; they don't understand what most of us kind of take for granted -- that the world persists when we're not looking at it. For those who have read Heinlein, I recall that in at least *Stranger In a Strange Land* he had "Fair Witnesses" or something like that who, through strict & intensive training, learn to report EXACTLY and faithfully what they observe. Hold an apple up, and they'll tell you that the side facing them appears to be an apple but unless they can somehow examine it and confirm it -- they won't say it's an apple.

The thing is... that's just not a practical way to be. I have to assume that the people around me continue to exist when I'm not looking at them -- and that they'll do things I need them to when I'm not there to see it happen. 

Is there some sort of spiritual energy associated with human beings? Yeah. I've seen enough dead people to know that there is a qualitative (though not quantitative) difference between a living person and a corpse. Can that energy or spirit be manipulated or used for physiological benefit? Maybe. Can people intentions hurt me? Yes; anyone who's experienced that hateful stare or being with someone who just saps your energy by simply being around them can attest to that. Can it be used as a weapon to manipulate in a way that can be defined as different than simply what most LE trainers refer to as "command presence?" I don't know. But if you're going to claim you can do incredible things, like knock me over instantly with a "chi ball" or a no-touch knockout... Well, you need to give some pretty good proof. And not something that'll end with a claim that "well, maybe they put their tongue on the roof of their mouth and pushed down with their big toe..."


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Can people intentions hurt me? Yes; anyone who's experienced that hateful stare or being with someone who just saps your energy by simply being around them can attest to that. Can it be used as a weapon to manipulate in a way that can be defined as different than simply what most LE trainers refer to as "command presence?" I don't know. But if you're going to claim you can do incredible things, like knock me over instantly with a "chi ball" or a no-touch knockout... Well, you need to give some pretty good proof. And not something that'll end with a claim that "well, maybe they put their tongue on the roof of their mouth and pushed down with their big toe..."


 
That is a great point. To me it brings to mind the question of the "power of intention" being an "energy" or a psychological phenomena within the observer. Humans are social animals and as such we have developed heightened sensitivity to facial expressions, tone of voice and signals of emotions. The "sensing danger"..."sensing intent" is more a sub-conscious reaction to these signals vs some mystical energy explination.

I believe that there are some cultures that express their displeasure, anger etc. differently than the way we do here in the states. Id wager that in those cases we probably wouldnt experience the same "sensitivity" as we would to signals we are used to. The fact that I can give my cat the "death stare" and he could care less shows that its a human phenomena and not some "force"....The "no-touch" stuff is all about psychology, group-think, social pressure and the like. 

If there is any "real power" out there its in manipulating human behavior..politicians, the media, dictators and magicians have been doing it for milennia.


----------



## K-man (Apr 1, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> All I know is that the Chinese have been using the concept of chi in TCM for 100's of years. Wheather or not chi/ki exists, whatever the Chinese have been doing _*seems*_ to work. As far as chi as an added energy when fighting I can attest to being on the recieving end of it's effect. I had a kung fu master hit me like a normal person would (such as a boxer) in the stomach while holding a phone book against my stomach for padding. The pain from the hit covered a large area. When he hit me again later (using the phone book again as padding) he said he was going to channel his chi through the phone book and penitrate my stomach just in a small area about the size of a silver dollar and as the force penitrated it would expand. The result was much more painful this time. The force actually felt like it entered my stomach and after about 2 or 3 inches inward the force started to expand as it penitrated deeper. You can believe this or not but it did happen and this kung fu master said this was a chi strike.


 
For an example of someone else who hits with 'ki' look at Mikhail Ryabko.
An expert practitioner who makes great use use of biomechanics and something else? An interesting part of this video is the use of the sword. Much of Aikido also came from the sword. The punch you often see demonstrated by Mikhail is 1:10 into the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=351626957200966617


----------



## blindsage (Apr 1, 2009)

He hits with ki?  Really?  Does he claim that?


----------



## K-man (Apr 1, 2009)

To all who have contributed to this thread I give my heatfelt thanks. About 27 members contributed their thoughts, some in great depth. I have just re-read the entire thread to achieve some sort of closure. If I have misrepresented or misquoted anybody I apologise but I have selected a few lines from across the posts that I believe represent the positions of those who contributed to the discussion. In the scheme of things the 'abstainers' could be 'maybe' but did not really show an inclination either way.  
For me it is now time to move on. :asian:

*(10) FOR*

K-man: I believe ki exists. I just don't know what it is.
Twin Fist: I don't know what it is, and I certainly don't understand it, but I have absolute faith that it exists, I have seen it. And felt it.
Bruno@MT: I believe in ki, kuji, and all those things as systems that you can use to have control of your body by taking over the automatic processes. Invisible QI energy does not exist as a scientifically measurable entity. But using the model to learn how to control you mind and body is a perfectly valid approach, just like biophysics and mental processes manipulation.
Jadecloud Alchemist: Prove Ki exist no problem. Ki simply means energy in Japanese and Q is Chinese(However CHI is read in Japanese as Blood were in Chinese Blood is read Xue) the you can read into that word as much as you want but simply means energy thats it.
Daniel Sullivan: I consider 'ki' to be the exercise of control over one's breathing and heart-rate. The ability to do this effectively enable you to do things that a regular person cannot do. Personally, I believe that 'Ki' or 'Chi' exists, but the debate is in what the nature of ki or chi is. I define it as the energy within the human body, and the control of it allows us to maximize our efforts by using that energy more efficiently.
Flying Crane: I myself do believe in qi, but I cannot state with strong certainty that I have "felt" it or experienced it in a clear way. I'm a qi believer, but a skeptic when it comes to most claims.
Himura Kenshin:I personally view ki as the force of one's intention. I think ki is merely the manifestation of a person's will power.

Newy085: I believe that ki is more focus or spirit (as in fighting spirit). The ability to centre your mind and body. I believe it is reach through extreme focus, putting your whole mind and body about reaching a single outcome.
JadeDragon3: I believe in ki (chi in chinese martial arts) exists. Chi/ki is a internal energy that can not be seen. I have seen masters do some pretty impressive things by being able to channel/control the flow of their internal energy that a normal person wouldn't be able to do unless he had training in the internal arts.
Maunakumu: In my opinion, chi is an overarching explanation for a number of phenomenon that have been separated or little studied in western science. As I have read the literature, what people call "chi" reminds me of the "placebo effect" no body really knows how it works, they only know that it somehow does work. 


*(2) MAYBE*

Blind Sage: I don't know if 'chi/qi/ki' is a legitimate 'thing' or not, I continue to withhold my judgement. I'm open to the idea of Qi, but as with all things I'm a skeptic.
jks9199: Interesting challenge. But it can't be done. I've "pulled" or "frozen" people using something. It's not a big effect -- but I've been on both sides. It happens. I don't claim that it's ki; I don't know what it is and I've not been very successful teaching it to others. It's very likely and very possible that it's simply the result of subtle psychological manipulation.

*(4) AGAINST*

Archangel M: I wouldnt call it a "hoax" that implies that its was fabricated for nefarious purposes. I think its a "belief" and you all are free to believe it. I just think its by far more "faith" than science. Prove the non-existance of Leprechauns.
Empty Hands: The only reliable way of perceiving this reality is through rigorous empirical testing. Ki does not meet this standard.
Bluekey88: I cannot disprove the existence of Ki. however, I've not seen a credible demonstration of it that couldnt be more easily explained by something else. I used to really believe in the ki explanations....I don't now.
Ninjamom: The more I've researched chi/ki, the more skeptical I have become, until I've pretty much written the whole thing off as wishful thinking, and/or an unwillingness to let go of old ideas for the sake of 'tradition'.

*(7) ABSTAIN (No opinion stated)*

Feeder of Trolls: I ask that you respect my skepticism as I cannot see it, feel it, or otherwise witness it and I have only your unproven and untested word that 'ki' is real. Skeptics, myself included, often feel that unproven statements are best not repeated for fear that those who are not skeptics will believe them without proof.
Sparky12: Wow, is this a hot topic or what? IMO, to those who have not experienced chi, it does not exist. To those that have experienced it, it is unmistakable, and does exist. I don't think either side will ever convince the other.
Geezer: If you have a reasonably high level of skill and can do a few cool martial stunts, your business will be way better if you explain these techniques in terms of chi or ki than if you resort to not-so-mysterious attempts at explaining things in terms of everyday laws of physics.
Superkin: Does Ki exist? The awkward answer to that is "It depends"
Uchinanchu: I was under the impression that the Chinese medical profession has roughly six thousand years worth of 'proof' with the development of all the treatments that are still used today, even amoung many western taught M.D.s
JBrainard: So, if a marital artist uses what appears to be Ki, it doesn't really matter what "Ki" is. Is it technique, mindset, spiritual powers? Who cares. If you can use the _model_ that is Ki to enhance your martial art, more power to you.
Redantstyle: like they say, 'martial arts is ninety percent from the neck up'
Xue Sheng: Who cares? And this is as pointless as the MMA vs TMA stuff. If you believe or don't believe you can't argue with a stone is will always be a stone.

*NATURAL EXPLANATION*

Infidel: Here is my shortened version of what I feel Ki/Chi is. I have no scientific proof one way or another and I am not sure how I would go about geting it, since we are talking about a "spiritual" item. My take is that back in the day that the ancient Chinese and Indian mystics were onto something that well ahead of their time, nerve impulses.

*FENCE SITTERS (Said a lot but neither for or against)*
Exile: It isn't a thread which ki-skeptics have the slightest reason to avoid... and I'm pretty sure that we're _not _going to avoid it. 
(Sorry Exile I have no idea what you think.. You said NOTHING either way in all those posts.)

*HUMORIST*
Carol Kaur: I know Chi exists. I found it at a Filipino grocery near Boston.

*JUNK (Just that)*
Tellner: This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on. Otherwise your next ploys will be personal attacks. From there it just gets ugly.


:asian:


----------



## tellner (Apr 1, 2009)

Nope K-man. Let's call it by its correct name: Telling you unpleasant truths you need to know.


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

K, if after what I've posted you haven't been able to figure out that my position is just that neither you nor anyone else has made a case for Ki&#8212;that the burden of proof was on you and you haven't even begun to meet it&#8212;then I really have to question the value of any of the summaries you've included here. One more time: as was stated at the beginning: you're claiming there's something called ki, and so the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. You've offered nothing remotely like a reason to accept the existence of ki; all you've done is claim that you perceive something out there and that in turn means we need to accept that there's something out there. You've carefully avoided confronting any of the basic methodological points raised against those assumptions&#8212;especially, your 'perception is reality' fallacy. I seem to recall that early on, someone tried to point out to you the logical incoherence of framing a problem in terms of proving a negative, but you didn't ever really... um,  _get_ it. So I'm not surprised that you really didn't understand just how damaging to your own position Daniel's observations were, or some of the other people whose views you seem to have confused with support for your own. Maybe it would help if you went back and read everyone's comments just a teeny bit more _carefully_. You know, really tried to take in what they were _saying?_ I think it would do no end of good for your understanding of just what most people in the thread have been trying to tell you. Just a thought! 

Again: my position is that you have failed to make a case that would stand up in even a very relaxed court.  And I'm pretty sure you know that too. As to why you chose to misrepresent my comments... well, I've a pretty good idea, and no, your pre-emptive apology isn't really of any interest to me. What you're up to here is fairly transparent to the rest of us. Want to do a summary of people's positions on whether you actually constructed _any_ sort of coherent argument on behalf of your assertions about ki, or the rest of reality for that matter? No, I didn't _think_ so! 

And if the best you can do is ask us to take your word for it, well... :lol:


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)

> nor anyone else has made a case for Ki


 
Really care to read my posts again. I have provided proof of the existance of Qi in this thread and other threads. I have provided sources and break down of the Kanji/Hanzi of the word and provided a translation of the word.


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Really care to read my posts again. I have provided proof of the existance of Qi in this thread and other threads. I have provided sources and break down of the Kanji/Hanzi of the word and provided a translation of the word.


 
I have read your posts.  You have given evidence of phenomenon, but no substantial proof that the phenomenon are due to ki (as opposed to some other explanation).

Peace,
Erik


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)

> I have read your posts. You have given evidence of phenomenon, but no substantial proof that the phenomenon are due to ki (as opposed to some other explanation).


 Ok again Qi simply means ENERGY thats it. I explained many times before that the Kanji/Hanzi for Qi/Ki literal meaning is the steam of cooked rice.  In the Japanese use of the word by native speakers is ENERGY. In Chinese use of the word again it means ENERGY. You say Geothermal energy Chinese say Di Qi(earth's energy)

You say Weather Chinese say Tian Qi(Heaven's energy)

You say Human Bioelectric Chinese say Ren Qi(human energy)

You say DNA Chinese say Yuan Jing/Yuan Qi

You say sperm Chinese say Jingi

You say vitality Japanese say Genki.
In essence because the Japanese and Chinese do not speak English before they used Chinese and Japanese and wrote in Kanji/Hanzi they used Qi to describe our modern word energy What do you want them to say you want them to speak English? I find it humorus to tell me what Ki/Qi is or is not since I can read Kanji and Hanzi. I am telling you what it means I can break it down by radical on the Kanji/Hanzi for you. I can give you the literal meaning,The modern usage of the word,its western translation. I prove Qi exist you want proof of that all you have to do is look at the word energy and fit it in with science. No mystery.


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Really care to read my posts again. I have provided proof of the existance of Qi in this thread and other threads. I have provided sources and break down of the Kanji/Hanzi of the word and provided a translation of the word.





bluekey88 said:


> I have read your posts.  You have given evidence of phenomenon, but no substantial proof that the phenomenon are due to ki (as opposed to some other explanation).
> 
> Peace,
> Erik



What Erik said, JCA. You have provided no evidence for the existence of anything; rather, you've given illustrations of some experience you've had, and then mistakenly argued that the experience itself is evidence for the interpretation of that experience you prefer. No sale. You haven't even come close to providing a plausible case, let alone proof.

I have to say that this kind of failure in reasoning, which the OPer also committed consistently, is probably a pretty good clue to the reason why people who 'believe in ki' get such a cool, skeptical response from everyone but other believers: the evidence case is made so _badly_. If you want to persuade someone of something, the first thing you have to do is _identify_ what it is that you want to persuade them of. Then you have to provide replicable evidence&#8212;none of this 'I have this sensation and it's really clear what's going on, and if you don't ever get the same sense, that's really too bad' blather that's so common&#8212;for what you're advocating. And you have to show that familiar, well-understood mechanisms aren't sufficient to account for it. Neither you, JCA,nor the OPer, offered even one of the items on the list. And please, let's cut the... uh, _rationalization_ that all you're saying is that Qi means 'energy'. When you talk about Qi in the MAs, you're not talking about heat, or the capacity to do work, or anything like that. You know as well as I do that the OP wasn't talking about change in momentum when he started this thread, so let's get serious, eh?

I hate to have to say it but, as Tellner said, you guys need to hear some unpleasant truths, chief of which is that the main effect of your combined posts is to confirm the skeptics in their opinion that the whole thing is ballyrot. If this is the best you-all can come up with, I think most people are going to relegate the whole ki thing to an area shared with the New Years' Day psychics' predictions in the _National Enquirer_ and the Victorian spiritualists at their sceances&#8212;their accounts of the ghosts and spirits they summoned were every bit as convincing and impressive as your 'evidence' for Ki. :shrug:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Are you certain than anything persists when you're not directly observing it? Probably not.


 
Probably not? Actually, absolutely. I am 100% certain that my car _exists_ in the parking lot while I am in the building. If I were to find that it was not there, I would report it stolen. I may or may not get the car back, but I would be absolutely certiain that the car still 'exists' somewhere, either as a complete Pontiac or as having been broken down into parts and sold.

If a meteor falls from the sky and vaporizes my car, leaving nothing but a huge crater, then the constituent molecules that made up my car still exist; they have simply been altered in their form. And the crater with the smoking hot chunk of space rock in the middle provides the explanation as to why my car is no longer a viable conveyance. But the car did not simply cease to exist due to cecation of my observance of it.

If the moon ceases to exist simply because we cannot see it, then we would experience the effects of the moon's sudden disappearance (as I recall, the moon has some affect on our tides).  We may not see the moon, but its mass and accompanyign gravity still produces an effect.



jks9199 said:


> One of the reasons babies love peek-a-boo is because you GO AWAY when they can't see you; they don't understand what most of us kind of take for granted -- that the world persists when we're not looking at it. For those who have read Heinlein, I recall that in at least *Stranger In a Strange Land* he had "Fair Witnesses" or something like that who, through strict & intensive training, learn to report EXACTLY and faithfully what they observe. Hold an apple up, and they'll tell you that the side facing them appears to be an apple but unless they can somehow examine it and confirm it -- they won't say it's an apple.


 
So, a baby thinks that you cease to exist and a fiction author wrote about people who cannot confirm an apple to be an apple without further examination. True of babies and Heinlein is a widely read author, but that does not change the fact that physical objects do not simply cease to exist simply because nobody is looking at them.



jks9199 said:


> The thing is... that's just not a practical way to be.


Neither practical nor accurate. 



jks9199 said:


> I have to assume that the people around me continue to exist when I'm not looking at them -- and that they'll do things I need them to when I'm not there to see it happen.


I have absolute certainty that the people around me continue to exist if I am not looking at them. If they cease to exist, it is because they have either a) left the area or b) died, in which case their body may still be in the area, depending upon whether or not it has been taken away by medical personnel, in which case I find out that the person has died.

As for them doing the things that I need them to do, that is dependent upon their competency, integrity, and no unforseen events that would prevent them doing what I need them to do. But make no mistake, dead or alive, they still exist in my absense, just as I still exist in theirs.

The tree in the forest still falls, still moves the same volume of air in the same frequencies, whether or not an observer is there to hear it. The 'sound' is how our eardrums respond to that air movement and how our brain interprets the signal that it receives. If nobody is there to hear it, then the frequency of the air movment is never converted into that signal. But the phenomenon of air movement that produces audible frequencies still occurs.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2009)

exile said:


> I have to say that this kind of failure in reasoning, which the OPer also committed consistently, is probably a pretty good clue to the reason why people who 'believe in ki' get such a cool, skeptical response from everyone but other believers: the evidence case is made so _badly_. If you want to persuade someone of something, the first thing you have to do is _identify_ what it is that you want to persuade them of. Then you have to provide replicable evidence


This pretty much sums up the divide.  Since ki, qi chi, qui, or anyother permutation of the word is seldom defined by the proponents, who themselves often admit that they do not have a full understanding of what it is, it is difficult to formulate a convincing case for its existence: if you cannot define it, how can you convince me of its existence?

The lack of replicable results that cannot be attributed to more mundane explanations does not help either.  

As I said before, I believe in Ki, but I define it as biophysics and metabolic control, not anything mystical, and not anything that does not have an English translation that I could use instead.  I will admit that ki is a whole lot easier to type than biophysics and metabolic control, but any time saved in typing is lost in explaining how I define ki.

Daniel


----------



## thardey (Apr 2, 2009)

I never use the word "Ki" in training. I use the phrase "Kinetic Energy."

1/2 Mass * Velocity^2 = Kinetic Energy

Being able to separate Kinetic Energy from Momentum allows me to reproduce some of the effects of "Ki."

I know "board breaking" is not allowed as an example, but what about breading marble slabs? It's not done by "pushing through" -- it's done by setting up vibrations in the slab which cause it to break.

In other words, it's a parlor trick. If you've ever held a slab that's been broken in this way, you would swear that some sort of supernatural effect was used to break it. As the holder, you don't experience any _momentum_ of the strike, all you experience is the result of the slab falling apart in your hands. If it's done wrong, (hit off-center) you experience the sensation of the dispersion of energy, which can also feel almost supernatural. 

But I've learned to do it -- it's roughly the same physics of "breaking" the rack of pool balls. Very little mass with high speed, transferring all of it's energy to the target at the precise moment of impact.

I can make my strikes "penetrate" through a heavy bag, that people can feel on the other side, without moving the bag at all -- that's utilizing kinetic energy to the fullest. It also feels very unnatural to those who don't know the trick.

I can see how people would use a supernatural explanation for some of this stuff, if you don't know the physics behind it, and I don't think they're out to be frauds, I just think they are ascribing the efficient use of energy to the wrong source.

I've also been helped by acupuncture, but the practicioner also didn't use the word "Ki." He just talked about manipulating the brain on a subconscious level by stimulating certain nerve points. It wasn't a mystical thing to him at all, and neither to me. He also thought that some kind of sensitivity to electromagnetic fields played a part. 

I've also experienced the "hot hands" trick -- but the karate instructor who showed me believed it was in the subconscious control and sensitivity of blood flow, which caused a certain sensation.

So, I don't doubt the "experiences" of ki -- I've had them, and been able to reproduce them, but without any sort of spiritual connection.

BTW, as most of you know, I am a very strong believer in supernatural things, having defended Christianity and the Bible many times in the philosophical section, but my experiences with the manipulation of "Ki" does not fit into those types of religious experiences.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 2, 2009)

I hear ya. As if the "natural world" (science/physics/etc) isnt wonderful, mysterious and powerful enough in itself?

I think that at the bottom of this (for us non-orientals) is an element of "anti-westernism" and maybe a touch of self-loathing. Us resource gobbling, earth-warming, imperialistic westerners and our sciences and philosophies are bourgeois...being "eastern" is more in tune with nature and "the way of the universe".


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I prove Qi exist you want proof of that all you have to do is look at the word energy and fit it in with science. No mystery.



This is pretty much the most worthless form of proof one could attempt to provide.  Why?  It is disingenuous.  Yes, energy exists.  But you know very well that when martial artists speak of "qi" they aren't thinking of steam coming off of cooked rice or geothermal energy.  They are thinking of a form of energy distinct from anything described by science, that can accomplish effects science cannot explain.

That sort of energy is not proved by "proving" to us that steam comes off of cooked rice.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> This is pretty much the most worthless form of proof one could attempt to provide.  Why?  It is disingenuous.  Yes, energy exists.  But you know very well that when martial artists speak of "qi" they aren't thinking of steam coming off of cooked rice or geothermal energy.  They are thinking of a form of energy distinct from anything described by science, that can accomplish effects science cannot explain.
> 
> That sort of energy is not proved by "proving" to us that steam comes off of cooked rice.



Exactly. If Ki is just the bodys "energy pathways" (aerobic and anaerobic) then we are all better off developing them through exercise and physical conditioning vs. mysterious "internal manipulations". A number of "Ki masters" I have seen seem to prefer the less labor intensive method.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm just curious, what phenomenon are attributed to chi?  Are there not analogues for these phenomenon in Science?  Let's not discuss chi-balls or any other kind of nonsense.  There are real things that are attributed to chi and it is my belief that every single one is something that can be explained by science.

For example, here's my list.

Rooting - body mechanics and stability.
Accupuncture or accupressure - bio-electricity or Placebo
Light force KO - Neurologic or Physiologic manipulation
Increased Health - exercise and/or circulation improvement
Increased mental focus - meditation/NLP
Kinetic linking - body mechanics/physical training

What else could be covered under the chi umbrella?  Is there anything that doesn't conform other then the outright fake or fraudulent claims?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 2, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> What else could be covered under the chi umbrella?  Is there anything that doesn't conform other then the outright fake or fraudulent claims?



Reiki.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)




----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)




----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Reiki.



Placebo effect.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)

I have to walk away from this thread its not a positve discussion anymore I don't know if it ever was.

Think what you want in the end it does not matter either way it goes.


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I have to walk away from this thread its not a positve discussion anymore I don't know if it ever was.
> 
> Think what you want in the end it does not matter either way it goes.



So anything which subjects claims which you happen to be committed to to critical scrutiny, and finds them wanting, is not a 'positive discussion'?? Very interesting conception of what 'positive' means here. 

I suppose from your point of view it _wa_s a bit rough; your efforts to leverage the familiar conception of energy into a proof of a particular power or metaphysical 'force' or whatever were scrutinized from the point of view of ordinary logic, and didn't come off too well, and you didn't even try to respond in a way that meets basics standards of evidence and reasoning. But the fact that that's what the discussion revealed, along with spotlighting the overall incoherence of much of the initial OP assumptions, isn't negative, though I'm sure you find it comforting to think of it that way. Exposing bad argumentation is a constructive activity: it keeps a lot of crap from being circulated as though it had merit, making room for the relatively small number of ideas that can take whatever challenges are thrown at them. And _those_ ideas are the ones we're all looking for, eh?


----------



## blindsage (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I have to walk away from this thread its not a positve discussion anymore I don't know if it ever was.
> 
> Think what you want in the end it does not matter either way it goes.


 
In my mind, any discussion with an exchange of ideas is a positive one.  Because people didn't come around to your perspective or agree with you that your arguments were correct doesn't make it 'not positive.'  I still respect everyone on here, and still have a great deal of respect for their opinions even if I don't agree with them or am skeptical of what they say.  It is possible to disagree _and_ still be positive, but you have to make that choice.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 2, 2009)

blindsage said:


> In my mind, any discussion with an exchange of ideas is a positive one.  Because people didn't come around to your perspective or agree with you that your arguments were correct doesn't make it 'not positive.'  I still respect everyone on here, and still have a great deal of respect for their opinions even if I don't agree with them or am skeptical of what they say.  It is possible to disagree _and_ still be positive, but you have to make that choice.



I agree. While the issue was debated I don't believe anybody was personally attacked for their beliefs either way.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 2, 2009)




----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Ni hui jiang Zhongwen ma?
> Anata wa Nihongo ga hanasemasu ka?
> 
> Do you speak Chinese?
> ...



Sigh... JCA, you really, really, _really_ don't get it, do you?

The problem has nothing to do with a mistranslation. Or a correct translation. The people who are talking about using Qi to create certain effects are claiming there's something out there that is different from what Western physics has revealed about the mechanics of the world. They are calling it Qi, but they could call it Xzzqw or any other thing you like. This whole debate is about the standards of evidence for admitting that thing, whatever it's supposed to be, into the class of entities we believe to be part of the fabric of reality. Period. _The name of this thing is irrelevant_. Empty Hands, among others, has pointed out in what should have been crystal clear fashion here just why all this stuff with Hanshi and Japanese and so on is a total red herring, having nothing to do with the issue. Reread what he has to say&#8212;or maybe, just read it for the first time; I'm not at all sure you actually do read what people are telling you about the points you raise. If you do read them, you need to be a bit more careful about it, because you're not taking in what they're saying, and you need to. 

I just can't believe that after all this time, you _still_ don't get it. OK: one more time: this is not a linguistic problem, or a philological problem. This is a problem about verification of an extraordinary claim, only vaguely formulated at that, in the absence of even weakly supportive evidence.

_Do you get it NOW??_ :hb: :hb: :hb:


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 2, 2009)

It is called the Fallacy of Equivocation: a word is used with one meaning in one place in an argument, then a different meaning in another place.


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 2, 2009)

I just found a website (http://zhongwen.com/) that allows you to click on the radicals in a Chinese character to see what parts go into making the whole.

Within a few minutes of clicking at random, I found some very intersting things:
1. A character composed of two elements, one depicting children under a roof and the other depicting a woman, means "alphabet" (zimu)
2. A word made of four radicals (two hands grasping a moon, a mouth, and evening) means "famous" (youming)
3. Three characters meaning 20 hands together make the character for "Communist China" (OK, that one almost makes sense).

To say that any of these have some deeper meaning, or that you can tell what they 'actually' or 'literally' mean by looking at the character elements just isn't the case. 

English has something very similar, with roots, prefixes, and suffixes that combine to make words. Some words obviously take their meaning directly from these elements. For example, 'philosophy' comes from two Greek roots that literally mean 'love of wisdom'. However, language is not static, and neither is culture. Sometimes the connection between a word's current usage and its ancient history or development is only historical, or vague, or non-existant. The English word 'nice', for instance, comes from a root and a prefix that mean literally 'without knowledge'. In Middle English, 'nice' therefore meant 'ignorant' or 'foolish'. Somehow I doubt that if I said someone I knew was 'nice' that anyone on this forum would assume I was 'literally' saying they were stupid.

To understand what a word or character means, no knowledge of the original language is needed. What is needed is a good, hard look at the way the word is currently used. In the case of 'qi' the word is being used as a catch-all to hold any possible meaning in the hopes that something will stick. That presents a problem, because a word that can mean anything really ends up meaning nothing.


----------



## Carol (Apr 2, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> I just found a website (http://zhongwen.com/) that allows you to click on the radicals in a Chinese character to see what parts go into making the whole.
> 
> Within a few minutes of clicking at random, I found some very intersting things:
> 1. A character composed of two elements, one depicting children under a roof and the other depicting a woman, means "alphabet" (zimu)
> ...



Application is really the point at issue. 

For example, in Japanese, there is a word:

[SIZE=+1]&#22823;&#21531;  ta-i-ku-n

Meaning, a prominent monarch or shogunate.

This word is the origin of the English word *tycoon*.  However, our definition and application of the word is usually different:  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tycoon

[/SIZE]ty·coon 

Pronunciation:              \t&#299;-&#712;kün\          Function:_noun_ Etymology:Japanese _taikun_ Date:1857   
1*:* shogun
2 a*:* a top leader (as in politics) b*:* a businessman of exceptional wealth and power *:* magnate


For example, I could say that there are a number of threads in the study about tycoons lobbying for bailout money.  To state the Japanese defintion of _taikun _and point out that this sort of lobbying isn't happening because there aren't any of the shogunate on Capitol Hill trying to get bailout money is not something intrinsic to the argument of bailing out American industries (and their wealthy execs).


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 3, 2009)

As a skeptic, an internal arts student, and a teacher, I'm going to suggest something that might seem a little absurd.  Perhaps "chi" and the entire umbrella of techniques and phenomenon the term encompasses is the best way we have to teach various internal arts that are currently taught.

For four years, I had an excellent tai chi teacher who was also a trained TCM practitioner and when I think of all the times he explained something in terms of chi and then try to imagine replacing that with perhaps a half understood western analogue, my mind is boggled.  The non-educator is going to have a hard time imagining the amount of research and work it would take to translate an entire cultural lexicon into the context of a different culture.

It's not a simple as one thinks, especially when one begins to look at qigong and the relationship between that and good tai chi technique.  There are some very subtle things happening in that relationship that regard psychology and physiology and I'm sure very few people could accurately explain it in correct scientific terms.  

I realize this point diverges from the current discussion, but I'm trying to throw both sides a bone here.  For the skeptic, I have to say that I don't think its possible right now to just toss the word "chi" out on its ear and to preserve the depth and efficacy of many internal martial arts.  For the beleiver, I think it should be recognized that the phenomenon classified under the label chi can be explained by other methods at least to a certain extent.

For both, a little less certainty and a little more thoughtfulness, may go a long way.  I've always considered the concept of chi as a fascinating and valuable cultural artifact.  I don't really beleive that their is a special energy that I am drawing on when I am playing push hands with someone, but I have found that by "playing along" I have learned a lot about how to do it better.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 3, 2009)

I read a very interesting book a few years ago, and was wondering if anyone else here has read it. Its title is The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra. Some of it can be quite a bit heady at times, but for the most part, it is quite an interesting and intriguing read. To give you some idea of the contents, Ill cite a passage from chapter 14, Emptiness and Form,(pg.221~223):

_The field theories of modern physics forces us to abandon the classical distinction between material particles and the void. Einsteins field theory of gravity and quantum field theory both show that particles cannot be separated from the space surrounding them. On the one hand, they determine the structure of that space, whilst on the other hand they cannot be regarded as isolated entities, but have to be seen as condensations of a continuous field which is present throughout space. In quantum field theory, this field is seen as the basis of all particles and of their mutual interactions._

_The field exists always and everywhere; it can never be removed. It is the carrier of _
_all material phenomena. It is the void out of which the proton creates the _
_pi-mesons. Being and fading of particles are merely forms of motion of the field._

_The distinction between matter and empty space finally had to be abandoned when it became evident that virtual particles can come into being spontaneously out of the void, and vanish again into the void, without any nucleon or other strongly interacting particle being present. Here is a vacuum diagram for such a process: three particlesa proton (p), an antiproton (-p), and a pion (rr)are formed out of nothing and disappear again into the vacuum. According to field theory, events of that kind happen all the time. The vacuum is far from empty. On the contrary, it contains an unlimited number of particles which come into being and vanish without end._




_Here then, is the closest parallel to the void of Eastern mysticism in modern physics. Like the Eastern Void, the physical vacuumas it is called in field theoryis not a state of mere nothingness, but contains the potentiality for all forms of the particle world. These forms in turn, are not independent physical entities but merely transient manifestations of the underlying Void. As the sutra says, Form is emptiness, and emptiness is indeed form._

_The relation between the virtual particles and the vacuum is an essentially dynamic relation; the vacuum is truly a living Void, pulsating in endless rhythms of creation and destruction. The discovery of the dynamic quality of the vacuum is seen by many physicists as one of the most important findings of modern physics. From its role as an empty container of the physical phenomena, the void has emerged as a dynamic quantity of utmost importance. The results of modern physics thus seem to confirm the words of the Chinese sage Chang Tsai:_

_When one knows that the Great Void is full of Chi, one realizes that there is no such _
_thing as nothingness._

I myself am not trying to argue for or against the existence of Chi. I simply wish to point out that there may be answers to our questions concerning this matter. If we truly wish to extend our knowledge of the world (and universe) that we live in, we need to approach such an endeavor with an open mind and heart and look at not only the here and now but also how past discoveries may tie in directly with, and help support present and future discoveries. As one of my favorite physicists, Albert Einstein once said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it iscomprehensible. 
Though we may have proven certain past facts to have been false, that in no means should suggest that our intellects are by any means superior to that of our ancient brethren. We certainly do not have all the answers as of yet and have actually been proven wrong at times by the so-called superstitious and/or religious beliefs from ancient cultures. Point in fact, can someone please tell me when and who discovered that the earth was round? Before people start quoting certain Greek astronomers, lets take a look at a couple of passages from a book written roughly three-to-four hundred years before the Greeks.

There is One who is dwelling above the _circle_ of the earth. Isa. 40:22 
He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon
nothing. Job 24:7 

As most of you probably already know, these are quotes from the Christian biblejust something to ponder upon. What we think we know to be true is only true within the limited extent of our understanding of things.


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2009)

The Tao of Physics mixes enough of two disparate subjects so that people who are only conversant in one give it a pass. A student of religion and philosophy will say "Capra conflates a whole bunch of things tht don't belong together. His understanding of Buddhism, Indian religion and Chinese philosophy is weak. But the physics is interesting, and the connections are fascinating. " A scientist will say "Capra hideously over-simplifies. He pushes questionable interpretation way beyond what's reasonable. And the theories he used were out of date when he wrote the book. But the connections with Eastern religion are interesting." After his fifteen minutes were up the two sorts got together and went away less impressed with TToP than when they first read it.

It's a lot like a conversation Carl Sagan had with an archeologist. Sagan had already demolished Velikovsky's "science" but thought that the history and religion were interesting. His colleague said that of course the folklore and Ancient history were complete garbage but the physics was interesting. They both played intellectual Three Card Monte.


----------



## exile (Apr 3, 2009)

Beyond that, the physics in _The Tao of Physics_ is crap. It uses a model of elementary particles which was abandoned thirty years ago even by its main proponent, Geoffrey Chew. It was completely superseded by the the Standard Model in the Thunderdome of predictive success: the analysis of hadrons as quark combinations has been validated on several dozen independent fronts, while the so-called S-matrix 'nuclear democratic' model can't produce the goods for just about any experimental results in the past generation of results. It certainly cannot account for the electroweak unification, for example. The Standard Model has its problems, for sure. But S-matrix theory isn't even in the race, at this point. If you're trying to provide scientific credibility for a marginal proposal, the last thing you want to do is try to bring in a discredited hypothesis in support.

The point is made Peter Woit in his book _Not Even Wrong_, about the emerging empirical bankruptcy of string theory. He writes:

_Capra... went on two write two chapters [in the Tao of Physics] explaining the inadequacy of quantum field theory and the wonders of the bootstrap philosophy. The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution [the discovery of the J-psi particle, which turned out to be a bound state of a charmed and anti-charmed quark, providing massive confirmation of the quark model and the 'asymptotic freedom' property of the strong force, i.e., stronger at greater distances, weaker at closer distances&#8212;exile] had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at the time). What is harder to understand is the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened...even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore... the bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.​_
(pp. 144&#8211;145) The Standard Theory has, in fact, has a 100% success rate in predicting every major experimental result from the past 30 years in particle physics. That is to say, _thousands_ of experiments. With an accuracy of nine places to the right of the decimal point. The failure of Chew's S-matrix model to correctly predict these results is... well, as Woit notes, _complete_. That's why virtually no one active in theoretical particle physics _uses_ Chew's model... including, according to several sources I recall from a few years ago, Chew himself. 

Woit's comments shed light on the pitfalls for non-physicists trying to use the technical details of modern physical theory&#8212;which are mathematically abstruse to the point of being surreal, but which get the answers bang-on right&#8212;to make sense of even familiar phenomena, let alone stuff at the outer margins of plausibility.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 3, 2009)

Ummm...yeah, what he said.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 4, 2009)

So I'm confused. I see a lot of people talking about whether Qi is the cause of something. As it was explained to me, and As I'm reading in _The Tao of Bioenergetics_, Qi isn't really the cause or effect of any particular phenomenon, necessarily, but rather the phenomon itself. I was told that Classification of qi was more a classification of various phenomena.


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> So I'm confused. I see a lot of people talking about whether Qi is the cause of something. As it was explained to me, and As I'm reading in _The Tao of Bioenergetics_, Qi isn't really the cause or effect of any particular phenomenon, necessarily, but rather the phenomon itself. I was told that Classification of qi was more a classification of various phenomena.


 
That doesn't make sense though.  If there is a phenomenon, then soemthing has to happen.  Ergo there is a cause and an effect.  If you feel you've been thrown across the room...then something had to do that, soemthing had to act upon your body.  If that something was was a judoka utilizing a hip throw, that's one thing....if it's some guy that never touched you and he claims "ki" that's another.

If ki "just is" and doesn't result in causes and effects (as you indicate), then it's, for all practical purposes, nothing and can do none of the things that are attributed to it.

So, either ki is something that interacts with the world as we know it and thus is subject to the same "laws" of physics as anything else in the world (and this is where the bone of contention seems to lie) or it is nothing and interacts with nothing and is nothing ot get all worked up about.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2009)

I just wanted so sneak in a quick "Good thread", ladies and gentlemen.  A genuinely interesting read.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> I read a very interesting book a few years ago, and was wondering if anyone else here has read it. Its title is The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra. Some of it can be quite a bit heady at times, but for the most part, it is quite an interesting and intriguing read. To give you some idea of the contents, Ill cite a passage from chapter 14, Emptiness and Form,(pg.221~223):
> 
> _The field theories of modern physics forces us to abandon the classical distinction between material particles and the void. Einsteins field theory of gravity and quantum field theory both show that particles cannot be separated from the space surrounding them. On the one hand, they determine the structure of that space, whilst on the other hand they cannot be regarded as isolated entities, but have to be seen as condensations of a continuous field which is present throughout space. In quantum field theory, this field is seen as the basis of all particles and of their mutual interactions._
> 
> ...


 
This might be in your Christian Bible but give credit where it's due and credit it to the Jewish part of the book.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 5, 2009)

I was reading a martial arts book where the author claims that he descirbes _ki_ as the ability to unite body and mind through focus. I think I can go with this simple explaination because it does not claim that ki can produce any strage magical effects and does not rule out biological explanations.


----------



## exile (Apr 5, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I was reading a martial arts book where the author claims that he descirbes _ki_ as the ability to unite body and mind through focus. I think I can go with this simple explaination because it does not claim that ki can produce any strage magical effects and does not rule out biological explanations.



Nicely put, HK. Anyone who's ever played 'out of his head' in any game, sport or other activity, anyone who's experienced that 'state of grace' feeling, where they couldn't put a foot wrong, knows that this can happen.  The times I've done this skiing or ski racing, it always involved becoming hyperaware of the information coming in to me from my skis, and focusing only on, and responding only to, that information. In the end, it's a long sustained episode of reacting without thinking&#8212;where you're processing and responding to information much faster than conscious thought would allow you to. 

There was a very good book about this in tennis, called _The Inner Game of Tennis_, by Tim Gallwey, about the nature of what we used to call 'peak performance' way back when; and we used it as a kind of informal manual of ski instruction technique alongside the PSIA syllabus. The crucial idea was that the body can learn from its own errors how to respond more accurately and effectively, if you let it and not overburden it with a conscious checklist of things to think about as the action is performed. 

It's not an easy state of mind to achieve, because you're always tempted to override the body's own immediate responsiveness with a checklist of desiderata, standing outside yourself in a way and watching (mostly disapprovingly) at what you yourself are doing. But the really peak performances are much more likely to be those which flow out of your own immediate responses&#8212;backed by understanding and 'trained knowledge'&#8212;with minimum second-guessing by your own internal/eternal critic...


----------



## TomoeTamara (Apr 11, 2009)

This subject has always been a mindbender for me.
Does KI exist?  I heard of it all of my life.  Heard many teachers talk about it.
Is it understandable?  Depends how/what you interpret it to be.
KI--in Japanese language is "energy." (I think-please tell me if I'm wrong.)

I believe in the incredible inner/outer strength a mother can draw from herself when her small child is trapped under a car....and she lifts it off from top of him.
Is this not a form of energy???
So this COULD be Ki.  If that's how you want to define it I guess.
Science may call it something different.

I don't quite believe the KI BELIEVERS ...(I call them)
Who run toward their teacher, and with a wave of his hand...
WITHOUT TOUCHING THEM--stops them in their tracks!
Come on!  You know what THAT IS!!!

       :BSmeter:  :bs1:  I just LOVE these animations. SO CUTE!

Anyway...this debate is as old as the first mention of Ki from the teacher to the student.
I just know that we as human beings have great abilities we haven't yet uncovered.  Positive thinking (science has proven) can insome instances make a sick person better.
These are strong forms of Energy...I believe THEY exist.
If you wanna call it KI...go right ahead.

I've been in the martial arts for over 25 yrs...and I STILL don't understand what Ki is and if it still exists.
But...I will always keep searching with an open mind to reveil the truth.
Hopefully one day...I will find it!!!
In the meantime....I like listening to everyone debate this!!!!

opcorn:


----------



## JDenver (Apr 18, 2009)

For me, I don't know what chi is, but that it seems to exist.

Why?

Well, your body produces an enormous amount of heat and electricity.  It communicates with itself electrically.  Memories and feelings are somehow 'stored' in cells via electrical impulse (which then travel up the spine to the brain for processing).  This isn't my faith or belief, it's straight anatomy.  

It doesn't confuse me that there's a concept around an energy, feeling, and internal circulation called chi.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 18, 2009)

Yeah. Its called electricity and the energy cycle of the body produces energy..a by-product of which is heat. 

Why call it "Chi"?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah. Its called electricity and the energy cycle of the body produces energy..a by-product of which is heat.
> 
> Why call it "Chi"?



When it comes to learning certain martial arts, certain concepts and principles just aren't understood well without understanding "chi-theory" so to speak.  Qigong practice comes to mind.  

Another is the simple fact that it's nice to have a common language with people who do believe it.  For example, if I paid no attention every time someone talked about chi or if I simply did not understand the basics, I would have lost out on some quality instruction.  

And then there is the cultural factor.  Lots of people are interested in learning various old occult magika simply because of the enormous cultural impact it has had in our society.  When it comes to chi, the concept has had the same enormous impact on eastern societies.

So, there are lots of reasons to continue to call it chi if you are interested in doing so.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 19, 2009)

I think people just want to argue over it. I mean 13 pages.  Noones mind is changed no victor.


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 19, 2009)

The issue, while related to language, is just not that simple.  Saying teh Qi is energy is fine....I have no problem with than.  Where I have a problem is then what is attributed toi qi or energy.  Saying that that energy can be projected between entities, can move objects without physical touch,that it can be controlled like "the force"...which is what a lot of people are talking about when they talk about  Qi...is hokum. (Yes, I said hokum).  Saying that one can fundmentally move energy without any kind of physical interaction between particles jsut can't happen.  Saying an energy exists but cannot be measured can happen, but as I explained before...the energy that cannot be measured cannot interact with particles large enough and in such a way as to have a measurable effect on the world you and I live in. (So, it may exist, but it's not doing anything to us and to say we can controll or interact with it is not correct).

So, call it energy, that's fine.  Don't tell me that you can project this energy from your body into my body to heal, harm, or otherwise control me.  

Peace,
Erik


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 19, 2009)

Blue key I agree with everything you say.

 I have been studying Qigong for over 10 years, went to Acupuncture school and practice internal martial arts. I have never met anyone who made any claims that are supernatural. 

However in religious manner the supernatural of course exists.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 19, 2009)

Excuse the cynical tone but it doesn't really matter what you or i think.  
The whole world does not exist.  Inanimate objects, living beings are the same thing and that thing is a non-entity.  There is no such thing as life. Therefore there is no such thing as death.  There is no technology.

Everyone you know, they are just a nameless illusion.  Your ideas and emotions are useless(baseless) illusions.  Science and psychology call these illusions psychosis.  
Socalled things such as Love and hate, good and bad are interchangable because they are completely nonexistant.   Ki is energy and science does prove energy, but science itself is nonexistant.  There is no hoax because there is no truth.  There is no suffering and no cessation of suffering.  Therefore it is completely impossible to believe in science because knowledge itself is baseless.  I know this may be new and shocking to some, however... 

Noone can controll anyone else because force and energy do not exist.  The world does not exist so there are no positions in space or time as time although time is perceived as real, perception is worthless because we are not real.  There is no such thing as a collective and individuality is impossible.
Therefore we cannot be controlled and noone can controll anyone else.  There are no laws, no criminals and no jails.  These are just illusions too.  There is no such thing as fortune or misfortune either.  Therefore ki is not real and this very message is a hoax that has absolutely no effect on anyone.  Likewise, communication is a hoax because there is no point in communicating in a world where nothing is real and everything is non reality.

I hope i have clarified everything and it makes everyone happy to know that nothing is real at all.  
In case anyone has problems understanding this farse of a world, i would be content to restate myself over and over again.  



j


----------



## Carol (Apr 19, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> Excuse the cynical tone but it doesn't really matter what you or i think.
> The whole world does not exist.  Inanimate objects, living beings are the same thing and that thing is a non-entity.  There is no such thing as life. Therefore there is no such thing as death.  There is no technology.
> 
> Everyone you know, they are just a nameless illusion.  Your ideas and emotions are useless(baseless) illusions.  Science and psychology call these illusions psychosis.
> ...



You took the blue pill, eh?


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 19, 2009)

I guess so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> The issue, while related to language, is just not that simple.  Saying teh Qi is energy is fine....I have no problem with than.  Where I have a problem is then what is attributed toi qi or energy.  Saying that that energy can be projected between entities, can move objects without physical touch,that it can be controlled like "the force"...which is what a lot of people are talking about when they talk about  Qi...is hokum. (Yes, I said hokum).  Saying that one can fundmentally move energy without any kind of physical interaction between particles jsut can't happen.  Saying an energy exists but cannot be measured can happen, but as I explained before...the energy that cannot be measured cannot interact with particles large enough and in such a way as to have a measurable effect on the world you and I live in. (So, it may exist, but it's not doing anything to us and to say we can controll or interact with it is not correct).



Any teacher who actually has actually developed real skills and technique wouldn't spew what you termed as hokum.  They'd give you toss to the mat and then show you how to "align your chi" so that you could perform that same technique.  Now, am I going to be rude and tell an 80 year old Chinese man that chi doesn't exist?  

No, I listen politely.  I learn the technique and I "get into it" properly so that I can perform it.  



bluekey88 said:


> So, call it energy, that's fine.  Don't tell me that you can project this energy from your body into my body to heal, harm, or otherwise control me.



When I was taking Tai Chi regularly, certain teachers would come and visit and talk about this.  Our teacher would sit back and let the guy give his spiel and then we'd get back to working out.  One day I asked my teacher, "do you really think it's possible?"

He said, "No, but I never assume, so I listen."  I guess it's a different mindset.  It would seem that some posters would walk out the door if someone was talking about said "hokum".  For my teacher, it was a matter of just being open to something new.

For me, it goes back to my point about language.  If you want to have a relationship with certain people, you've got to speak their language to an extent.  As a nonbeliever, I can walk into a church and say a prayer and kneel before the cross and understand that the people around me believed that this man actually existed, walked on water, healed the sick by laying hands, turned water into wine, flew into the sky, and was resurrected.  I believe all of that is "hokum" but I'm not going to tell it to a believer's face when I'm in a church and I'm supposed to be your friend.


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 19, 2009)

two things:

First, I would never go into another person's class/school and be rude like that.  Not cool.  Nor have I ever advocated for that.

Second, the point of this thread was to "prove" ki was a hoax...can't be done.  In all of my posts on this and other threads I have maintained that I dont' disagree with the phenomenon that are often attributed to ki/chi/qi.  They surely occur...I simply disagree with the explanation as being the most useful/insightful.  That's not saying that speaking a common language isn't necessary...IU'm just saying the language that includes ki is not as precise as it could be and other language may need to be developed to better describe in pragmatic terms what is happening with various ki related phenomenon and perhaps better teach others how to replicate them.  Isn't that the point of instruction?

So, having someone throw me to the floor to "align my chi" doesn't get at teh ehatr of my argument...sure, they can throw me...no doubt.  But was it "energy" projection or was it Kintetic energy derived from an optimal use of body mechanics that disrupted my balance?  Which of those best describes what happens?"

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2009)

This thread is a 13 pages long.  It's getting to a point where the topic has been beaten to death and now all sorts of side issues are being discussed.  I certainly am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.  

That said, the question, "which of those describes best what happened?"

This is a very valid question and I think the answer depends on the situation described.  When we are talking about technique, certainly a physical/scientific explanation is a better explanation.  When we start talking about meditation techniques that are designed to focus mental energy...well that's a toss up because some of the psychology explanations simply don't do that aspect of the art justice.  

Now, I'm not saying that science can't explain it, all I'm saying is that certain aspects haven't been studied much.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2009)

I think that there is plenty of research and practice in the field of the "mental game"..visualization...meditation and the like as seen in professional sports coaching. There are a number of books on this topic and "guided mental imagery" is being used in many sporting/combative training circles. Even in weight lifting research is looking into the role of nerve activity and maximal muscle recruitment.

I'd buy the explination that the brain/body connection along those lines as much more plausable as causing improved performance than some mysterious...unmeasurable "force" undiscovered by science.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 20, 2009)

I totally agree with what you said Bluekeysan.  I think the whole ambiguity around ki is often just a reflection of various kinds of ignorance and wishful thinking.  I mean, one shouldn't be using the words ki or even energy to throw someone off.  

Sometimes i use the word to mean intention. Sometimes energy contained in or radiating from life, even stregth or tension. so energy can be in a shout, in a stare or even just in an intenion.  
I don't want to speculate further into the possibilities of ki and all the mystical powers stuff like influencing inanimate objects or elements or elementary particles or waves, because the above examples of voice or intention are quite substantial enough for a martial artist.
I do believe that the healthier and stronger one can pack ones intentions and the more vibrant the body or situation is, then the more the underlying energy patterns will become noticable.

But i'm not sure this is the place to share feelings on ki because this thread was created to not believe in ki. So in accordance with the state of reality(if it even exists), people that talk about ki without being willing to define or share their ideas to demonstrate their validity, are doing a disservice to the very understanding of socalled ki.

What boggels my mind is not the chinese character for ki, but how could there be a chinese charatcter for electricity-den- when it was not yet really discovered until thousands of years later.  Maybe there is a simple explaination.  ??

j


----------



## TomoeTamara (Apr 20, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> Excuse the cynical tone but it doesn't really matter what you or i think.
> The whole world does not exist. Inanimate objects, living beings are the same thing and that thing is a non-entity. There is no such thing as life. Therefore there is no such thing as death. There is no technology.
> 
> Everyone you know, they are just a nameless illusion. Your ideas and emotions are useless(baseless) illusions. Science and psychology call these illusions psychosis.
> ...


 
Sounds like the Buddhist book on EMPTINESS I read last month!!
psssst....CAROL!!!  It DEFINITELY IS the blue pill!!


----------

