# The source of Chi, a Biological *and* metaphysical explanation?



## JesterX (Mar 18, 2009)

Before going to sleep, yesterday, I had that following thought:

Chi is the life energy... Chi is what makes us move...

The food we eat comes from the earth
Our cells generate heat
We drink water
We breathe oxygen

Earth + Fire + Water + Air = Chi

Look at the cellular aerobic respiration (According to the Krebs Cycle):

Glucose + Oxygen + Heat = Energy + Water + CO²

That how our cells generate their energy

What if we learn to voluntarely alter/augment the aerobic cycle to produce more energy?

What if we learn to produce it in another part of our body (dantian?) and make it transfer to another part?

I think we can elaborate on this.


----------



## JesterX (Mar 18, 2009)

Hmmm... someone already thought about it before I:

http://www.naturalhealthweb.com/articles/JamesSLee2.html

I think he explains better than I...


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 18, 2009)

JesterX said:


> Glucose + Oxygen + Heat = Energy + Water + CO²
> 
> That how our cells generate their energy
> 
> ...



Bah.  The product of cellular respiration is the high energy molecule ATP.  ATP is a hydrophilic molecule that remains bound inside the cell.  It has a specific chemistry, means of use, and transport.

ATP is not an "energy field" or electricity or however you might think of chi.  It cannot be channeled from one part of the body to another.  To speak of a "blockage" of ATP would be absolute nonsense.

You will have to find your chi elsewhere.


----------



## exile (Mar 18, 2009)

Let me follow up Empty Hand's great post&#8212;whose subtext, for those who missed it, is, don't try to discuss scientific matters (e.g., human biochemistry) before you actually understand the biology, chemistry and physics that are at issue&#8212;with a pointer to another excellent discussion of the topic, with the same objective: demystifying a topic that has has had more codswallop and irrational nonsense devoted to it than the Bermuda Triangle... and that's saying a _lot_. Redmond's piece contains an excellent general discussion of the question of verifiability, and just how heavy a burden the burden of proof really is. One thing is clear&#8212;junk science, crap science or just plain out-and-out _non_-science trying to masquerade as science is going to crash and burn every time as soon as someone who actually knows something about the topic devotes a little bit of time to explaining what's at issue.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Mar 19, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Bah.  The product of cellular respiration is the high energy molecule ATP.  ATP is a hydrophilic molecule that remains bound inside the cell.  It has a specific chemistry, means of use, and transport.
> 
> ATP is not an "energy field" or electricity or however you might think of chi.  It cannot be channeled from one part of the body to another.  To speak of a "blockage" of ATP would be absolute nonsense.
> 
> You will have to find your chi elsewhere.



Oh man. So does that mean I can no longer market my creatine supplement as a chi-control elixir? What a bummer. :wink2:


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 19, 2009)

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Oh man. So does that mean I can no longer market my creatine supplement as a chi-control elixir? What a bummer. :wink2:



Sorry!

All is not lost, however.  I have a wonderful investment opportunity for you.  It is a special piece of real estate in the Brooklyn area...


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Mar 19, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Sorry!
> 
> All is not lost, however.  I have a wonderful investment opportunity for you.  It is a special piece of real estate in the Brooklyn area...



Just as long as its on a Dragon Line / Ley Line. Cus I can only throw chi balls when I'm on one of this Geological anomalies. I often throw Chi balls. Well as long as it's  a Blue Moon in the sky and no-one is watching me. 

Sorry JesterX for going off topic but if you're going to start relabbelling biological processes as soemthing meta-physical, this sort of critique is going to happen. If you want to believe in Chi, then hooray for you, but until someone comes up with a viable and replicatable experiment that proves it's existance, then most martial artists are going to be sceptical.


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2009)

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Just as long as its on a Dragon Line / Ley Line. Cus I can only throw chi balls when I'm on one of this Geological anomalies.* I often throw Chi balls. *Well as long as it's  a Blue Moon in the sky and no-one is watching me.



Yes&#8212;there's an excellent shot of you doing just that in your avatar! Now to the uninitiated, it might look like something else, something much more prosaic... but when the proper 'metaphysical' perspective is taken, it's clear that you have such a powerful aura that it causes the air around it to become opaque through astral ionization, making it look very much like a bowling ball!



Thems Fighting Words said:


> Sorry JesterX for going off topic but if you're going to start relabbelling biological processes as soemthing meta-physical, this sort of critique is going to happen. If you want to believe in Chi, then hooray for you, but until someone comes up with a viable and replicatable experiment that proves it's existance, then most martial artists are going to be sceptical.



This is always going to be the problem&#8212;for many people, the simple, reductionist explanation just isn't satisfying. A lot of people have drawn to one or another branch of New Age-y/pseudo-Eastern mysticism/mystification by a kind of disappointment that the world runs in many ways like a vast machine, whose operations at the most minute level are non-deterministic but which, on any scale much larger than a molecule, behaves in a predictable (even if enormously complex) manner. People want more... what's that great phrase from one of Arthur Koestler's book titles? _The Ghost in the Machine_. I see this as part of the same longing that gives rise to fantasies of two thousand year old histories to modern Korean martial arts, or myths about the Shaolin Temple, or... the kind of stuff that's perfectly fine in the _National Treasure_ or Indiana Jones movies, but has zippo to do with real history. 

It's something that bears investigating&#8212;why it is that people seem to need to live in an 'enchanted' world, rather than the one they have. I'm not passing any judgment on the need itself, but when it starts turning things corresponding to well-understood natural processes into objects of mystical awe, the result is just more unnecessary bafflement, like taking a perfectly clear photo, deliberately blurring it via PhotoShop, and then oohing and ahhing at all the unseen forces there are all around us...


----------



## JesterX (Mar 19, 2009)

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Just as long as its on a Dragon Line / Ley Line. Cus I can only throw chi balls when I'm on one of this Geological anomalies. I often throw Chi balls. Well as long as it's  a Blue Moon in the sky and no-one is watching me.



Funny thing, I'm usually able to turn myself invisible when no-one is watching me...

I think that "When no-one is watching me" is an important factor in this... ^_^


----------



## JesterX (Mar 19, 2009)

exile said:


> Yesthere's an excellent shot of you doing just that in your avatar! Now to the uninitiated, it might look like something else, something much more prosaic... but when the proper 'metaphysical' perspective is taken, it's clear that you have such a powerful aura that it causes the air around it to become opaque through astral ionization, making it look very much like a bowling ball!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depends... It doesn't *have* to me mystical in nature for someone like me, it just have to provide an edge.

Personally, I don't believe that you can heal someone with Chi or things like that...

But I truly believe that you can learn to change/alter your metabolism to be more efficient while doing physical stuff.  However, placebos can cause the same thing.  The human mind is really a wonderful machine ^_^.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 19, 2009)

I believe it is absolutely inappropriate to try and equate qi with biological or electrical or other scientific processes.  

I know that a lot of people are skeptical about qi.  Personally, I believe that it does exist in all of us, but it is very subtle to the point that most people are simply unaware of it.  It is also something that is its own thing, which modern science has not yet been able to identify or describe.

People who I trust have described it as something that can definitely be felt, and even controlled.  The problem is that it takes a lot of training and focus to reach that point, especially the point of being able to control it.  Most people never reach that point, most people remain oblivious to it, and they get along just fine that way.  But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Perhaps someday modern/Western science will be able to identify, measure, and describe qi.  But that day has not yet come.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 19, 2009)

Here's the thing though...if Chi/ki/qi is something else...it is still bound by the rules we all must live by.  These rules are essentially laid out in the formulas that make up what we know as newtonian, quantum and relativistic physics.  

It is posssible there is some particale out there that's unknown and at this point unmeasureable. Z This particel could be what we refer to as "chi".  Maybe it is an energy wave (although lgiht is both a particle and wave right? I'm not a physicist so bear with me). It would have to be a very small particle/wave.  So small, in fact that it probably would not interact with any known particle.  It woudl simple move past not really touching or effecting anything.   Consequently, it wouldn't DO anything in the world.

THus, the idea that one could somehow consciously get one's body (for the mind is the brain and the brain is the body there is no seperation between them) to focus or control chi...it doesn;t interact with the particle that make p the brain/body.

So, chi coudl exist, and the fact that we cannot currently measure it doesn;t cahnge the fact that it might exist.  however, the fact that we cannot measure it also means it probably doesn;t have much of an effect on the larger partiles that make up our reality.

In fact, most of the demonstrations I've seen of Chi have been no more than magic tricks (unbendable arm, unliftable body, bending spears wioth your neck, etc) or can be explained by standard phsyics and are in no way the result of some other unmeasurable physical force.

Personally, this sucks.  I want to be able to work hard and have super powers that others don't have...that would be cool.  The fact that others could also learn to harness these abilities with some work lend a certain lvoey feely egalitarianism to the myth as well.  

Regular life is boring for most of us (for I/we sometimes lose track of hwo remarkable plain old boring reality is).  It would be great to have chi balls, and ghosts, and alterante realities where we all act really bad and have goatees.  But here we are...stuck.  As a result, I've stopped trying to yearn so much for that which I cannot have and learn to apprecaite what is there.  this is hard to do.  But I find the practice to be of benefit.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 19, 2009)

Book: The Root of Chinese Qigong

DVD: The Scientific Foundation of Chinese Qigong: A Lecture by Dr. Yang at The University of Massachusetts


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 19, 2009)

exile said:


> ... the kind of stuff that's perfectly fine in the _National Treasure_ or Indiana Jones movies, but has zippo to do with real history.


You mean ... that....wasn't .... real?????????


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 19, 2009)

The problem is how to translate a Chinese word into English.

The best defination so far is energy.

So when we talk about human energy(Ren Qi in Chinese and TCM) what does that mean? In TCM there are many types of Qi. For example we have Ying Qi but in modern English it would translate as the nutrients taken from food(energy) Wei Qi would best be translated as the immune system.Yuan Qi which comes from birth would most likely be considered genes.


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> You mean ... that....wasn't .... real?????????



:lol:

Well, I _thought_ that it wasn't... but I have to admit,  I've been getting weird messages, transmitted through the metal surfaces in my house, telling me not to be so skeptical.... :erg:


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Mar 20, 2009)

exile said:


> Yesthere's an excellent shot of you doing just that in your avatar! Now to the uninitiated, it might look like something else, something much more prosaic... but when the proper 'metaphysical' perspective is taken, it's clear that you have such a powerful aura that it causes the air around it to become opaque through astral ionization, making it look very much like a bowling ball!


:roflmao:




exile said:


> It's something that bears investigatingwhy it is that people seem to need to live in an 'enchanted' world, rather than the one they have. I'm not passing any judgment on the need itself, but when it starts turning things corresponding to well-understood natural processes into objects of mystical awe, the result is just more unnecessary bafflement, like taking a perfectly clear photo, deliberately blurring it via PhotoShop, and then oohing and ahhing at all the unseen forces there are all around us...


You evil man. You just killed like half a dozen fairies!
*starts clapping and chanting; "I do believe in fairies, I do believe in fairies"*



JesterX said:


> Funny thing, I'm usually able to turn myself invisible when no-one is watching me...
> I think that "When no-one is watching me" is an important factor in this... ^_^


Well I'm really mysterious. And I mean REALLY mysterious. 



bluekey88 said:


> It is posssible there is some particale out there that's unknown and at this point unmeasureable. Z This particel could be what we refer to as "chi".  Maybe it is an energy wave (although lgiht is both a particle and wave right? I'm not a physicist so bear with me). It would have to be a very small particle/wave.  So small, in fact that it probably would not interact with any known particle.  It woudl simple move past not really touching or effecting anything.   Consequently, it wouldn't DO anything in the world.


Once the tools are there maybe we'll be able to measure it. Just look at how studies of neutrinos have progressed.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 20, 2009)

exile said:


> It's something that bears investigatingwhy it is that people seem to need to live in an 'enchanted' world, rather than the one they have.


 
i think the simple answer is because the world we live in often sucks, & the enchanted one is more fun.  i believe in all sorts of goofy stuff simply because it _may _be true, & doesn't really hurt anything.  speaking personally, it probably fills the void left by being abandoned by religion.  it doesn't replace scientific knowledge, but the day the world doesn't contain any mystery is the day i leave.  i think that for many people belief is a coping mechanism, & like most coping mechanisms it is all well & good until you take it to the extreme.  so when i see a weird light in the sky, i might convince myself it's a ufo, just because it's fun & i'm not going to seriously investigate it anyway.  but you're not going to see me railing against the government in an attempt to get them to disclose about area 51.  there are too many other reasons to rail against the government.  

anyway, i think there is something to chi based on my experiences with it.  whether or not those experiences are psychosomatic or otherwise scientifically explainable doesn't really concern me at this time.  

jf


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 20, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> *In fact, most of the demonstrations I've seen of Chi have been no more than magic tricks (unbendable arm, unliftable body,* *bending spears wioth your neck, etc) or can be explained by standard phsyics and are in no way the result of some other unmeasurable physical force.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
How would you explain two people (6' 200 lbs and 6'2 225lbs) not being able to lift one person (5'8 150 lbs) off the ground and one person (6' 200 lbs) with two hands who can not bend a person's (5'8 150 lbs) arm is a magic trick? What could that person do physically to prevent them from doing that? No offense, just curious as to your explanation of how it's done.

Michael


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 20, 2009)

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Once the tools are there maybe we'll be able to measure it. Just look at how studies of neutrinos have progressed.


 
My point being that we might eventually be able ot measure it...but the effects of said energy/particle will not/can't live up to the hype.  Yeah, we can finally measure neutrino's, but they intereact with matter on such rare occassions...imagine what something even smaller would do.  

I'm not denying that some of what is attributed to chi isn't true...jsu tthat the explanations are often more mundane and less mystical in the end.  

Peace,
Erik


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe it is absolutely inappropriate to try and equate qi with biological or electrical or other scientific processes.
> 
> I know that a lot of people are skeptical about qi. Personally, I believe that it does exist in all of us, but it is very subtle to the point that most people are simply unaware of it. It is also something that is its own thing, which modern science has not yet been able to identify or describe.
> 
> ...


 
Some people are particularly gifted when it comes to mathematics. I can not do what they do but it is obvious that they have a mental ability I do not posess. Is their ability real or is it a hoax? Obviously it is real. Can I train to improve my mathematical ability? Yes I can, if I want to and if I am prepared to put in the effort required.
Similarly with ki. If a person can do things to me that defy rational explanation, ie physical, do I deny it has happened and say that it is not possible? No. I may not be able to do what they do, but with their guidance I too may be able to develop the same ability, *if I am willing to put in the time and effort required.*
In thread after thread people who do not understand ki pass it off as BS. People post YouTube videos that are impossible to verify and use those to prove/disprove their opinion. Go and experience ki first hand from someone who genuinely applies ki in their training, then pass comment. 
From personal experience I know that ki is real and hopefully, one day I will be able to apply it effectively. :asian:


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 21, 2009)

Aikicomp said:


> How would you explain two people (6' 200 lbs and 6'2 225lbs) not being able to lift one person (5'8 150 lbs) off the ground and one person (6' 200 lbs) with two hands who can not bend a person's (5'8 150 lbs) arm is a magic trick? What could that person do physically to prevent them from doing that? No offense, just curious as to your explanation of how it's done.
> 
> Michael


 
There was a great website that expose dhow some of these tricks were done, but it no longer exists. I'll try to do my best with just words.  Simply put...unliftable body usually works like this...

Person A will have one or two people (the bigger the better) lift them. They do this no problem. Then the perosn "grounds" their ki/chi/qi. Then the the lifters struggle to lift that person as if they have becom eheavy.

In the one person version, the lift is done at the elbows. The liftee bends there arms at their sides and the lifter puishes up form beneath at the liftee's elbows. For the successful lift, the liftee remains stiff and the elbows are pointing straight down. On the unsuccessful lift, the liftee shifts the elbows forward slighlty (about a half inch). This is enough to shift the center of gravity forward slightly. Second they relax and this makes them more unwieldy (like a sack of potatoes).

It's a similar idea with the two person lift. the lifters are on either side of the liftee, lifting at the arms. When the liftee is stiff and the arms are closer to the body, the lift goes well. By moving the arms out slightly (redirecting the force in a more inward direction instead of straight up), relaxing, and also keeping the two lifters from lifting "into" each other (one arm slightly forward, the other slightly backward)...th ebig strong guys actually interfere with each other and their strength and directions of force cancel each other out. What happens is they skitter backwards and forward around the floor never quite lifting thing liftee.

Similar trick with the unbendable arm (changing the angle of the arm just slightly so as to redirect force downward instead of inward).

It's actually great stuff...good to learn these subtle manipulations to manage physical force. Usefulo in a martial sense so far as I'm concerned...but too often lost in the mystical mumbo jumbo to be of real use. The real lessons of proper structure get lost.

No magic, just physics.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## jarrod (Mar 21, 2009)

i've done both of these tricks. in the one person lift, i had someone skeptical grab me around the waist rather than at the arms, & they were unable to lift me. i'm not consistent with it & haven't done it in years, but the unbendable arm is pretty easy to do. it may be simple physics, but it isn't always a conscious manipulation. it's possible that the visualizations i learned somehow directed me to subconsciously move my arm a certain way, but if so i'm not aware of it when i do it.  i still refer to these as tricks, because i've somehow never managed to have an unbendable arm when caught in a good armbar. 

just playing devil's advocate here.

jf


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 21, 2009)

K-man said:


> Some people are particularly gifted when it comes to mathematics. I can not do what they do but it is obvious that they have a mental ability I do not posess. Is their ability real or is it a hoax? Obviously it is real. Can I train to improve my mathematical ability? Yes I can, if I want to and if I am prepared to put in the effort required.
> Similarly with ki. If a person can do things to me that defy rational explanation, ie physical, do I deny it has happened and say that it is not possible? No. I may not be able to do what they do, but with their guidance I too may be able to develop the same ability, *if I am willing to put in the time and effort required.*
> In thread after thread people who do not understand ki pass it off as BS. People post YouTube videos that are impossible to verify and use those to prove/disprove their opinion. Go and experience ki first hand from someone who genuinely applies ki in their training, then pass comment.
> From personal experience I know that ki is real and hopefully, one day I will be able to apply it effectively. :asian:


 
I'm not sayign that some of what is attributed to Ki is real. I'm just saying that the ki explanations don't hold water and that in my experience the answers are usually simpler and a lot less mystical.  It is a common phenomenon to attribute mystical explanations to that which we don't understand...has happened countless times in history.  However, sticking to the principel of occam's razor (and being willing to stay flexible and opened minded in skepticality) I've been willing to take in new information and change my point of view as rather tahn hold true to my beliefs in the face of new information.

I grew up (literally and in a marital sense) in the Philadelphia/South Jersey region. This is one of the hot spot growth areas for Aikido. I swear, you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a good Aikidoka around here. I studied Aikido diligently for years. I saw the ki demonstrations. I was a big kid/teen and was often thrown around by Murayama Sensei when he came to town to visit our Dojo. I couldn't explain that feeling of getting sucked into a maelstrom and spit out (without seemingly being touched). I mreally bought into all of that.

Later I did some CMA stuff...and on and on...

here's the thing, it's occam's razor. Rather than say Murayama used incredible KI powers to mysteically throw my around like a rag doll (thus violating the laws of physics as we know them)...ti is more reasonable to say he used well-practiced, well-refined mastered skills that duisrupted me physically (took my balance, negated my speed/strength), disrupted my psychologically (disrupted my intent, put me on the defensive, startled the cr@p out of me  )...in doing so he was able to control me and throw me about like a rag doll in a seemingly effortless manner.

I've seen other poepl do th esame thing to me in other disciplines...none of them claimed "ki". 

I want to know how this stuff works...I jus think it would be easier if we got down to the basic nuts and bolts explanations and left the mytical stuff out of it. It takes away from the learning and discovery as the mystical explanations tend to cloud the objectivity.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 21, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've done both of these tricks. in the one person lift, i had someone skeptical grab me around the waist rather than at the arms, & they were unable to lift me. i'm not consistent with it & haven't done it in years, but the unbendable arm is pretty easy to do. it may be simple physics, but it isn't always a conscious manipulation. it's possible that the visualizations i learned somehow directed me to subconsciously move my arm a certain way, but if so i'm not aware of it when i do it. i still refer to these as tricks, because i've somehow never managed to have an unbendable arm when caught in a good armbar.
> 
> just playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> jf


 
That's a valid point. In my experience, most of the folks that have doine these demonstrations were earnest and not scam artists. These are subtle shifts and could easily be attributed to a feeling of Ki that really is a certain way to relax and shift ones structure so as to accomplish the trick. If one wants to believe...they will atrribute that feeling to ki and not to a change in body structure.  The human mind/psyche is a fascinating thing.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> I was a big kid/teen and was often thrown around by Murayama Sensei when he came to town to visit our Dojo. I couldn't explain that feeling of getting sucked into a maelstrom and spit out (without seemingly being touched). I mreally bought into all of that.
> 
> Later I did some CMA stuff...and on and on...
> 
> here's the thing, it's occam's razor. Rather than say Murayama used incredible KI powers to mysteically throw my around like a rag doll (thus violating the laws of physics as we know them)...ti is more reasonable to say he used well-practiced, well-refined mastered skills that duisrupted me physically (took my balance, negated my speed/strength), disrupted my psychologically (disrupted my intent, put me on the defensive, startled the cr@p out of me  )...in doing so he was able to control me and throw me about like a rag doll in a seemingly effortless manner.


 
So would it be possible to say he used his mind to help him achieve those feats?


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 21, 2009)

K-man said:


> So would it be possible to say he used his mind to help him achieve those feats?


 
 Absolutely, we use our minds to do just about everything...however, that's a far cry from manipulating some mystical, unmeasureable energy.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> There was a great website that expose dhow some of these tricks were done, but it no longer exists. I'll try to do my best with just words. Simply put...unliftable body usually works like this...
> 
> Person A will have one or two people (the bigger the better) lift them. They do this no problem. Then the perosn "grounds" their ki/chi/qi. Then the the lifters struggle to lift that person as if they have becom eheavy.
> 
> ...


 
We've done these 'tricks' in our club, our instructor told us how to do it, he said it's simply body mechanics exactly as you've explained.
There another one which I find useful at times, when someone shakes hands with you and likes to do that grip thing as if to say yeah I'm strong me, as you grip move your first two fingers along his wrist and he can no longer grip as hard. Magic! Well no, just body mechanics.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 21, 2009)

> Absolutely, we use our minds to do just about everything...however, that's a far cry from manipulating some mystical, unmeasureable energy.


 
Qi is not mystical unmeasureable energy. The human body gives off heat which is energy which would fit one of the defination of Ren Qi or Human energy.

The problem is people try to define it as mystical energy instead of just energy. Qi is any type of energy thats it plan and simple.

Most of the time when we are speaking about Qi it is in the context of Ren Qi(human Qi) but we need to look at the other context of words used with Qi. Di Qi would be describe as Earth's Qi but it is not talking about mystical Earth energy it is talking about Geothermal,gravity and any other energy the Earth generates and produces. Tian Qi means Heaven's Qi but it is talking more about the atmosphere and the different gas exhanges.


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> Absolutely, we use our minds to do just about everything...however, that's a far cry from manipulating some mystical, unmeasureable energy.


 
So what you have just agreed is that he was able to use his mind to enhance his skills to do what you said he did.



> duisrupted me physically (took my balance, negated my speed/strength), disrupted my psychologically (disrupted my intent, put me on the defensive, startled the cr@p out of me  )...in doing so he was able to control me and throw me about like a rag doll in a seemingly effortless manner.


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2009)

K-man said:


> So what you have just agreed is that he was able to use his mind to enhance his skills to do what you said he did.



If Qi means nothing more than using one's mind in order to determine a course of action in order to bring about a desired effect, then Qi becomes a synonym for nothing more remarkable than what the word _planning_ normally conveys. That's _not_ how the term Qi is used by those who believe that Qi represents some novel source of 'energy'. And energy in physics is derivative from the notion of force: it corresponds to the physical quantity described by force over a distance (to which certain conservation principles apply). When people talk about Qi in connection with energy, therefore, they're referring to an actual _force_ of some kind, without which there can be no energy. _That's_ what's entailed in any reference to Qi being done by something. If I chainsaw through a dead tree and it falls, the actual force that brings it to the ground is simply the force of gravity. Exactly how much is added to this by saying that it's 'Qi' that brought it down, since I used rational planning (i.e., my mind) to create a situation in which one of the three fundamental forces of nature&#8212;gravitation, in this case&#8212;applied to the tree to impose a certain motion on it? That's all that bluekey is talking about: someone doing something by planning it and employing sufficient means to bring it about. If you want to call _that_ Qi, and then say that something happened because of it, fine. But there's nothing metaphysical about it. 

It's standard at this point for people in such conversations to jump in and say, well, but what about consciousness itself&#8212;isn't _that_ metaphysical ('beyond physical', literally)? But when this happens, what's going on is in effect a move in a shell game. The _original_ claim is that the activity itself derives from some special energy (therefore force) which Qi is taken to embody; then all of sudden, we're not talking about the force involved in the activity but the nature of consciousness. The technical term for this kind of move is, 'red herring', or more specifically, 'category error'. When you talk about a specific component of a situation and identify it with the situation it's part of, that's a category error. And confusing the activity of planning to cause a tree  to fall (consciousness in action) with the actual falling of the tree&#8212;_that's_ a perfect example of that error.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 21, 2009)

K-man said:


> So what you have just agreed is that he was able to use his mind to enhance his skills to do what you said he did.


 
NOt exactly.  He used his mind to create intent.  But there was no enhance,ment of what was not already there...there was no manipulation beyond what is afforded us in the mundane world.  What  hapooened, while extraordinary to em as a novice Aikidoka (at the time) was in fact just practiced skill.

Now, I don;t mean to seem dismissive...Murayama Sensei's skill is astounding and something to marvel.  Frankluy, the dismissive thing is to enshroud the discussion of the skill, how to attain it, perfect it, whatever in metaphysical stuff that clouds the reality.  It retards the learning process.

It's amazing what people can do within the confines of newtonian physics.  Why ignore that?  Why lessen that?  The real world is truly incredible...better than any fiction, myth or dream we can imagine.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> It's amazing what people can do within the confines of newtonian physics.  Why ignore that?  Why lessen that?  The real world is truly incredible...better than any fiction, myth or dream we can imagine.
> 
> Peace,
> Erik



Well put, Erik. Just take a look at the illustrations and photos in Carl Sagan's book _Cosmos_... there's more than enough for us to wonder and marvel at for the rest of time without bringing in invisible purple snargs as per Redmond's great dissection of Qi/ki as it's conventionally presented...


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> NOt exactly. He used his mind to create intent. But there was no enhance,ment of what was not already there...there was no manipulation beyond what is afforded us in the mundane world. What hapooened, while extraordinary to em as a novice Aikidoka (at the time) was in fact just practiced skill.
> 
> Now, I don;t mean to seem dismissive...Murayama Sensei's skill is astounding and something to marvel. Frankluy, the dismissive thing is to enshroud the discussion of the skill, how to attain it, perfect it, whatever in metaphysical stuff that clouds the reality. It retards the learning process.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not for one moment suggesting that by using the mind we are using ki. Ki, to me is a force, or spirit or intent controlled by the mind. To suggest that Murayama Sensei's skill was purely application or a practised skill doesn't ring true to me. Maruyama Sensei was a student of Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, and of one of Ueshiba's greatest students, Koichi Tohei. These guys have ki. I have trained with a number of high ranked Aikido-ka of whom only one demonstrates ki so it is not something you learn easily. I'm not talking of ki 'tricks' but ki in application. Most Aikido relies on speed or power. Great when you're young. If you dismiss ki then all martial artists are going to be overtaken by their younger proteges. This is not the case with the masters. They have something else. 
As to actually defining ki or measuring it, good luck. I wouldn't know where to begin. All I know is you can feel it, and you can see its effect on others when they are attacked by it. When you are hit by it, as in kokyu, you don't get up quickly. Is it metaphysical? I don't know. I think of it as an energy that is there, available to everybody. To learn to incorporate ki in my MA ... that is my goal. In the meantime, trying to analyse and define the elements of ki seems to me the same as looking out at a beautiful sunset and trying to analyse each segment to find why it seems so beautiful. By doing that we don't appreciate the beauty in front of our eyes. 
BTW, if the unbendable arm is a 'trick' it is a very good one. Only one person has ever been able to bend my arm since I learnt the 'trick' and he is my Sensai. I don't turn it up, down or inside out. I just hold it out and extend ki. (Not a 'trick' that I learned overnight!) The unbendable arm is a valuable training tool.

If anybody is interested this address gives Tohei's Principles http://houstonkiaikido.org/What_Ki_4prin.htm


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 22, 2009)

K-man said:


> I'm not for one moment suggesting that by using the mind we are using ki. Ki, to me is a force, or spirit or intent controlled by the mind. To suggest that Murayama Sensei's skill was purely application or a practised skill doesn't ring true to me. Maruyama Sensei was a student of Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, and of one of Ueshiba's greatest students, Koichi Tohei. These guys have ki. I have trained with a number of high ranked Aikido-ka of whom only one demonstrates ki so it is not something you learn easily. I'm not talking of ki 'tricks' but ki in application. Most Aikido relies on speed or power. Great when you're young. If you dismiss ki then all martial artists are going to be overtaken by their younger proteges. This is not the case with the masters. They have something else.
> As to actually defining ki or measuring it, good luck. I wouldn't know where to begin. All I know is you can feel it, and you can see its effect on others when they are attacked by it. When you are hit by it, as in kokyu, you don't get up quickly. Is it metaphysical? I don't know. I think of it as an energy that is there, available to everybody. To learn to incorporate ki in my MA ... that is my goal. In the meantime, trying to analyse and define the elements of ki seems to me the same as looking out at a beautiful sunset and trying to analyse each segment to find why it seems so beautiful. By doing that we don't appreciate the beauty in front of our eyes.
> BTW, if the unbendable arm is a 'trick' it is a very good one. Only one person has ever been able to bend my arm since I learnt the 'trick' and he is my Sensai. I don't turn it up, down or inside out. I just hold it out and extend ki. (Not a 'trick' that I learned overnight!) The unbendable arm is a valuable training tool.
> 
> If anybody is interested this address gives Tohei's Principles http://houstonkiaikido.org/What_Ki_4prin.htm


 
Ah, I suspected tyhis might be the issue.  We're trippig over the "teo world's" concept...or what my Philosophy of mind professor called "Cartesian Dualism".  It's the basic idea that there are two worlds.  There's reality, then there is the almost-but-not-quite reality.  It's what some religions/belifs call the spirit world.  In some sc-fi myths...it's that hypespace/subspace thing.  It also supports the idea of a brain/mind split.  That is the brain (the physical thing in our head) is in reality while our Mind (that which we think with and makes us US) somehow is tied into this other place and controls the brain.

Simply put...there is no mind seperate from the brain.  THis thing we call mind is the result of the interaction nested systems where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  (like the Beatles  ).  The concept of mind over matter comes form this (the idea that if we focus and think really hard we can control our bodies)...which is true in a sense, but at the same time, we are slave to our bodies and changes in our bodies will change our minds.  Take a look at somehow who has survived a traumAtic brian injury to see the hard truth in this.

Like I said before.  On efundamental thing that is true (not that I believe is true...it just is true...no ifs ands or buts).  For something ot interact with matter (that is the stuff that make sup reality) it has to be a part of reality.  Furthermore, to say soemthing is enbery is to say that at some level it is mater.  Mr. Einstein's great equation (e=mc2) shows us that.  So, there can't be an energy or force that permeates everything, but is seperate from everything, that can be controlled by focused intent....yet not interact with the matter that makes up our bodies (from which our mind comes form/is a part of).

Confused yet?

Again, people use Ki to talk about lots of things imprecicesly...because they don't hav eth elanguage to talk about what really is happening.  This is fine when you, in fact, can't explain what it is you are doing/experiencing.  However, in my opinion, it is better to educxate oneself to what is really happening and learning /creating precise language to talk abou tit rather than fall back on imprecise/poorly understood eastern mysticism to do so.  

Peace,
Erik


----------



## K-man (Mar 22, 2009)

Sorry but this has nothing to do with Cartesian Dualism. That is a totally spiritual concept of body and soul (or mind) dating back thousands of years, before being linked to Descartes in the 1600s. Dualism itself has many different propositions. In fact if you wanted to follow the track of 'property dualism' it does allow that mental causes can produce material effects, and vice-versa. This is called 'interactionism' but I digress.

Mind over matter may have some relevence although in this concept it is more mind over mind.

As to:



> Again, people use Ki to talk about lots of things imprecicesly...because they don't hav eth elanguage to talk about what really is happening. This is fine when you, in fact, can't explain what it is you are doing/experiencing. However, in my opinion, it is better to educxate oneself to what is really happening and learning /creating precise language to talk abou tit rather than fall back on imprecise/poorly understood eastern mysticism to do so.


 
So true. I can descibe what is happening with great precision. I cannot explain what is happening. So I am open to 'better educating' myself if there is anybody that can provide an intelligent explanation that fits the facts. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on 'eastern mysticism'. :shrug:


----------



## jarrod (Mar 22, 2009)

especially when western mysticism is so interesting & overlooked 

jf


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 23, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> There was a great website that expose dhow some of these tricks were done, but it no longer exists. I'll try to do my best with just words. Simply put...unliftable body usually works like this...
> 
> Person A will have one or two people (the bigger the better) lift them. They do this no problem. Then the perosn "grounds" their ki/chi/qi. Then the the lifters struggle to lift that person as if they have becom eheavy.
> 
> ...


 
It's kind of hard typing the situations and getting a clear idea of what is done, I hope I can relay it to you. If not I'm sorry.

Here is another excercise we do. It's called the ring. We hold our index finger and thumb together (forming a ring, duh!) with the other three fingers extended holding the hand horizontal to the ground palm down. The person (with the index finger of each hand grabs inside the "ring" and tries to pull the "ring" open with his two hands. How would you explain that? 

How can I stop you from opening my "ring" with your two arms pulling against my two fingers using physics? Are not your two arms stronger than my two fingers?

Again, we just relax, no shifting, no moving or adjusting of the body. Just relaxing and flowing Ki. BTW, this can also be done with both hands and two people. 

When I first learned how to apply Ki (that's what my teacher called it, probably during the time he studied Aikido) he wanted to de-mystify the metaphysical aspect of it and explained that it is an energy that is all around us and we just "tap" into it using our minds.


Michael


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Mar 23, 2009)

K-man said:


> So true. I can descibe what is happening with great precision. I cannot explain what is happening. So I am open to 'better educating' myself if there is anybody that can provide an intelligent explanation that fits the facts. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on 'eastern mysticism'. :shrug:



Hey, just realized you were an Australian like me. I'm always open to new information, so if you train near my area maybe I could go and experience this Chi for myself. I'm based in Brisbane. And no don't worry, I'm not one of those BullShido guys looking for a fight.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 23, 2009)

K-man said:


> Sorry but this has nothing to do with Cartesian Dualism. That is a totally spiritual concept of body and soul (or mind) dating back thousands of years, before being linked to Descartes in the 1600s. Dualism itself has many different propositions. In fact if you wanted to follow the track of 'property dualism' it does allow that mental causes can produce material effects, and vice-versa. This is called 'interactionism' but I digress.
> 
> Mind over matter may have some relevence although in this concept it is more mind over mind.
> 
> ...


 
The fact is, there isn't mind/spirit/soul seperate from the physical body. One cannot be over the other as there isn't one and the other...jsut different facets of the same system. Saying different is, in fact, a form of dualism. Inj the end, the energyu that permeates the univers is the universe. I canot tap into that and manipulate...except in the standard ways in wich oine physical nody interacts with other physical bodies...bound by the physics. 

As to the ring trick, seen that one too...as near as I can figure, this is how it works. Like other physicval tricks, it's all about relaxation, structure and force manipulation. It's all in how you position your fingers such that the pulling force is redirected into a pushing force in the hand. You manipulate the angles of the small joints of the the thumb and finger to attain this. Stay relaxed and your muscles don't have to fight each other. This isn't ki or special energy....just plain newtonian physics. Got anything else?

to Aikicomp -- I can't explain exactly what is happening in your examples without seeing a video.  I'm still willign to bet that when you relax there is a slight shift in the center of gravity.  Also, ini every example you menton relaxation...a relaxed person in much more awkward and difficult to move than a stiff person.  I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.  In the end, these types of tricks are more about structure...and force redirection within that structure than they are about metaphysical forces.  

Again, there are valuabel martial lessons to be learned from such excercises, but they are hardly evidence of the physical existence of ki.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## jarrod (Mar 23, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> The fact is, there isn't mind/spirit/soul seperate from the physical body. One cannot be over the other as there isn't one and the other...jsut different facets of the same system. Saying different is, in fact, a form of dualism. Inj the end, the energyu that permeates the univers is the universe. I canot tap into that and manipulate...except in the standard ways in wich oine physical nody interacts with other physical bodies...bound by the physics.


 
you are 100% right about the energy of the universe being the universe, but i think you might be mistakenly thinking that monism or non-dualism is inherently transcendental. the fact is that even though the universe is non-dualistic our minds are literally unable to process reality in a single bite...hence our tendency to see dualism where there is none.

this idea of one-ness is common in many traditions, east & west. it's more common in the east because organized religion operates differently over there, but that's a whole other can of worms. the one-ness is the mystical part; only it's not actually mystical, it's simply that our minds/brains can't process it (without satori anyway, depending on who you listen to). we can understand it academically, but that is different from _experiencing_ that oneness. that is why many eastern traditions have sayings like "the tao that can be spoken of is not the tao". some esoteric western traditions have the same ideas, only the tao may be called the pleroma or the ineffable, or whatever. but no matter how much we talk about it our minds still operate in a linear, sequential way. hence the apparent dualism. 

ki, as i perceive it, is exactly how you describe it: the energy of the universe is the universe, nothing more. but the question in my mind is not "is mysticism real" but "is reality mystical". in my opinion, the answer is yes, the fact that the same laws of physics & nature permeate this entire universe (!) which each & every one of us is an essential part of is pretty damn mystical. it's also no big deal. 

so imo, when you say the energy of the universe is the universe, & someone else says that ki/chi is an extension of the tao, you are saying essentially the same thing. i can tell by your posts that you have an excellent mind for science, so it makes sense that you perceive non-dualism as you do. not having an overtly scientific mind myself, i understand immenant non-dualism in "mystic" language. but too often people think mystical means supernatural, when in fact it is the essense of nature.

just my thoughts, hope it made sense.

jf


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 23, 2009)

jarrod said:


> you are 100% right about the energy of the universe being the universe, but i think you might be mistakenly thinking that monism or non-dualism is inherently transcendental. the fact is that even though the universe is non-dualistic our minds are literally unable to process reality in a single bite...hence our tendency to see dualism where there is none.
> 
> this idea of one-ness is common in many traditions, east & west. it's more common in the east because organized religion operates differently over there, but that's a whole other can of worms. the one-ness is the mystical part; only it's not actually mystical, it's simply that our minds/brains can't process it (without satori anyway, depending on who you listen to). we can understand it academically, but that is different from _experiencing_ that oneness. that is why many eastern traditions have sayings like "the tao that can be spoken of is not the tao". some esoteric western traditions have the same ideas, only the tao may be called the pleroma or the ineffable, or whatever. but no matter how much we talk about it our minds still operate in a linear, sequential way. hence the apparent dualism.
> 
> ...


 
I totally agree with you on most of your points.  I do have a scientifric mind.  I also (imo...maybe some might disagree) have a fair bit of spirituality as well.  I tend to hold lots of views that, at a glance, seem contradictory (I'm a martial artist and a pacifist, a behaviorist and humanistic therapist, etc.)  I seem to like to take dichotmous ideas and find ways to reconcile them for myself.

having said that, I agree that I think all of us are discussing the same stuff in principle.  We're looking at different facets of the same phenomenon because as you so aptly put it...the mind can't make sense of everything.

However, why I've moved away from Ki explanations has more to do with cultural issues (more precisely, a loack of cultural understanding) than with a fundamental dislike for mysticism.

I'm not one of those guys that dismisses ki concepts out of hand...i simply think there are better explanations.  Ki/chi/qi as a concept is soooo muddled...and so much garbage gets attached to it that , to me, it loses a lot of it's meaning.  It's breath and breathing, it neurological impulses, it's attached to mind, it's attached to soul....and in the end it's gotten to where I can't make sense of the underlying truth for all the unnecessary garbage.  There is truth there...that's the improtant stuff.  That's what we should be trying to get at.  Not worying about magic tricks as explanations.  

I know that the universe is made up of energy.  As Mo by put it "we are all made of stars".  that being said, I can't manipulate that energy with my mind in the way that ki demonstrations often claim.  In fact, I know of several convincing fraud busting attempts that really showed how much of what people experience as ki is no more than placebo effects.  Not to say that things don't happen...but that metaphysical explanation gets in the way(for me).  I can't change the flow of electricty in my house by focusing my mind and breathing right.  I can't trhow chi balls and knock down a tree.  however....i can use my intent, get a chainsaw, and do the job just fine.  most people would not say that's ki/chi...just some dude with a chainsaw.

I guess whwat I'm saying is not that I have a problem with the idea of an energy (we can call it ki/chi, but I still think it's pretty much just matter) that permeates the universe.  I just don't see where we have this great ability to transcend the laws of how this energy/matter interacts with itself and control it.  Furthermore, the way people have thrown explanation of mystical (unknown) phenomenon at it...some of which has now stuck, has made more of this concept than it is.  

Peace,
Erik


----------



## morph4me (Mar 23, 2009)

I find that I extend ki best when I am relaxed, my timing is right, and  my body structure is upright and balanced, in other words when I'm doing the exercise or technique properly. I believe that ki, when used in a dynamic setting is a combination of timing, physics, and physiology. In a static exercise it's just physics and physiology.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> *I'm not one of those guys that dismisses ki concepts out of hand*...i simply think there are better explanations. Ki/chi/qi as a concept is soooo muddled...and so much garbage gets attached to it that , to me, it loses a lot of it's meaning. It's breath and breathing, it neurological impulses, it's attached to mind, it's attached to soul....and in the end it's gotten to where *I can't make sense of the underlying truth* for all the unnecessary garbage. There is truth there...that's the improtant stuff. That's what we should be trying to get at. Not worying about *magic tricks* as explanations.
> 
> I know that the universe is made up of energy. As Mo by put it "we are all made of stars". that being said, I can't manipulate that energy with my mind in the way that ki demonstrations often claim. *In fact, I know of several convincing fraud busting attempts that really showed how much of what people experience as ki is no more than placebo effects.* Not to say that things don't happen...but that metaphysical explanation gets in the way(for me). *I can't change the flow of electricty in my house by focusing my mind and breathing right.* *I can't trhow chi balls and knock down a tree.* however....i can use my intent, get a chainsaw, and do the job just fine. most people would not say that's ki/chi...just some dude with a chainsaw.
> 
> *I guess whwat I'm saying is not that I have a problem with the idea of an energy* (we can call it *ki/chi*, but I still think it's pretty much just matter) that permeates the universe. I just don't see where we have this great ability to transcend the laws of how this energy/matter interacts with itself and control it. Furthermore, the way people have thrown explanation of mystical (unknown) phenomenon at it...some of which has now stuck, has made more of this concept than it is.


 
Firstly, if you are not dismissing ki concepts out of hand, what are you doing? If, for you, ki exists please explain your concept of it. If you believe ki does not exist, we don't need to know. I know ki exists, I don't have to prove it to anybody and I would like to hear other people's opinion as to how it works for them.

Secondly, you say you can't make sense of the underlying truth. With respect, you don't seem to be trying to understand anything as you are making assertions to the contrary. What 'underlying truth' are you referring to?

Thirdly, you refer to 'magic' and 'tricks', 'mystical phenomina' and 'fraud'. :erg: These are emotive terms to suggest that anyone talking about ki is away with the fairies. There is NO magic, NO tricks and people training ki do NOT refer to mystical phenomina and are NOT frauds, so lets stick to the truth.

Fourthly, 





> "in fact, I know of several convincing fraud busting attempts that really showed how much of what people experience as ki is no more than placebo effects."


 So where do we see these fraud busters? Which part of what I experience as ki is placebo? Is it the feeling I get in the back of my neck when someone is extending ki from behind? Is it when my centre moves when someone takes my ki? Is it the loss of intent that I feel when ki is used against me? Is it the inability to retaliate when I am attacked by ki? And as ki doesn't work against me all the time, how do I know when to fall over (placebo) and when to be strong?

Fifthly, please send me details of anyone who claims to be able to "change the flow of electricty in their house by focusing their mind and breathing right." :erg: Now we really are getting off topic, emotive and into the realm of magic and mysticism. No one to my knowledge has ever made that claim!

Sixthly, I can't throw chi balls either. I don't know if anybody can, as I have never met anyone who makes such a claim. As to knocking down the tree 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ... please post the video, or was that just an emotive insert?

Seventhly, if you don't have a problem with the idea of an energy (ki/chi) why are we having this discussion?

And, finally, *aikicomp *posted a number of explanations for the training tools that he has utilised in his practice. I wish I was as accomplished in those as he is, but I haven't been training ki all that long and I have a lifetime to go. 

FYI I too have a scientific background and over my entire career I relied on evidence based information. Now I have experienced something, that I refer to as ki, and I would like to understand more about it. :asian:


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 24, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> The fact is, there isn't mind/spirit/soul seperate from the physical body. One cannot be over the other as there isn't one and the other...jsut different facets of the same system. Saying different is, in fact, a form of dualism. Inj the end, the energyu that permeates the univers is the universe. I canot tap into that and manipulate...except in the standard ways in wich oine physical nody interacts with other physical bodies...bound by the physics.
> 
> As to the ring trick, seen that one too...as near as I can figure, this is how it works. Like other physicval tricks, it's all about relaxation, structure and force manipulation. It's all in how you position your fingers such that the pulling force is redirected into a pushing force in the hand. You manipulate the angles of the small joints of the the thumb and finger to attain this. Stay relaxed and your muscles don't have to fight each other. This isn't ki or special energy....just plain newtonian physics. Got anything else?
> 
> ...


 
It seems if I did post a video you would find something that you could slap the physics/scientific explanation label on so to do so would serve no purpose. (at least for you) I know you have difficulty in accepting there are forces in this world that are beyond our understanding or scientific explanation, and that is OK. However, that does not mean that they do not exist and can not be accessed. Ki is a natural force that can be used in a variety of situations for the good of the person using it and by you saying it's a "trick" (IMO, which it isn't) that may hinder a person reading this thread and discourage them from trying to develope Ki for themselves and that is a disservice to them.

Yes there are people who use the tricks you spoke of to boost their ego or get a perspective student to join their school by showing them their "powers" and that is disgusting IMO. There are many people on this planet and this board who can and do use real (no tricks) KI in their techniques and their lives and you saying that they are just using tricks puts us into that former category which I and I'm sure others find insulting and offensive. 

Michael


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 24, 2009)

K-man said:


> And, finally, *aikicomp *posted a number of explanations for the training tools that he has utilised in his practice. I wish I was as accomplished in those as he is, but I haven't been training ki all that long and I have a lifetime to go.


 
Thanks for the kind words, although, I am in no way accomplished in my use or understanding of Ki. I just do the best I can and hopefully help someone else along the way through my experience. 

My advice to you, if you wish it, is to keep trying until you get it and you will if you're sincere which it sounds like you are. You must trust in your ability to access it. (that for me was the hardest part). Work on the exercises they will help you to develope your Ki a little at a time and before you know it you will have it at your disposal. You will have goods and bad days (like with anything else) they key is to never stop trying. 

Michael


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2009)

The "thing" I have with Chi...Ok, perhaps there is some form of energy that we are currently unable to detect. But now there are also channels in the body that contain/direct these energies and these are also undetectable and some people can control this energy through some process that is convienently undetectable as well.

Its all too convienently mysterious, undetectable and probably most importantly for the believers exotic and "eastern" (or at least not "Western") for me.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 24, 2009)

> But now there are also channels in the body that contain/direct these energies and these are also undetectable and some people can control this energy through some process that is convienently undetectable as well.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_interosseous_nerve
compared to:
http://www.healingtherapist.com/images/m-lung-hand.jpg

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/2006/0209/6867575.jpg

compared to:
http://alternativehealing.org/bladder_channel_full.GIF

The 12 channels interact thru nerves,vessels,even bone which all result in a stimulated reponse. Chinese have been doing it for thousands of years into a complex system. The mind guiding Qi or energy is no more than directing your thought to your hand to pick something up. There really is no mystery unless you are speaking in a religious Taoist view in which Qi can take the shape of a more supernautral meaning.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 24, 2009)

Actually, if you want to talk about 'insulting and offensive', one thing that always bothers me in these types of discussions is that they almost always degenerate at some point to a knee-jerk reaction to questions and criticisms from some ardent ki-believer, with the upshot that we non-believers have some defect because of our western mindset and our unwillingness to accept your premiss. Why do you assume that those of us who reject the existence of this force/energy called 'ki' do so out-of-hand, or for a lack of serious reasons, or because of an unwillingness to believe, or because we haven't researched it enough? Did it even occur to you that many of us have researched it and have sought evidence, and instead of finding evidence for the existence of 'ki' have found positive evidence that it doesn't meet any of its alleged claims?

As a physicist I can tell you that there is no force or energy (in the usual, accepted meaning of the word) that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice. The sizes of the forces involved in classical Newtonian physics (mainly gravity in this case), along with conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, application of the Impulse-Momentum theorem, and the use of the body's natural 'simple machines' account for everything you need to explain all of the phenomena actually measureable in the ring.

Small changes to the em field in your blood stream that might possibly allign your water molecules in certain areas of your body, fringe magnetic fields from neurons firing in your brain, and quantum mechanical tunnelling of stray elecrtons in your bones may actually occur, but not on a level to negate, enhance, or alter the basic Newtonian physics of what is happening. Think 'orders of magnitude' differences in size. It is a rule worth remembering in experimental physics and practical applications of any type that you cannot get a primary response from a secondary effect.

In general, you do yourself, your beliefs, and your arguments for them a great disservice when you use words that have specific meanings in ways other than or contrary to those specific meanings. When you call 'ki' a 'force', you are saying something, whether you realize it or not. You are saying that 'ki' can exchange energy and/or momentum, can accellerate masses, can be predicted and/or modeled, and usually, that it can be measured. When you call it an 'energy', you are claiming it is conserved, it can do useful work, and it can be transformed into other forms of energy. So, if you are going to use words to describe 'ki' that mean *explicitly* that it will do something, don't blame us science geeks when we ask the question, "What does it *do*?"


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Actually, if you want to talk about 'insulting and offensive', one thing that always bothers me in these types of discussions is that they almost always degenerate at some point to a knee-jerk reaction to questions and criticisms from some ardent ki-believer, with the upshot that we non-believers have some defect because of our western mindset and our unwillingness to accept your premiss. Why do you assume that those of us who reject the existence of this force/energy called 'ki' do so out-of-hand, or for a lack of serious reasons, or because of an unwillingness to believe, or because we haven't researched it enough? Did it even occur to you that many of us have researched it and have sought evidence, and instead of finding evidence for the existence of 'ki' have found positive evidence that it doesn't meet any of its alleged claims?
> 
> As a physicist I can tell you that there is no force or energy (in the usual, accepted meaning of the word) that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice. The sizes of the forces involved in classical Newtonian physics (mainly gravity in this case), along with conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, application of the Impulse-Momentum theorem, and the use of the body's natural 'simple machines' account for everything you need to explain all of the phenomena actually measureable in the ring.
> 
> ...



Great, lovely post, NJM. 

The orders of magnitude thing is _so_ on target. When I lived in Victoria ('Lotus Land', in the parlance of Canadians who actually have to turn the heat up in the winter), I had a number of acquaintances who used to argue fervantly to the effect, e.g., that all kinds of things happened as a result of the full moon, and that these could be 'scientifically' explained by tidal forces,  though they had no clue just what the tidal 'force' actually is. I did a quick back-of-envelope calculation during lunch one time with one of them and showed her that in terms of sheer numbers, the gravitational force of a person sitting at the same restaurant table with you absolutely overwhelms the contribution of the 'tidal' effect of the moon on you, and would do so even if the moon were twice its current size. As I recall, she wasn't fazed a bit... brought up the whole idiotic 'Well, quantum mechanics tells us that anything can happen' (which is, of course, (i) false and (ii) irrelevant to the point at issue). On reflection, I realized that I had been justly punished for even _trying_ to reason with her along those lines. 

It hasn't stopped me from doing so repeatedly with other people over the years, but I _did_ wind up giving up on _her_ mind-set...:hb:


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 24, 2009)

I often wonder what do people who do not agree with Qi think Qi is?





> that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice


 
When you say things like this it means you do not have a proper defination of what Qi is. 



> Small changes to the em field in your blood stream that might possibly allign your water molecules in certain areas of your body, fringe magnetic fields from neurons firing in your brain, and quantum mechanical tunnelling of stray elecrtons in your bones may actually occur, but not on a level to negate, enhance, or alter the basic Newtonian physics of what is happening.


 Studies have shown the brain waves during mediation do change to a degree http://www.researchingmeditation.org/home/brain-waves/
We do know thru Biofeed back and tension release exercises which increase blood circulation do have health benefits. We do know it requires a level of "energy" to achieve this.



> can be predicted and/or modeled, and usually, that it can be measured.


 Can body temperture be measured? Is heat not a form of energy?
It would be nice again for those who do not believe in Qi to give a defination of what you think Qi is. If you really want to get nit picky with the word Qi it is this: Qi is compose of the charcters:Chih-pot Mi-cooking rice Yun-Steam basically it the steam coming off cooked rice is what it means and we can all see that thus by the actual word Qi exist. The problem is people are mixing up Ren Qi(Human Qi) with Bi Qi(Earth Qi)from TCM mixing with religious Taoism which speaks about supernatural ideas. Also if we look at the Japanese word Genki it means more of a vitality then a supernatural meaning. IMO all the western words used already describe what Qi is. There is no supernatural meaning there is no unmeasurable force or energy because Qi just means energy. It is when you put another word in front of it does it become another type of energy. If you want supernatural Qi you would have to use the word LING in front of Qi to get Ling Qi. But what do I know about Qi really....


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_interosseous_nerve
> compared to:
> http://www.healingtherapist.com/images/m-lung-hand.jpg
> 
> ...



The human body has systems to complete biological tasks. Nerves transmit signals. Vessels transport fluids etc. Now these "Chi Channels" flow here there and everywhere with no "system" of transport other than this "interaction with REAL vessels". Sorry I just dont buy it. You are free to believe what you want. I dont intend to belittle anybody's belief in Chi. I just dont subscribe to it.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 24, 2009)

If you look at the chart you will see Rosseous nerve is the same as the Lung channel. If you also looked you will see the Sciatic nerve follows the same path as the Bladder channel. If you stick a needle into the nerve a signal is produced,Endorphins are released. If you stick a needle else where in the body different signals go off. Nothing mystical about it really. Chinese have been doing it for thousands of years. All the Jing-luo(Qi channels) go over each organ or interact with organs by their muscle,nerve,bone etc. So again I do not see this mystical thing everyone keeps talking about and I study Qigong and Chinese medicine. Also note the channels do interact with "real vessels" I suppose you mean nervous system,endocrine system,circulatory system etc etc.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Actually, if you want to talk about 'insulting and offensive', one thing that always bothers me in these types of discussions is that they almost always degenerate at some point to a knee-jerk reaction to questions and criticisms from some ardent ki-believer, with the upshot that we non-believers have some defect because of our western mindset and our unwillingness to accept your premiss. Why do you assume that those of us who reject the existence of this force/energy called 'ki' do so out-of-hand, or for a lack of serious reasons, or because of an unwillingness to believe, or because we haven't researched it enough? Did it even occur to you that many of us have researched it and have sought evidence, and instead of finding evidence for the existence of 'ki' have found positive evidence that it doesn't meet any of its alleged claims?
> 
> As a physicist I can tell you that there is no force or energy (in the usual, accepted meaning of the word) that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice. The sizes of the forces involved in classical Newtonian physics (mainly gravity in this case), along with conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, application of the Impulse-Momentum theorem, and the use of the body's natural 'simple machines' account for everything you need to explain all of the phenomena actually measureable in the ring.
> 
> ...


 
Personally, I do become upset when people debunking ki use emotive terms such as 'magic', 'fraud', 'trick', 'mystical', etc. If someone disagrees with the existence of ki then I would say they have exactly the same problem disproving the existence of ki as a person has in proving the existence of ki. It is their right to express their opinion that ki does not exist. However, it is only my opinion, if any of us were to hibernate for 1000 years (assuming mankind hasn't destroyed itself by then) we would return to a world with vastly different understanding to the understanding that we have now and the people would probably be referring to our civilisation as reasonably primative.



> As a physicist I can tell you that there is no force or energy (in the usual, accepted meaning of the word) that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice.


 
So as a medical person I can say, I can agree with your position, but not the assertian that you make. I would not presume to say more than "in my understanding, ki does not make sense within our current scientific understanding". When I studied physics in the 60s the only sub-atomic particles were protons, neutrons and electrons and that was taught as fact. Now you couldn't list them all. As a physicist you will know there are even a dozen or more 'hypothetical' particles which at present haven't been scientifically or experimentally demonstrated. Using your terminology, logically I should be saying these particles do not exist and your collegues are wasting their time looking for them. They should stop looking now because from your scientific knowledge nothing more is to be discovered. We both know that what I have just proposed is ludicrous.

Now although I did in one post use the term 'force' it was in the terms of trying to define ki. I should have said 'life force', 'life energy', 'intent' or 'spirit/will'. And I was questioning, not stating a fact. I don't know what I have experienced but to me and the students I train with, it is real. I do find it offensive that you would dismiss, as a trick, or whatever term you like, what I have personally experienced. If you were to come and train with me and personally experience what I am talking about, I would certainly value your explanation.



> Did it even occur to you (Just a bit harsh!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am trying to research it, but from a different angle. I have experienced what I believe to be ki. What it is I do not know. However, I have seen *NO* *evidence* let alone *POSITIVE evidence* that ki doesn't exist. Quite the contrary. What I am hoping is that some people who are training ki would be prepared to post some of their experiences without being dismissed as 'some ardent ki-believer' who is a crackpot because some people like you do not believe in ki. :asian:


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2009)

K-man said:


> So as a medical person I can say, I can agree with your position, but not the assertian that you make. I would not presume to say more than "in my understanding, ki does not make sense within our current scientific understanding". When I studied physics in the 60s the only sub-atomic particles were protons, neutrons and electrons and that was taught as fact. Now you couldn't list them all. As a physicist you will know there are even a dozen or more 'hypothetical' particles which at present haven't been scientifically or experimentally demonstrated. Using your terminology, logically I should be saying these particles do not exist and your collegues are wasting their time looking for them. They should stop looking now because from your scientific knowledge nothing more is to be discovered. We both know that what I have just proposed is ludicrous.
> :



From the point of view of physical theory, K, what you've just said seems to me to be well off the mark. First of all, it's just not the case that there are 'a dozen or more "hypothetical" particles, at least in the Standard Theory (the framework in which the electroweak unification of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, the single deepest theory of the forces of nature so far confirmed, is framed; if we're talking about String Theory, now definitely on the defensive and likely to be abandoned within the next decade, that's a different story&#8212;and one of the major targets it's wearing is precisely those hypothetical particle partners of known elementary particles). There is exactly one: the Higgs boson. And this particle has been proposed as solution to the problem of linking the two 'outcome fields' of the unified electroweak field. The electromagnetic interaction particle, the photon, is massless. The vector boson interaction particles of the weak nuclear force are massive. Yet they are, mathematically, different instantiations of the same particle, since the two fields themselves are different manifestations of the same field. The Higgs field provides an elegant and formally precise way of associating mass with massless particle; given the formalism of non-Abelian guage field theories, the existence of a Higgs field _entails_ the existence of a vector particle with certain very specific quantitative characteristics. If the Higgs particle is detected, it will be the final brick in the most predictively successful theory of anything that the human species has yet devised. If the Higgs particle turns out to be undetectable under conditions where it should manifest itself, then its existence will be in serious doubt, and the nature of the unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces will have to be rethought, from the ground up. There are several alternative versions of this unification which will then become prime candidates for further investigation. 

That's how we wound up where we are in science: very precise theories to explain observed effects, whose consequences entail other phenomena, which are either observed and tend to confirm those precise theories, or force refinements in them that may be only quantitative (an additional planet, Neptune, posited to explain the perturbed orbit of one of Uranus' moons) or dramatically quantitative (quantum mechanics displacing Newtonian physics as our model of the fundamental level of nature). But in every single case, there were mathematically precise, quantitatively exact theories in place which offered an impressive range of empirical coverage of _most_ of the data; the small remainder then had to be accounted for by positing further modifications&#8212;some of which were minor, and some of which, as I noted, were paradigm-changers.

If someone posits a subatomic particle , or quantum field, or spatial dimension, or anything else which does not constitute part of a solution to a specific physical problem and offer a mathematically consistent resolution to that problem&#8212;anything which, in other words, is one or another version of Rob Redmond's invisible purple snarg&#8212;the entity posited will not be taken seriously, nor should it be. Ockham's Razor is a severe test, but it's been the best friend real inquiry&#8212;as vs fantasizing about what might or might not be in a vacuum of careful measurements and replicable results&#8212;has ever had. I think you've seriously misread the point of Ninjamom's post. Her comments are 110% in line with the best scientific methodology we've ever had.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

exile said:


> From the point of view of physical theory, K, what you've just said is way off the mark. First of all, you're factually incorrect about the existence of 'a dozen or more "hypothetical" particles, at least in the Standard Theory (the framework in which the electroweak unification of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, the single deepest theory of the forces of nature so far confirmed, is framed; if we're talking about String Theory, now definitely on the defensive and likely to be abandoned within the next decade, that's a different storyand one of the major targets it's wearing is precisely those hypothetical particle partners of known elementary particles). There is exactly one: the Higgs boson. And this particle has been proposed as solution to the problem of linking the two 'outcome fields' of the unified electroweak field. The electromagnetic interaction particle, the photon, is massless. The vector boson interaction particles of the weak nuclear force are massive. Yet they are, mathematically, different instantiations of the same particle, since the two fields themselves are different manifestations of the same field. The Higgs field provides an elegant and formally precise way of associating mass with massless particle; given the formalism of non-Abelian guage field theories, the existence of a Higgs field _entails_ the existence of a vector particle with certain very specific quantitative characteristics. If the Higgs particle is detected, it will be the final brick in the most predictively successful theory of anything that the human species has yet devised. If the Higgs particle turns out to be undetectable under conditions where it should manifest itself, then its existence will be in serious doubt, and the nature of the unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces will have to be rethought, from the ground up. There are several alternative versions of this unification which will then become prime candidates for further investigation.
> 
> That's how we wound up where we are in science: very precise theories to explain observed effects, whose consequences entail other phenomena, which are either observed and tend to confirm those precise theories, or force refinements in them that may be only quantitative (an additional planet, Neptune, posited to explain the perturbed orbit of one of Uranus' moons) or dramatically quantitative (quantum mechanics displacing Newtonian physics as our model of the fundamental level of nature). But in every single case, there were mathematically precise, quantitatively exact theories in place which offered an impressive range of empirical coverage of _most_ of the data; the small remainder then had to be accounted for by positing further modificationssome of which were minor, and some of which, as I noted, were paradigm-changers.
> 
> If someone posits a subatomic particle , or quantum field, or spatial dimension, or anything else which does not constitute part of a solution to a specific physical problem and offer a mathematically consistent resolution to that problem, the entity posited will not be taken seriously, nor should it be. Ockham's razor is a severe test, but it's been the best friend real inquiryas vs fantasizing about what might or might not be in a vacuum of careful measurements and replicable resultshas ever had. I think you've seriously misread the point of Ninjamom's post. Her comments are 110% in line with the best scientific methodology we've ever had.


 
I accept all you say from a scientific point of view. Thank you for broadening my understanding. However, it has no bearing on the current discussion. I will say, as fact, our scientific understanding of subatomic particles is much different now than it was 50 years ago and leave it at that. I am not suggesting ki is anthing to do with sub-atomic particles, physics, calculus, asteral projection or any other notion somebody would like to postulate. All I am trying to ask is, why can't we discuss ki, in whatever dimension you like, without using emotive language to dismiss it an BS? Most people would refrain from posting on the subject for fear of being labeled irrational or stupid or whatever. Nobody can disprove ki just as nobody can disprove a divine being (not that I'm equating the two). 

All I am asking is for those people who would like to discuss what they believe to be ki, to be able to do so without people, who don't believe in ki, derailing the discussion. If you want a discussion on the existance of ki I will start a new thread for you all to get together and confirm your scepticism. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2009)

With the "you have no proof it doenst exist" argument...well I could argue the existence of tiny wizards living in my body using their magic to run my Ki system by that standard.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> With the "you have no proof it doenst exist" argument...well I could argue the existence of tiny wizards living in my body using their magic to run my Ki system by that standard.


 
Mate, go for it. If you have little wizards floating inside I will be the last person to take your belief from you. However, please keep them under control as I would hate them to run amok with the fairies at the bottom of my garden. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




PS I did ask people to avoid the use of the word magic! If you have wizards doing the work it isn't magic.


----------



## Carol (Mar 24, 2009)

I'm still trying to get the voices in my head to start paying rent.... :idunno: :lol:


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2009)

K-man said:


> I accept all you say from a scientific point of view. Thank you for broadening my understanding. However, it has no bearing on the current discussion.



No, I think, and will argue below, that it has _everything_ to do with the current discussion.



K-man said:


> I will say, as fact, our scientific understanding of subatomic particles is much different now than it was 50 years ago and leave it at that. I am not suggesting ki is anthing to do with sub-atomic particles, physics, calculus, asteral projection or any other notion somebody would like to postulate. All I am trying to ask is, why can't we discuss ki, in whatever dimension you like, without using emotive language to dismiss it an BS?



The problem, K, is this, I think. Arguments about the 'existence' of something are inherently linked to the work that is done by positing the existence of that thing. The only entity that we have a priori reason to believe in the existence of is ourselves, because we are aware firsthand only of our own consciousness&#8212;Descartes' _cogito_. And what Decartes was doing in his famour epigram was making an epistemological point: the only thing whose existence we can be sure of is ourselves, since we have no immediate knowledge of anything other than our own minds. Everything else we posit is a matter of _inference_&#8212;and we need good and sufficient reason to make that inference. What constitutes good and sufficient reason is, of course, itself a matter of debate. But if we exclude the position of radical skeptics, guys like Berkeley for whom _nothing_ but our own minds could be assumed to exist, then it's clear that the existence of some entity X receives incremental support as the number of problems its existence eliminates increases.  Conversely, if positing the existence of X does absolutely no work at all, then positing it violates the basic premise underlying all of our successful inquiry to date: _an account of the world which multiplies entities which do no work is inferior to an account without such entitites_. That's the whole point of Redmond's purple snarg thought experiment that I linked to in my previous post.

Now the problem with Ki, or Qi, or Chi, is that so far, there is not a single thing that the concept seems to do that requires us to posit it. Redmond's examples here are very much to the point: 



> When asked for examples of effects for which ki would be the cause, the following are usually cited.
> 
> High Levels of Martial Skill is sometimes credited to an ability to harness and manipulate hidden flowing energies. However, physical training and other factors are better explanations for which we possess mountains of evidence. There is no way to remove these causes for the effect of good skills in the martial arts, therefore it is impossible to find another cause. In order to assert that ki were to be credited for martial arts abilities, someone would have to demonstrate an effect for which there could be no other cause in order for ki to be a reasonable explanation. For example, if a martial artist could levitate in a laboratory and on demand anywhere anytime, then we might speculate as to the cause of this effect.
> 
> Accupunture&#8217;s Effectiveness Against Pain is sometimes shown as evidence that there is ki. But, this has been shown to be a physical effect on the way the nervous system behaves. At some point in their history, the Chinese came up with &#8220;chi&#8221; (or borrowed the idea from someone else) as a life force that flows through the body which acupuncture is able to affect. They were trying to explain the effects of acupuncture and other things, and they were operating in the dark, so they came up with ki as a reasonable explanation. However, we now know the real cause. Thus, this is no longer a reason to believe in ki because of this effect.



Redmond alludes to other possible effects that might motivate ki/Qi/Chi, scrutinizes them, and then concludes:



> The point is that there is nothing we observe in our world which calls for ki to explain it.
> 
> This concept is difficult to explain, but it all comes down to this: If there is not something that needs ki to explain it, then coming up with ki first and the thing it causes second is usually evidence of invention, hallucination, or deception.
> 
> Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to believe in ki, since there is nothing that you see in the world as an effect which cannot be explained without using ki to explain it. For those things we do not understand, ki does not explain them. For the effects that ki can supposedly have, there is no effect.



And note that Redmond doesn't overlook the way the 'translation' issue ("Japanese _ ki _ = English 'energy', so what's the big deal??"). As he observes:



> When challenged, some point to ki as being not an explanation of any paranormal activity, but rather that it is a handy catch-all term that encompasses the mundane. For example, one instructor said that ki only represents good mechanics and solid training. Another wrote, &#8220;It is just your life force that is the manifestation of all the electro-chemical reactions going on in your body. It&#8217;s energy - that&#8217;s all.&#8221;
> 
> Well, that&#8217;s fine. I believe in all of that. However, I don&#8217;t feel the need to dress it up in a fancy suit by using the Japanese word for &#8220;energy.&#8221; Besides, it reads like excuse-making to me. It sounds like someone has been using the term ki in their karate instruction, the same way they heard it, and they are not quite ready to admit to themselves that using it has not been a good idea. It reads to me like political weaseling, &#8220;I voted for that bill, but only because I believed it would not pass.&#8221;
> 
> ...



I think Redmond's points here are 100% on the mark. There either is something that the word ki points to which is not explained by our best physical theories, or there isn't. If there isn't, than Ockham's razor kicks in automatically and pitilessly. If there is, then, as Redmond quite correctly insists on, _the burden of proof lies on those who are urging the existence of whatever it is that this sense of ki denotes_. That means, showing what work ki actually does&#8212;what _specific_ results it yields.

And this is the reason why my previous posts about postulating as yet unobserved subatomic particles is completely germane to the point. Because the only reason for positing such particles is that&#8212;as in the case of the Higgs particle&#8212;the existence of such entities reduces the apparent complexity and patternlessness of the world. Only such particles have been posited in modern physics which have this explanatory yield, and the explanatory payoff that confirmation of their existence would give us is the reason why they have been investigated so relentlessly. What Ninjamom, Redmond and many others are saying is that there is nothing even remotely comparable for the concept 'ki' to do _beyond _ what is done by the very prosaic sense of 'energy' (defined as the capacity to do work, i.e, impose structure beyond the random equilibrium state) . And if saying, _X occurs because of energy_ isn't very illuminating as it stands, then substituting _ki_ for 'energy' isn't going to be any _more_ illuminating.




K-man said:


> Most people would refrain from posting on the subject for fear of being labeled irrational or stupid or whatever. Nobody can disprove ki just as nobody can disprove a divine being (not that I'm equating the two).



K, if something can be neither proved or disproved, then the question of its existence is inherently meaningless, because, by its very nature, it can have no material interaction with the world. That's why a nonfalsifiable hypothesis simply doesn't get a place at the table. I don't _need_ to disprove the existence of _ki_, as Redmond's essay nicely underscores. The burden of proof is on someone who's _positing_ ki to show that it yields a more satisfactory picture of the world (i.e., does more work, by accounting for specific, replicable results of observation) than assuming that there is no such thing. Again, my comments in my previous post are exactly relevant here: that's the whole reason why people have posited the Higgs particle, and why they are moving heaven, earth and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to create the conditions in which it should, if it exists, reveal itself. I hate to keep repeating the point, but read what Redmond has to say about invisible purple snargs, and where the burden of proof lies, and why it lies there.



K-man said:


> All I am asking is for those people who would like to discuss what they believe to be ki, to be able to do so without people, who don't believe in ki, derailing the discussion. If you want a discussion on the existance of ki I will start a new thread for you all to get together and confirm your scepticism. :asian:



Regardless of whether you want to listen to what those of us who ask for basic standards of proof to be met are saying, everything that transpires in any discussion between 'ki-believers' is subject to the same conditions that I've been talking about above. If people want to get together to talk about invisible purple snargs without the objection that the concept receives no support from anything like a replicable body of results, that's fine; it doesn't change the fact that the concept receives no support from anything like a replicable body of results. 

And please note that *the OP actually was trying to posit a 'scientific' model for ki*, so that issues of scientific methodology, in all its unapologetic harshness, are 100% relevant to this thread.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'm still trying to get the voices in my head to start paying rent.... :idunno: :lol:


 
Have you threatened them with eviction?


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 25, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Actually, if you want to talk about 'insulting and offensive', one thing that always bothers me in these types of discussions is that they almost always degenerate at some point to a knee-jerk reaction to questions and criticisms from some ardent ki-believer, with the upshot that we non-believers have some defect because of our western mindset and our unwillingness to accept your premiss. Why do you assume that those of us who reject the existence of this force/energy called 'ki' do so out-of-hand, or for a lack of serious reasons, or because of an unwillingness to believe, or because we haven't researched it enough? Did it even occur to you that many of us have researched it and have sought evidence, and instead of finding evidence for the existence of 'ki' have found positive evidence that it doesn't meet any of its alleged claims?
> 
> As a physicist I can tell you that there is no force or energy (in the usual, accepted meaning of the word) that is both unmeasureable and can have a positive, macroscopic effect on your martial arts practice. The sizes of the forces involved in classical Newtonian physics (mainly gravity in this case), along with conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, application of the Impulse-Momentum theorem, and the use of the body's natural 'simple machines' account for everything you need to explain all of the phenomena actually measureable in the ring.
> 
> ...


 
If you are commenting on my posts, all I was doing was trying to explain how I used Ki, what I was told it was and how I practiced and developed it, being as honest and forthcoming as possible and it seemed that some posters put forward that I was using "magic tricks" and implying that I was some kind of BS artist tricking people and myself in some way for my own ego boost. That is what I found insulting and offensive.....NOT anyone's non belief in it. 

I don't care if anyone believes it or not makes no difference to me at all. I was just trying to share what I have learned with other people. Using words that, as you said, have specific meaning like *magic tricks* or *tricks* does have a specific meaning and intention and again that is what I found to be insulting and offensive.

I would love to give my students a more detailed explanation of what ki is but, Universal energy focused by the mind is all I have. I am not a physicist like you and have no clue about newtonian or quantum physics, although I am a Stationary Engineer (High pressure boilers, steam turbines and ammonia refrigeration) and do have to live in the physics realm (Boyle's law, charles law, potential and kinetic energys, shear, longitudinal and compressive stresses, ect.) as well as chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics so the science aspect is not beyond my way of thought.

If I offended you or anyone else in this thread it was not my intention.

Michael


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

> I think it is unwise to use a paranormal sounding term,


 Who said it was a paranormal word.



> There is no English equivalent for the catch-all idiomatic expression ki.





> energy,


 Hey look an English equivalent word when you said there was none but you then said the word talk about irony.



> these false explanations and beliefs in magic energy forces tapped by acupuncture needles and then broadcast out over the airwaves to convince us that we never really went to the moon and that Elvis is alive.


 Thats the problem You think this is what Qi is and then get mad because you can't find something to fit your defination its like trying to prove a negative. Who said Qi was a magic energy force didn't you say it just means energy? 



> There either is something that the word ki points to which is not explained by our best physical theories,


 See in Japan and China they did not speak English they spoke Chinese and Japanese so they did not know how to say the English word energy instead they spoke Chinese and said Qi and the Japanese said Ki.


> who ask for basic standards of proof


 What proof do you want? I already define the word literally meaning steam from rice that exist go cook rice to see. I showed the word means energy and if we are talking about human energy well heat is a form of energy in the form of temperature. So there you go proof of Qi(energy)


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 25, 2009)

Aikicomp said:


> If you are commenting on my posts, all I was doing was trying to explain how I used Ki, what I was told it was and ..... some posters put forward that I was using "magic tricks" and implying that I was some kind of BS artist tricking people ........ That is what I found insulting and offensive.....NOT anyone's non belief in it.
> 
> >
> >
> ...


Thank you, Michael.  That was very kind and gracious of you to even consider that you might have offended someone and to seek to set the record straight.  I fully appreciate your position, and your feeling of being insulted when your beliefs and/or personal integrity are challenged.  My post was actually in direct response to your comment, but probably 'amped up' a notch because I have heard so many people so often take a similar-sounding approach, where they are in fact making large assumptions about the integrity and motives of the 'non-ki-believers'.



> I would love to give my students a more detailed explanation of what ki is but, Universal energy focused by the mind is all I have. I am not a physicist like you and have no clue about newtonian or quantum physics, although I am a Stationary Engineer (High pressure boilers, steam turbines and ammonia refrigeration) and do have to live in the physics realm (Boyle's law, charles law, potential and kinetic energys, shear, longitudinal and compressive stresses, ect.) as well as chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics so the science aspect is not beyond my way of thought.


Very interesting!  Your list of areas of expertise brings up what is actually my biggest single concern in the whole 'ki' discussion.  In all the areas you listed (Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, theories of stress/shear, energy, chemistry, thermo, fluids), the scientific method allows us to do one very important thing: *make predictions*.  For instance, between Boyle's and Charles' laws, I can take any closed system of known pressure, volume, and temperature, and tell you what happens when I change the pressure and volume.  Or change the temperature and volume.  Or change the temperature and pressure.  If I couple that with the known stress data, I can even tell you if the pipe welds will fail at specifc temperatures.  

The same thing happens with the theories of chemistry, thermodynamics, and  fluid dynamics.  I can predict if a certain airfoil will give enough lift to make a plane fly.  I can use these theories to 'tweek' fuel mixtures for the most efficient burn rates and control of engine temperature.  In other words, I can use these scientific theories and explanations to make *improvements*.

Now consider again Newtonian physics and body mechanics.  I can actually use these theories to make measurable improvements in my martial arts.  Being somewhat on the smaller side, I know that I have to lower my center of gravity if I want to knock someone over, and that I need to increase my speed to make up for my lower mass.  To throw or sweep, I need to make more efficent use of gravity by getting my opponent's center of gravity somewhere other than over his own feet.  To apply joint locks on someone much larger than I am, I have to keep my arms/hands closer to my centerline, to make more efficient use of leverage.  Likewise, I can get more power in kicks and punches by adding torque from my lower body/hips.

Now here's my concern about the ki discussion.  (Kudos to you if you are still reading this!)  Consider again the concept of 'ki'.  Can you make a list of specific predictions along the lines of, "If you do a., b., and c., your martial arts performance will improve by x., y., and z.," using only the theory of ki?  If you cannot, then that would *not* prove ki doesn't exist.  However, it would prove that ki is irrelevant to my study of martial arts.  

And when I say 'irrelevant', please don't take that as a judgemental or harsh word - I personally love studying about the Mayan culture and history.  (These are the people who gave the world *both* chocolate *and* vanilla, for goodness sake!!)  But I honestly have to say that my study of Mayan civilization is irrelevant to my practice of the martial arts.




JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Who said Qi was a magic energy force ?


JCA, I think it was you, in an earlier post, who asked a question along the lines, "What do the non-believers in ki actually think ki is?"  I actually think this is one of the biggest obstacles to an intelligent discussion about ki/chi/qi.  Who said ki was a magical energy?  Several others on many other forums.  Several people in this thread have said it's an energy, that it's a force, that it is unmeasureable, and that it will improve your martial arts practice.  In fact, if you ask everyone on this thread who believes in ki, what their definition of ki is, you will get just as many different answers.  This makes any attempt at discussion of ki impossible.

Could I please request that the folks on this thread who believe ki exists get together and come up with some kind of 'working definition'?  It doesn't have to be perfect, but if you could get a list of four or five things about ki that you all agree on (what it is, what it's like, what it does), then we could have a discussion, limited to only those particular aspects of ki.



> I already define the word literally meaning steam from rice that exist go cook rice to see. I showed the word means energy and if we are talking about human energy well heat is a form of energy in the form of temperature. So there you go proof of Qi(energy)


Actually, chi/qi doesn't mean steam-coming-from-rice or energy, even though the symbol is a picture of steam over a rice pot.  The actual word means 'breath' (much like 'pneuma' in Koine Greek means 'breath', and therefore by extension, 'spirit').  For instance, if you want to talk about the wind or weather in Chinese, you would talk about the 'breath (qi) of heaven'.  I agree that 'breath', 'wind', 'energy', and 'spirit' all exist, but I see any attempt at trying to link all those very different concepts together by use of a single all-encompassing term as artificial.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

> JCA, I think it was you, in an earlier post, who asked a question along the lines, "What do the non-believers in ki actually think ki is?" I actually think this is one of the biggest obstacles to an intelligent discussion about ki/chi/qi. Who said ki was a magical energy? Several others on many other forums. Several people in this thread have said it's an energy, that it's a force, that it is unmeasureable, and that it will improve your martial arts practice. In fact, if you ask everyone on this thread who believes in ki, what their definition of ki is, you will get just as many different answers. This makes any attempt at discussion of ki impossible.


 
Qi and Ki do not translate as Magic energy. If you are going to use magic in the term with Qi or Ki you would have to use Ling(supernatural in Chinese) or Majyutu(magic) in Japanese. Shugendo monks use the term "Gen" to mean Magic as well.



> Actually, chi/qi doesn't mean steam-coming-from-rice or energy, even though the symbol is a picture of steam over a rice pot.


If we look at the radicals and make up the word Qi we get Mi,Yun,Chih. Thistranslates literally as steam from cooking rice. The Hanzi for breath would be Xi or correctly Bi Xi meaning nose breathing in Japanese the word would be Hana iki (nose breathing)The Ki in iki is in fact a different Kanji then the Ki meaning energy.


> you would talk about the 'breath (qi) of heaven'


 This would be in Chinese Tian Qi in Japanese Tenki which does literally mean Heavens energy not breath if a native read it. If we translate that into modern english it would translate as weather like you said. But IMO I feel Tian Qi and Tenki represent all energies in that area same as Bi Qi or Chikyuu ki(meaning Earth energy) would represent Geothermal and all of Earth energy produced.



> I agree that 'breath', 'wind', 'energy', and 'spirit' all exist, but I see any attempt at trying to link all those very different concepts together by use of a single all-encompassing term as artificial.


 
Breath as I said before is Xi or iki or kokyuu. Wind in Chinese in  is Feng(like Feng Shui) in Japanese it is Kaze. Energy in Chinese is Qi in Japanese it is Ki. Spirit in Chinese is Shen in Japanese it is Seishin. So no Qi does not mean any of those it simply means energy you need to put another word next to it to dicuss what type of energy. I also want to address that when talking about Qi you have the medical side of TCM and the Religious side. How much of this influence the martial is debatable. However IMO the Qi that was used in martial is talking about weight lifting type calisthenics and it is doubtful there was any supernatural meaning except used in the religious setting like Taoism.

Taoist thought Farts were Qi escaping which is why they avoided the Onion family.


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

Guys, for a while there I thought we were bashing our heads into the wall. Now I feel this discussion is really starting to achieve something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Really interesting reading.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

> I thought we were bashing our heads into the wall.


 
This topic hurts my head.


----------



## K-man (Mar 25, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Now consider again Newtonian physics and body mechanics. I can actually use these theories to make measurable improvements in my martial arts. Being somewhat on the smaller side, I know that I have to lower my center of gravity if I want to knock someone over, and that I need to increase my speed to make up for my lower mass. To throw or sweep, I need to make more efficent use of gravity by getting my opponent's center of gravity somewhere other than over his own feet. To apply joint locks on someone much larger than I am, I have to keep my arms/hands closer to my centerline, to make more efficient use of leverage. Likewise, I can get more power in kicks and punches by adding torque from my lower body/hips.
> 
> Now here's my concern about the ki discussion. (Kudos to you if you are still reading this!) Consider again the concept of 'ki'. Can you make a list of specific predictions along the lines of, "If you do a., b., and c., your martial arts performance will improve by x., y., and z.," using only the theory of ki? If you cannot, then that would *not* prove ki doesn't exist. However, it would prove that ki is irrelevant to my study of martial arts.
> 
> ...


 
The first paragraph here is obviously the starting point. This is what we learn from a very early age when we are wrestling in the schoolyard and rough and tumble with our mates. We study it in more depth in the martial arts, especially in wrestling (if you consider wrestling a MA), judo, jujitsu, grappling etc. As you rightly point out, we drop our COG to increase stability, we use speed to increase the effect of mass, we develop torque from hips and waist to increase power in our strikes and kicks. All this is measurable and all this fits comfortably within our current understanding of body mechanics. However, there is an elephant in the room that most people ignore. There will always be someone bigger, stronger and faster than any of us. That problem will increase exponentially as we get older. Now we all probably realize that as we get older, and I put myself in that older category, we use our brain more to supplement our physical ability. We don't waste energy jumping around as much, we don't do flashy kicks that use lots of energy, we move off the line (tsabaki) more and we learn to absorb rather than clash. Call it experience or what you will, it is still able to be explained by logical mechanical theory. But we still end up the same ... older, weaker and slower.
In the words of the old song (paraphrased and modified) _"Is that all there is to MA? Is that all there is?"_

Here is the point where most of my friends from years back have said "I'm too old for this s**t. My body won't take any more!" And, I think that is sad because I believe shifting to a softer form of MA can prolong our lives as martial artists. Now, softness is also explained by body mechanics. The next step in my exploration of the MAs was being introduced to a very talented aikidoka who teaches ki and it has tranformed my ideas and changed my teaching.

Now we come to your really big question, what is ki? As you point out ask ten people and you will probably get ten answers. In my understanding of ki I can think of at least three or four statements , some of which may even seem contradictory. How can I state those thoughts in a logical way that other people with no experiece of ki could understand?

I will start by listing two. The first is the conventional form of ki we were taught in karate over the past 30 years to my knowledge and probably before that. We were taught that if we developed 'ki' body and ki was strong. The more the ki the stronger we become. Ki gave us the power to break boards, overcome opponents etc. You can still explain this in rational terms and equate ki with determination. When somebody loses the will to fight or the will to live they have lost their ki. 
The second is harder to accept. Along the same thought process though is the concept that if we could use our thought processes or ki to overcome our opponent's mind and influence or remove his ki, could we remove his will to resist? Remember the initial concept here, body + ki = strong .. body - ki = weak.

I have deliberately not defined ki but just described a couple of concepts that others may like to expand on. :asian:


----------



## morph4me (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm going to take a shot here and theorize that early martial artists found that they could do incredible things when they relaxed and balanced, and when they moved their bodies as a unit. They also found that these things happened when they were breathing and moving a certain way, but the didn't make the connection between their physical performance and their mental state, or that they didn't know how to explain it, so the used the commonly undertstood concept of ki to explain what they did.  Over the years language changed, tranlations and mistranslations came into effect and the word ki, came to mean something entirely different. As I look at the discussion to this point, I'm beginning to think that everyone is describing opposite sides of the same coin.


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 26, 2009)

K-man said:


> I will start by listing two. The first is the conventional form of ki we were taught in karate over the past 30 years to my knowledge and probably before that. We were taught that if we developed 'ki' body and ki was strong. The more the ki the stronger we become. Ki gave us the power to break boards, overcome opponents etc. You can still explain this in rational terms and equate ki with determination. When somebody loses the will to fight or the will to live they have lost their ki.
> The second is harder to accept. Along the same thought process though is the concept that if we could use our thought processes or ki to overcome our opponent's mind and influence or remove his ki, could we remove his will to resist? Remember the initial concept here, body + ki = strong .. body - ki = weak.
> 
> I have deliberately not defined ki but just described a couple of concepts that others may like to expand on. :asian:


 
Thanks for some ieas of what Ki does.

However, neither of those phenomenon need Ki as an explanation.  I break a board by moving my strikign surface fast through the board.  If I move fast enough and impart enough kinetic energy into the board, it will start to bend.  If enough energy goes into the baord, this bending will eventually exceed the baord's ability to rebound back into shape and it will break.  to mvoe fast and precisely, this takes a certain mental focus, lack of fear...etc...but no special energy, no special explanation.  I'll leave it to exile and ninjamom to best explain what I'm groping at here. 

In your second phenomenon, you're getting into the realm of psychology (my field).  Intent, focus, state of mind,...all of that has so much to do with how one performs.  In the end, these nebulous psychological concepts can ultimately be reduced to phsycial process (the interaction of neurons, neurotransimetters, hormones, etc. in perhaps one of the most complicated computing systems in existence, the human brain).  I don't see that as Ki.  Or more precisely, I don't need Ki to explain what you are describing.   

In fact, the two examples you posted really talk about two different things.  One is a physical process (breaking a board), the other addressing mental processes (state of mind, focus. intent).  I;d say, while related, are really two different things and I feel having one catch-all concept is at best, messy.   

To those who feel my earlier posts were inuslting.  I'm sorry.  It never was my intent to come off as disrespectful.  When I referred tyo tricks and magic, it is because I see some of the standard Ki demosntrations as being best explained in those terms. I was not trying to say the Ki believers are huxsters.  In fact, most people I know who have done these demonstrations believe in what they are doing.  I was and am simply saying that I think the explanation is something other than ki. 

Again, there are some fascinating phenomenon in the world and all i wish to do is understand them.  to do that, I feel it is necessary to avoid imprscise or clouded theories that get in the way of said understanding.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> However, neither of those phenomenon need Ki as an explanation. I break a board by moving my strikign surface fast through the board. If I move fast enough and impart enough kinetic energy into the board, it will start to bend. If enough energy goes into the baord, this bending will eventually exceed the baord's ability to rebound back into shape and it will break. to mvoe fast and precisely, this takes a certain mental focus, lack of fear...etc...but no special energy, no special explanation. I'll leave it to exile and ninjamom to best explain what I'm groping at here.
> 
> In your second phenomenon, you're getting into the realm of psychology (my field). Intent, focus, state of mind,...all of that has so much to do with how one performs. In the end, these nebulous psychological concepts can ultimately be reduced to phsycial process (the interaction of neurons, neurotransimetters, hormones, etc. in perhaps one of the most complicated computing systems in existence, the human brain). I don't see that as Ki. Or more precisely, I don't need Ki to explain what you are describing.
> 
> In fact, the two examples you posted really talk about two different things. One is a physical process (breaking a board), the other addressing mental processes (state of mind, focus. intent). I;d say, while related, are really two different things and I feel having one catch-all concept is at best, messy.


As I said, there are multiple explanations as to what people understand  as ki.  It is always going to be 'messy' as nothing is clear cut. 
Once again, I was deliberately using the most simple explanations that most people can grasp.  The board breaking involves us to strengthen our resolve and in this case my mind is on the other side of the board, where I want my hand to end up. I am not really paying attention to the face of the board. My belief is that my fist will carry through to the point I have in mind and nothing in the way will stop that happening. Same concept, just a little more developed.

The second concept is the one that seems to upset most people. That is that we can use our thought processes to disrupt the thought processes of another. Now if phycology is your field I would be delighted to read your thoughts on this aspect. :asian:


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 27, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Thank you, Michael. That was very kind and gracious of you to even consider that you might have offended someone and to seek to set the record straight. I fully appreciate your position, and your feeling of being insulted when your beliefs and/or personal integrity are challenged. My post was actually in direct response to your comment, but probably 'amped up' a notch because I have heard so many people so often take a similar-sounding approach, where they are in fact making large assumptions about the integrity and motives of the 'non-ki-believers'.
> 
> Your welcome and thanks.
> 
> ...


 
I do not know if this is the kind of thing you're looking for, but, it's a couple of examples I can relate from personal experience of how using Ki helped me. 

Michael


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 27, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> To those who feel my earlier posts were inuslting. I'm sorry. It never was my intent to come off as disrespectful. When I referred tyo tricks and magic, it is because I see some of the standard Ki demosntrations as being best explained in those terms. I was not trying to say the Ki believers are huxsters. In fact, most people I know who have done these demonstrations believe in what they are doing. I was and am simply saying that I think the explanation is something other than ki.
> 
> Again, there are some fascinating phenomenon in the world and all i wish to do is understand them. to do that, I feel it is necessary to avoid imprscise or clouded theories that get in the way of said understanding.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you I appreciate your response. Sometimes the typed word is difficult to interpret as far as intent and may sometimes be taken the wrong way. It seems this is what I did, I apologize.

Is Ki some mystical, magical phenomenom? I doubt it. 

Is Ki (by name only) sometimes used by some in a situation where people will be awed by the persons "apparent" powers when they are really using the physics applications you and NM speak of. Unfortunately Yes.

Then there are those of us who do speak of it as honestly and openly as possible and are looking for the same explanations and origins for the phenomenon that is called Ki. 

I think it has more to do with mental or nuerological focusing of it than anything else. 

An analogy I like to use is Ki is like the water in a fire hydrant (potential energy) our minds are like the fire truck's pump (vessel or medium) and application of ki (kinetic energy) is like the water exiting the firehose.

Water from a hydrant really has no focus it's just there, its when it is focused and applied through a medium it then has the avenue to put out fire.

Ah hell, it's late and I'm tired. I hope this makes sense to someone other than me. LOL

Michael


----------



## bluekey88 (Mar 27, 2009)

K-man said:


> The second concept is the one that seems to upset most people. That is that we can use our thought processes to disrupt the thought processes of another. Now if phycology is your field I would be delighted to read your thoughts on this aspect. :asian:


 
Welp....in the situation you describe...all explanations I have heard of regarding htis seem to fall into two basic camps. In one camp, the peson focusing their ki/intent/will, etc. is somehow imparting that onto their opponenet and mentally attacking them in a way. I don't buy it. Why? Because in studies of this, when the person doing the intent and focus is out of sight of the target, invariably nothing happens. So, there cannot be some manipulation of energy between two beings in this case.

The other explanation is that we, as human beings, take in a vast amount of information through our senses. Some of this info we process at a "concious" level. That is we are aware of th eincoming information and are able to think about it...what is called meta-cognition...thinking about thinking. BUT, there is vastly more incoming info 9stilumus) that we take in but do not process conciously. Like an ice berg, what we are aware of is the tip, the rest is beneath the surface. Some of this stimulus we can choose to attend to (listen for the buzz of flourescent lights somtimes. If you think about it, you'll hear it...otherwise it doesn't enter the realm of consiousness much). In fact, it is thought that the sensory integration issues foten seen in Autism and some forms of schizophrenia is due in part to a break down of this stimulus filtering system (basically, these people are less/more able to filter some stimuli and are either hyper-sensitive or hypo-sensitive to stimuli)

It is this natuaral ability that allows us to attend to a conversation in a crowded room, pick out the faces of familiar people in a crwod, etc. it's a survival trait. So, we are taking more info in thatn we are conciosuly aware of...this information is still processsed and there are sections of the brain that kick in when they pick up on danger signals, etc. We read non-verbals (body language, expression, etc.) tone of voice, etc. so, in a martial context, if I am focused, my intention to act is strong, my willingness to do bodily harm is uncompromised....people can read that. they might not be conciously aware of it...but they can read that. My oppionenet may be able to read 9if they have trained and practiced) any change in my intentions, any waivering of my resolve...perception is one of the thigns that comes with expertise. (lots of studies have looked into how experts don;t think differently than novices, jsut more efficiently due to how they chunk information and the amount of information they have access to due to their expereince). I don't see this as ki...no energy beyond light/sound/smell...the mundane senses tha allow us to perceive the world.

Humans are INCREDIBLY perceptive. One interesting study showed that men could detect a woman in an large arehouse 70-80% of the time. More so if sjhe was at th height of her fertiltiy cycle...this was most likely due to pheromones. It's really amazing...byt not what I'd call "ki." 

In the end, I'll buy that I can focus my ki and influence others when it can be shown that someone is doing that on an unsuspecting, neutral party that cannot see the focuser. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, any time this has been attempted, it has failed. Thus, other explanations that are consistent with the observations need to be sought. The research leads to eprceptions, attribution bias, social pressure to conform, etc.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 27, 2009)

me said:
			
		

> Consider again the concept of 'ki'. Can you make a list of specific predictions along the lines of, "If you do a., b., and c., your martial arts performance will improve by x., y., and z.," using only the theory of ki? If you cannot, then that would *not* prove ki doesn't exist. However, it would prove that ki is irrelevant to my study of martial arts.


 

 



Aikicomp said:


> That's a tough one but, I'll try.
> 
> 
> In Aikido, for example, when doing techniques (by using the above examples in your post concerning Newtonian physics) *you compromise your opponents balance by using harmony and timing, then at the proper time, when they are weakest, you complete your technique*. Do this to 20 people (just movement and technique alone) and you will become winded and tired. Now what I can predict is that by you using Ki all through and/or at the moment of completion of technique, after the same 20 attacks you will not become winded or tired.
> ...


 
Close - the kind of examples I'm asking for are more like specific things that I can *do*. It's hard to explain, because if you tell me to 'use my ki', and none of us on this thread can even agree on what ki is, I am at a loss for how to go about using it. In other words, it doesn't help me to improve my martial arts practice. 

However, if you tell me that concentrating on a certain place/site/location, or moving my arms in a certain manner, or taking three big breaths and one little one will increase my ki and then my martial arts practice will improve, then I can try those specific steps and see if they improve my practice or not.

I bolded a specific sentence in your response. I wasn't quite sure - are you saying that using harmony and timing in aikido is using Newtonian physics, or are you saying that using harmony and timing is what you mean by using ki?


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 30, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Close - the kind of examples I'm asking for are more like specific things that I can *do*. It's hard to explain, because if you tell me to 'use my ki', and none of us on this thread can even agree on what ki is, I am at a loss for how to go about using it. In other words, it doesn't help me to improve my martial arts practice.
> 
> However, if you tell me that *concentrating on a certain place/site/location*, (this is more of the idea mental imaging is how you first learn to use it) or *moving my arms in a certain manner* (there is no special way of moving body parts it's normal movement with Ki added to it)or taking three big breaths and one little one will increase my ki and then my martial arts practice will improve, then I can try those specific steps and see if they improve my practice or not.
> 
> ...




This is what I meant. I should have also added using re-direction to compromise their balance as well. When they are at their weakest you would not use strength to throw them, you would use normal technique with Ki added to it.

As I said before it's a hard thing to relate through the typed word and anything I have said probably confused you more (my fault, sorry). If you ever find yourself in NW NJ let me know and I can show you what I have been taught. My brother lives in MD and I visit him once in a while. If you are close to him when I come down I can let you know (if you wish) and maybe we can spend an hour or two working on it. If there are any Aikido schools around you I'm sure they will help you to understand it also. As goofy/silly/cliche as it sounds...it's really something that has to be felt in order to be learned and to be appreciated. Sorry I could not have been more help.

Michael


----------

