Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)

[Midnight-shadow]

A while back, Beijing university of Traditional Chinese medicine (the Harvard of TCM in China) was working to find a way to study this kind of thing and their stance, last I knew, was anyone claiming to project Qi or use it to find or sense things, outside of themselves, by projecting it....were fake.

Is that what the OP is claiming to be able to do? Project Qi to sense objects? It's hard to tell because in all the videos they have linked, none of them even attempt to explain what they are doing. It's just "here is our amazing superpower, gaze in wonder!"

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I know of humans using echolocation like bats do to tell the size and position of objects around them by listening to the sound waves that bounce off those objects. This is well documented and researched by a number of different organisations. This isn't the case here however, and by looking purely at the videos, it seems all you need to do to use vibravision is wave your hand around a bit.

 

[oaktree]

Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.

OH...so you're saying in the north the DON'T use the scientific method!? Is THAT IT!!!!!!

 

[oaktree]

OH...so you're saying in the north the DON'T use the scientific method!? Is THAT IT!!!!!!

Hmm not sure wasn't with a northern girl long enough to find out

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A while back, Beijing university of Traditional Chinese medicine (the Harvard of TCM in China) was working to find a way to study this kind of thing and their stance, last I knew, was anyone claiming to project Qi or use it to find or sense things, outside of themselves, by projecting it....were fake.

And I think anyone making that claim has failed to update their usage. 1200 years ago, "chi" was an attempt to explain some phenomena. Today, we (as a people) can explain them more accurately. "Chi" is still a useful shorthand (I still refer to "ki" in my teaching, but my students know it as a shorthand), but shouldn't be used literally, or you end up believing things can be done that are not real. IMO.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And I think anyone making that claim has failed to update their usage. 1200 years ago, "chi" was an attempt to explain some phenomena. Today, we (as a people) can explain them more accurately. "Chi" is still a useful shorthand (I still refer to "ki" in my teaching, but my students know it as a shorthand), but shouldn't be used literally, or you end up believing things can be done that are not real. IMO.

Qi = energy.... that's about it

 

[Buka]

Chi whiz, I'm so confused.

 

[jobo]

Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.

the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The divining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration

 

[oaktree]

the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness. Of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The difivining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration

Why do you try to tell me how and what is done in Guangzhou university are you a student there do you know anyone there? My comment was what is done in Guangzhou university and unless you are a student or know someone who goes there your comment is meaningless.

Let me make it clearer, at Guangzhou university they do not just study Chinese medicine they actually study Western medicine and science and do Western experiments, from what I remember they do work on dead bodies and use rats and rabbits in Western science experiments.

 

[jobo]

Why do you try to tell me how and what is done in Guangzhou university are you a student there do you know anyone there? My comment was what is done in Guangzhou university and unless you are a student or know someone who goes there your comment is meaningless.

Let me make it clearer, at Guangzhou university they do not just study Chinese medicine they actually study Western medicine and science and do Western experiments, from what I remember they do work on dead bodies and use rats and rabbits in Western science experiments.

my reply was to the suggestion in your post that the scientific method was in someway automatically superior to the traditional method. When infact the scientific method gets faith healing results that it cant explain

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The divining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration

That's why a double-blind study is needed. If it's a placebo effect, it will show up on both sides of a properly-designed study. And, if it's a placebo effect, then it's not the treatment that's doing anything - it's the perception of a treatment.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

my reply was to the suggestion in your post that the scientific method was in someway automatically superior to the traditional method. When infact the scientific method gets faith healing results that it cant explain

Except that it doesn't. It fairly consistently shows a placebo effect, which will be roughly equal with the control and the placebo (hence the name). That illustrates that the target treatment isn't having a specific effect. If we test a new drug and find equal efficacy in the control (placebo) and treatment groups, then we can infer that the new drug may have very little efficacy, since a placebo was as effective.

 

[jobo]

That's why a double-blind study is needed. If it's a placebo effect, it will show up on both sides of a properly-designed study. And, if it's a placebo effect, then it's not the treatment that's doing anything - it's the perception of a treatment.

yea, but its impossible to tell what % of the real pill results are the treatment and which are faith.

but any successful result on the sugar pill side show the effectiveness of faith healing

 

[jobo]

Except that it doesn't. It fairly consistently shows a placebo effect, which will be roughly equal with the control and the placebo (hence the name). That illustrates that the target treatment isn't having a specific effect. If we test a new drug and find equal efficacy in the control (placebo) and treatment groups, then we can infer that the new drug may have very little efficacy, since a placebo was as effective.

well no, all that shows it the treatment is no more effective than faith healing, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in its own right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yea, but its impossible to tell what % of the real pill results are the treatment and which are faith.

but any successful result on the sugar pill side show the effectiveness of faith healing

It's actually not impossible to get a percentage. The differnce between control and treatment is the difference between the actual drug and a placebo. In other words, if the control group sees a 25% efficacy and the treatment group sees a 35% efficacy, we can infer that the treatment has approximately a 10% efficacy rate.

And, no, sugar pill isn't the same thing as "faith healing" effectiveness. That implies that it's the actual act of faith healing that conveys the improvement, but the control would show that any similar placebo has that same effectiveness. That does show that faith healing can be useful, in that it brings about the body's placebo-induced healing. But the faith healing process, itself, is a placebo. Anything similarly believed will have the same effect.

 

[jobo]

its also been observed that the colour of the pills has a marked effect on how good they are at treatment. And injected medicine, more effect that pills, this being true for both sides of the study

so even if you have the real pill, if its blue instead of red it won't be as effective

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well no, all that shows it the treatment is no more effective than faith healing, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in its own right.

Actually, it means precisely that. If a drug has no more effectiveness than a neutral placebo, then the drug isn't actually having a positive effect. It's just relying on the natural placebo effect, and the neutral placebo is equally effective, lacks side effects, is less expensive, etc. A drug showing an effect quite similar to a placebo is ineffective, as a drug. The same is true of any other treatment that doesn't significantly outperform a control (placebo).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its also been observed that the colour of the pills has a marked effect on how good they are at treatment. And injected medicine, more effect that pills, this being true for both sides of the study

so even if you have the real pill, if its blue instead of red it won't be as effective

In a properly controlled study, there would be no visible difference. Having that difference would make it no longer a double-blind study, and/or would introduce confounding variables.

 

[jobo]

It's actually not impossible to get a percentage. The differnce between control and treatment is the difference between the actual drug and a placebo. In other words, if the control group sees a 25% efficacy and the treatment group sees a 35% efficacy, we can infer that the treatment has approximately a 10% efficacy rate.

And, no, sugar pill isn't the same thing as "faith healing" effectiveness. That implies that it's the actual act of faith healing that conveys the improvement, but the control would show that any similar placebo has that same effectiveness. That does show that faith healing can be useful, in that it brings about the body's placebo-induced healing. But the faith healing process, itself, is a placebo. Anything similarly believed will have the same effect.

yes and a quarter of the control group got better with out a drug, how does that not support faith healing?

 

[jobo]

In a properly controlled study, there would be no visible difference. Having that difference would make it no longer a double-blind study, and/or would introduce confounding variables.

in controlled studies in to the placbo effect they have multiple groups and change to colour of the pills to see if that affects results.
if they get a higher cure rate with red pills, of both the real drug and the sugar pill, then its clear that red pills are more effective