Ki is a hoax

[K-man]

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

So my challenge to all you doubters is:

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

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

:asian:

 

[blindsage]

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[jks9199]

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

So my challenge to all you doubters is:

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

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

:asian:

Interesting challenge.

But it can't be done.

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

 

[exile]

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

Prove the non-existance of Leprechauns.

 

[exile]

Prove the non-existance of Leprechauns.

Or invisible purple snargs.

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

 

[K-man]

Interesting challenge.

But it can't be done.

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

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

 

[Empty Hands]

Remember, perception is the reality.

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

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

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

 

[exile]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Twin Fist]

i believe in Chi

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

 

[Empty Hands]

i believe in Chi

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

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

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

'Ki does not meet this standard.'

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

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

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

 

[FeederOfTrolls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[exile]

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

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

Perception is my reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tellner]

The classic version of this is Russell's Teapot.

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

You asked a question

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

Great question.

 

[FeederOfTrolls]

The classic version of this is Russell's Teapot.

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