Ki is a hoax

[K-man]

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

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

Thank you for your considered post. It is among the few that really asks for a serious response.

Unfortunately we are on opposite sides of the globe. (I don't subscribe to flat earth

.) I genuinely invite anyone to come to training with me if they visit Australia and experience what I feel every session I train. No-one can provide evidence from afar. If I sent a video there is no doubt that people would claim the people were just falling down. I would be the first to say the same thing. It looks as if there is no resistance, because there isn't any. It is however not 'put on'. Anyone is free to come and as yet I have not seen anyone able to resist my sensei's ki. As he says, there will always be someone, but I haven't seen that person yet. I'm not talking of MMA cage fighting, I am just talking of the application of ki to enhance a technique.

I respect everyone's scepticism, I was there myself. I just wish that those who dismiss ki could respect other people's understanding as well.

 

[FeederOfTrolls]

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

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

Thank you for your considered post. It is among the few that really asks for a serious response.

Unfortunately we are on opposite sides of the globe. (I don't subscribe to flat earth

.) I genuinely invite anyone to come to training with me if they visit Australia and experience what I feel every session I train. No-one can provide evidence from afar. If I sent a video there is no doubt that people would claim the people were just falling down. I would be the first to say the same thing. It looks as if there is no resistance, because there isn't any. It is however not 'put on'. Anyone is free to come and as yet I have not seen anyone able to resist my sensei's ki. As he says, there will always be someone, but I haven't seen that person yet. I'm not talking of MMA cage fighting, I am just talking of the application of ki to enhance a technique.

I respect everyone's scepticism, I was there myself. I just wish that those who dismiss ki could respect other people's understanding as well.

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

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

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

Best of luck in you MA training!

 

[K-man]

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...



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?




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!?



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.)




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.




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!



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.

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

I am going to start at the end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Bruno@MT]

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

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

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

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

So if you can consciously control the body and the mind, you will have a controlled application of the ‘super powers’ that can be unlocked. And by using meditation / breathing techniques / ki / kuji-kiri, you can learn to do this.
But here is the thing : If you can use techniques to control the mind and body and take over the automatic processes, then this also means that if you don’t know what you are doing, you can royally **** yourself permanently.

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

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

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

See the following examples:

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

This is a case of mass hysteria, persuasion:

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

 

[Archangel M]

Just to lighten the mood.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

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

Qi literal meaning means the steam coming from cooked rice.

Thus I have proven Qi.

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

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

When it is translated into English it simply means energy.

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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:

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

Not true.

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

People perceived for centuries that the earth was flat. That perception was incorrect, as in reality, the earth is indeed not flat.

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

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

Daniel

 

[searcher]

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

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


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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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


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

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

Daniel

 

[sparky12]

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

Daniel

 

[exile]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far, no verifiable evidence has been presented that anybody has ever passed that test.

Daniel

 

[Xue Sheng]

Who cares?

And this is as pointless as the MMA vs TMA stuff

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

 

[Bruno@MT]

The bottom line is that you cannot claim that you can manipulate a force in an SD application and claim to be able to confer the skill to do so to others unless you can replicate it on someone whom you haven't trained as a nice compliant partner.

So far, no verifiable evidence has been presented that anybody has ever passed that test.

Daniel

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

 

[exile]

Who cares?

And this is as pointless as the MMA vs TMA stuff

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

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

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

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

 

[blindsage]

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

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

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

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

 

[Flying Crane]

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

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

If you say 'I have experienced it, and you can too, but the only way to do so is in person', there's nothing wrong with that. The question is how do you know what you are experiencing is ki? I've done some qigong, taijiquan, and bagua and I've experience the hot tingling feel of 'energy' in my hands, but the only reason I've ever had to believe it was ki was because someone said 'Feel that? That's ki.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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