The Existance of Chi

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I know of no chemicals that combine to form any type of electrical current in the body. Would you mind telling what chemicals these are? Cell mobility has nothing to do with electrical currents.

Charged particles cross the nerve synapses in the form of an ionic exchange. There are lots of chemicals called neurotransmitters that readily break ionic bonds to form transmission ions. In order to break a chemical bond, a small electrical impulse is required and this is caused by something called an electrochemical reaction. When the impulse reaches the muscles, the correct chemicals are released and the muscle contracts.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Charged particles cross the nerve synapses in the form of an ionic exchange. There are lots of chemicals called neurotransmitters that readily break ionic bonds to form transmission ions. In order to break a chemical bond, a small electrical impulse is required and this is caused by something called an electrochemical reaction. When the impulse reaches the muscles, the correct chemicals are released and the muscle contracts.

Right, we are talking about the origin of the "electric" current that causes the inonic bonds to break. chemical bonds are broken, and I will assume you mean hydrogen bonds, by enzymes, not by electrical impulses. The charged particles do cross the synapse of a nuron, but that is not what creates the electrical pulse, you said it yourself, the particles are allready chraged. Neurotransmitters include neuromodulators, neuroregulators, neuromediators, and neurohumors, whether or not acting at synapses. these "transmiters" do not break ionic bonds but rather regulate ion channels. This stimulus can be not only nurotransmiters but also a membrane potential, drug, or cytoplasmic messenger.

I'm sorry, this is really getting off topic. Regardless of who is correct here, I don't think chi exchange is electrical in any way, but rather an energy exchange.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I'm sorry, this is really getting off topic. Regardless of who is correct here, I don't think chi exchange is electrical in any way, but rather an energy exchange.

7sm

The electrical impulse breaks ionic bonds through electrolysis. Electrolysis is a process that uses H-bonds to carry negative charges. This is a cascading effect known as an electrochemical reaction.

As far as this discussion is concerned, this process is highly relevant if Chi is an electromagnetic force. Through little understood processes like biofeedback and the placebo effect, it may be possible to control these impulses to cause various biological effects. Isn't analogous to the concept of chi? Yet no one can shoot lightning from their fingertips that we know.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
The electrical impulse breaks ionic bonds through electrolysis. Electrolysis is a process that uses H-bonds to carry negative charges. This is a cascading effect known as an electrochemical reaction.

I think you are meaning hydrogen bonds, not ionic bonds. Electrolysis is simply the process of an electrical current passing through an aqueous solution causing a series of redox reactions which break apart the components of the solution. That has nothing to do with the electrical impulse of the body, such as the heart or muscular contraction at all.

Why are we arguing about organic chemistry when we are talking about Chi?

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
As far as this discussion is concerned, this process is highly relevant if Chi is an electromagnetic force. Through little understood processes like biofeedback and the placebo effect, it may be possible to control these impulses to cause various biological effects. Isn't analogous to the concept of chi? Yet no one can shoot lightning from their fingertips that we know.

I already said, I do not believe Chi to be an electromagnetic force, so this would me moot. Biofeedback and the placebo affect are techniques used heavily in psychology, but not in any way relevant to chi or energy transfer. I don't think anyone thinks that shooting lightening from their fingertips is relevant to Chi.
I certainly have said I do not think it is anything close to that. I said I believe it to be the transfer of energy from one person to another in the form of inertia, or force, not electric or magnetic or electromagnetic in any way.

7sm

 

[pete]

I believe it to be the transfer of energy from one person to another in the form of inertia, or force, not electric or magnetic or electromagnetic in any way. - 7sm

the inertia, or force you describe is the external muscular result of chi cultivated and harnessed from internal energy sources... basic life forces consisting of the electrical, magnetic, centrifugal from breath, circulatory, adrenal, nervous systems. chi cannot be described as any one of these, as it is all life forces working in concert.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by pete
the inertia, or force you describe is the external muscular result of chi cultivated and harnessed from internal energy sources... basic life forces consisting of the electrical, magnetic, centrifugal from breath, circulatory, adrenal, nervous systems. chi cannot be described as any one of these, as it is all life forces working in concert.

To a point I agree with you. However, it being a concert of all internal life forces, it is thus internal and not an external component to be "shot" or thrown at will. It is these forces being transfered not as a "shock" of electricity, or a repulsion as a magnet, but as a force of such like inertia. The force can travel until it is stopped. You can yield to the energy or force and it will not hurt you. It is only when the force finds something to stop it, that it hurts you. That could be your ribs, or more internal such as organs.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Why are we arguing about organic chemistry when we are talking about Chi?
7sm

We are talking about organic chemistry because chi is a biological function. It is something that occurs in the body and on a cellular level is nothing but the exchange of chemicals. Chi is not some mystical force. It is not something that "can never understand!" Everything in our lives is explainable through physical methods.

7sm take a look at electrolytic cascades. This process should explain nerve conduction. H bonds pass ions like hot potatoes until they reach thier destination. Then they cause a nucleophilic attack and spawn a whole new series of ions to begin a new series. Not too important.

My point is that what if we can really control this process? What if we can meditate to a point that we can manipulate our bodily functions on a cellular level? Wouldn't this account for the abilities given to "chi?"

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
My point is that what if we can really control this process? What if we can meditate to a point that we can manipulate our bodily functions on a cellular level? Wouldn't this account for the abilities given to "chi?"

Except that Chi cultivation and meditation are not combined. Some say the cultivation of chi is from meditation, while others ignor that meditation has anything whatsoever to do with chi cultivation.

You also said chi is the exchange of chemicals, if that were so, the exchange of chi would be an explination for the spread of pathogenically passed viruses and deseases. This is not so.

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

We are talking about organic chemistry because chi is a biological function.

No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.

True....sorta....

Here is what I said in a different post:

So either Chi exists, or it doesn't...it doesn't matter what I believe. It can either be proven to exist or it cannot because it doesn't.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence that it at least exists. Acupuncture lends us enough evidence of Chi, I believe. I think our real challange is in discovering a way of understanding how it works, how to measure it, how it may or may not be important to us, and what its limitations are (what it can and can't do). That, I think, is our real challange, not tryong to "prove" its existance which seems to me to have been already proven.

Also...

I watched (on Television) a brain surgury take place in Japan. The patient was awake and communicating the entire time; they used no anastetic other then acupuncture to redirect the electrical energy so that she wouldn't feel pain.

Now, if we want to distinguish these effects from a placebo, I guess we could cut into someones head without anastetic and w/o acupuncture, but we could only TELL them that it won't hurt. Would you like to volunteer your skull for the experiment...cause I ain't voluntering mine!

Acupuncture has been proven to "work" by the use of placebo in different Western Universities, such as UCLA. Acupuncture is based off "Chi". Now although we can't accurately measure "chi", the fact that acupuncture can work based off the principle of manipulating this "unseen energy" proves that it at least "exists."

Dispite what a lot of people seem to be saying here, Chi is not just an "idea". Its a physical energy, that can be proven or disproven, and measured (even if we don't know how to yet measure it). Now I know this takes a lot of the mysticism out of the equation for some of you, so I apoligize for ruining the fantasy.

So, if you (any of you, not directed at one person) want Chi to be an infinite unprovable energy, fine with me. I'm sure you can see dead people, communicate telapathically, and fly around out of body at night too. I, however, prefer hard science to explain things (when possible and available). Hard science says that it exists. If you don't like it, take it up with the medical community.

(I am now waiting for someone to tell me that gravity and water are only observable ideas also... )

So, in some cases (because "Chi" is not well defined) I can see how someone might say Chi to mean "thought" or "physical energy". So, this can be really confusing.

However, I think in a real sense, outside all the confusion, Chi exists as a quantifiable force that we have not been able to measure yet.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.

Well, phenomenon or not, consistently defined or not, its existence is felt and seen, so therefore is not theoretical but actual.
Subjective is a different story, those who know how to generate power in their punches through chi may view it one way, while those receiving the punch may view it another. Either way, it is still existent because it can be felt and seen.

7sm

 

[pete]

objectivity is subjective...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Well, phenomenon or not, consistently defined or not, its existence is felt and seen, so therefore is not theoretical but actual.

False. People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality."

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
False. People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality."

Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance.
Otherwise, falsy atributing the fault of an automobile accident to the wind would disprove the existence of wind.

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance. Otherwise, falsy atributing the fault of an automobile accident to the wind would disprove the existence of wind.

This is faulty logic at its worst. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something. You cannot prove a negative; therefore your objection is meaningless. You must prove chi exists -- and falsely attributing things to the concept of chi does not constitute proof of chi's existence. That is the whole point.

Sweet tusked existence. Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp. The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This is faulty logic at its worst. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something. You cannot prove a negative; therefore your objection is meaningless. You must prove chi exists -- and falsely attributing things to the concept of chi does not constitute proof of chi's existence. That is the whole point.

Calm down, lets discuss rationally. My last post was not an effort to prove the existence of chi, but rather to disprove your statement of the non-existence of chi because of people falsy atributing actions or "feelings" to it.

To speak of faulty logic and then speak of proving a negative is an oxymoron. You are trying an exercise in appeal to ignorance. This is faulty logic in which your argument on something is supposedly true because its opposite has not been proven true. You say because I can't prove chi exists, then it doesn't exist. To say someone who believe in chi believes in a negative is absurd and quite closeminded. There are many who initially write off an belief because they dont believe themselves, but that is the characterization of closemindedness.

I don't believe that there is anything in this world that would turn your head and make you believe in the existence of "chi". So what will be the benefit of me trying to make you believe?

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Sweet tusked existence. Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp. The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me.

Can we keep the discussions respectful at least?

7sm

 

[pete]

You must prove chi exists -- sharp? phil

chi cannot be proven over the internet, similar to proving the extent of pain a woman experiences during childbirth. you gotta get off the keyboard and begin practicing chi kung, tai chi, or another internal art such as pakua chang. until then, in order to remain in the tai chi forum you must prove chi does not exist.

pete

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance.

Allow me to paraphrase. If an action that is attributed to chi is shown not to have anything to do with chi, this does not disprove the existance of chi.

I don't think anyone is claiming that chi does not exist. When I practice chi gung, I feel something, for instance. Yet, that something could be something else. How do you show that it is chi? How is chi defined?

These are important questions. Learning the answers to them will allow a greater control of the force then we ever could have now. Lets take electromagnetism for instance. Without Maxwells equations that describe this force, we wouldn't have things like radio, microwaves, television, cell phones...ect.

I will reiterate my point. If chi exists and if it is a force then you must be able to sense it, count it, measure it, and eventually control it. Our understanding of this concept rudimentary at best. People say the sense it and people say that they control it to a certain extent. If we understand chi biologically we might be able to focus on the development needed to control it.

People, nothing exists beyond what we can measure. Chi should be no different. If it exists...

upnorthkyosa

PS - perhaps take this discussion down a different path to help us understand better. When do you feel the existance of chi? What is that like?

 

[Phil Elmore]

I don't believe that there is anything in this world that would turn your head and make you believe in the existence of "chi". So what will be the benefit of me trying to make you believe?

Of course there is. Consistent, reproducible evidence of an explicitly defined phenomenon identified as "chi" would be sufficient to prove it to me -- and to everyone else.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
I don't think anyone is claiming that chi does not exist.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality."

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Sweet tusked existence. Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp. The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me.

I think there are those saying Chi does not exist.

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
I will reiterate my point. If chi exists and if it is a force then you must be able to sense it, count it, measure it, and eventually control it. Our understanding of this concept rudimentary at best. People say the sense it and people say that they control it to a certain extent. If we understand chi biologically we might be able to focus on the development needed to control it.

People, nothing exists beyond what we can measure. Chi should be no different. If it exists...

Thats not neccesarily true. Does sound exist? How about light? We cannot control them. We can contain them, or create them, or even use them to do work, but we can't control it. What about energy? It exists, yet we cant control it.

Chi is able to be sensed, counted, measured, and even controled. I'm not sure of your point.

7sm