Ki is a hoax

[JadecloudAlchemist]

6000 years of practice doesn't necessarily mean the archaic explanation for why the treatments work is correct. There is also a body of western medical research that shows that there are demonstrative, replicatible benefits from chinese medicine that utilize a chi meridian framework for explaning the effects i.e. acupuncture. That same research also shows that the effects of acupuncture are not 100% consistent with the TCM explanation. There are plenty of notable instances in which the effect is different than that claimed by the TCM practioner or that there is no effect at all. So, yes I would love to have more knowledgable people on here debating this, but no, your claim that they've got 6000 years so there's your 'proof' doesn't hold water.

Every time I see any of these studies either positve or negative the studies never say what points are being used. Also just because someone is an Acupuncturist and this is in America does not mean they know what they are doing. Because Acupuncture schools in America the student roughly goes for 2yrs which is not really enough time to grasp TCM. If you are going to make a claim that research shows Acupuncture is not 100% consistent with TCM explanation or any other research claim then you need to provide exactly what points were used,what was the diagnosis,and what additional supplement was used(I have yet to see a TCM doctor not provide herbal treatment an addition to Acupuncture) Other wise statements such as "research shows" either for or against Acupuncture does not mean much without the whol story.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

In fact, that body of research shows that there is no measureable difference between the results of actual TCM accupuncture by trained practitioners using chi meridians, and random pin pricks. Scientific double-blind trials of accupuncture for specific ailments/issues have shown benefit to accupuncture, compared to a placebo, but all of that benefit evaporates when the placebo used is something called 'sham accupuncture' (i.e., the patient is told they are receiving accupunture, but are instead receiving random needle-pricks at arbitrary locations, unrelated to any 'meridians').

Where were the Acupuncture points being used? What meridians were used? Where were the actual pin pricks being used?
I have read these types of research and I have not seen any of it say the qualification of the TCM practicer,nor the points being used.

Scientific double-blind studies have shown a measureable benefit to accupuncture for the specific issues of pain reduction. Since 'sham accupuncture' also works to exact same degree, the body's natural release of endorphins and opioids seems to offer a better explanation (i.e., an explanation that better fits all the evidence) than the existence of any chi meridians in the body. This body of evidence therefore offers measureable evidence the chi meridians (at least as described in TCM) do not exist.

Again if we are going to compare Sham Acupuncture with TCM Acupuncture we need to know what points were used by both parties. I am sure you can see the flaw in this comparison. I see a problem lays in what a meridian is. You think it is some sort of mystical things. http://home1.gte.net/res709yy/lung.jpg This is the Lung merdian notice point 1 and 2. There 2 points are used in opening the lung you can try pressing with your fingers breathing in and out to see how the points work.

Also, the accupuncture that works the best, according to recent measured medical research, involves the application of an RF field to the inserted needles

Well Acupuncturist in some cases warm the needle with Moxibustion and other heat treatments so again nothing new here.

I have already proven the existance of Qi in my posts both literally by the Hanzi character: 氣 and the English meaning of the word.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Some science discoveries on the meridians:

In February 1937 the prestigious British Medical journal carried an article by Sir Thomas Lewis describing a hitherto unknown network of cutaneous nerves.' He called it the 'nocifensor system' and deduced, from his experiments, that it was an independent cutaneous nerve system, unrelated to known pathways and unconnected to the autonomic nervous system. It was composed, not of nerve fibres, but a network of thin lines, similar to meridians.

In 1985 Pierre de Vernejoul at the University of Paris carried out a definitive and much-quoted experiment. He used a radioactive marker, technetium 99m, which he injected into subjects at classic acupuncture points. He then used gamma camera imaging to track the subsequent movement of the isotope. He was able to show that the tracer migrated along the classic meridian lines, travelling quite quickly: a distance of 30 cm in 4-6 minutes. [P. de Vernejoul et al., 'Etude Des Meridiens D'Acupuncture par les Traceurs Radioactifs', Bull. Acad. Natle. Med. Vol. 169 (22nd October 1985): 1071-5.] As a control he made a number of random injections into the skin (not at acupuncture points) and also injected the tracer directly into veins and lymphatic channels. There was no significant migration of the tracer at other sites than an acupuncture point. What this simple but helpful study proved beyond doubt is that meridians are definitely real 'vessels' but they conform to no macroscopic anatomical structures whatever.

French researcher, Pierre de Vernejoul, confirmed Kim's results in 1985. He injected radioactive technium into the acupuncture points of patients and found it migrated along the classical Chinese acupuncture meridian pathways for a distance of 30 centimeters in four to six minutes.
It seems there are many hidden materials in North Korea. I think North Korea must make the materials public, even if it rejects the theory, so foreign researchers with highly advanced equipment can decide whether the Bonghan Theory is true, says Kong Dong-chui, an amateur researcher, who lately wrote a book on Kim and his theory.
Kim called the meridians "Bonghan Ducts" and said they had many more functions than the classical meridians of acupuncture. He named a fluid flowing through them "Bonghan fluid." To prove the existence of a circulatory system unknown to western medicine, he injected the radioactive isotope P32 into a rabbit's duct and charted its spread. The P32 outlined a system of fine ducts, measuring between 0.5 microns and 1.5 microns in diameter, invisible except with an electron microscope, that matched the classical acupuncture meridians. Western researchers had used stains for microscopic analysis to search for the acupuncture meridians, but the dyes destroyed the milk-white ducts and prevented the system from being detected. The fluid in the ducts has twice as much adrenalin as blood, and ten times as much at an acupuncture point. As adrenalin is one of strongest organic stimulant, Kim concluded that the ducts were high-energy passages. The fluid is also rich in amino acids and oestrogen, and has nearly twice as much hyaluronic acid as sperm. This Kim said, showed its close relationship to the reproductive system. Kim even set forth a theory on how acupuncture works, but Dr. Kim Jeng-bum, a general practitioner in Seoul, says he thinks it heals the body by revitalizing the meridians and correcting imbalances in the flow of energy. ... Yonhup

It would have been nice if they provided the Acupuncture points and meridians used.

 

[exile]

Dirty pool! I am the first to say I DON'T KNOW! I was then asked to try and define my understanding of ki. That is why I specifically avoided the word 'force' and used 'mind force'.

You didn't avoid the word 'force', K. Quite the contrary:

To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move. Think unbendable arm and lowered centre.

Exactly where are you 'avoiding' the word 'force' here, K? You're saying it's a force, and can be directed, and for those of us who are quite happy with force being change in momentum, we should think of it as a 'mind force', which naturally makes everything clear. And then you bring in the unbendable arm as an example.

Then you use that as an excuse to go off on a rant about 'parlor tricks'. What of the first three words don't you understand ... I or don't or know? This gets to me. Either you have experienced ki or you haven't. If you have experienced a trick then I am sorry. If you have experienced what I call ki then by all means describe what you felt and why you thought it wasn't ki.

You've had an experience which you're labeling ki. As an example of ki, you trotted out one of the oldest parlor tricks in the book. (We'll get to the specifics below). And then when I call attention to the fact that this—your first concrete example of ki in several pages of thread—is indeed a parlor trick, you respond with 'Didn't you understand that I said "I don't know"?' Well, K, you brought up the unbendable arm as an example of ki, as per the quote above from your previous post. And yes, it is a parlor trick. So why are you complaining when I point out that your very own first example of the supposed phenomenon you're trying to defend/illustrate is a simple biomechanical effect? Instead (as readers can see for themselves), you're acting that though the parlor trickery of the unbendable arm is a nonsequitur, that bringing it up was a rant, and so on. The fact is, you got caught. You gave as a example of this mysterious thing (something that you can't (dis)prove, that can only be experienced, etc.) a kid's trick whose basis in muscular anatomy is completely understood, and now you're claiming that I'm bringing in something irrelevant when I point out that it's nothing more than a simple consequence of antagonistic muscle action at a joint. :lol:

And again, saying, 'Well, I experienced something, and I can't say just what it is, so there, that's evidence that ki exists'—which is what your 'evidence' boils down to—may say something about you, and your standards of verification, but it says nothing about whether there's anything there that needs to be explained.

And talking of unbendable arms, you are right about the biomechanics, and probably 95% of all so called ki may be attributed to biomechanics. I have no truck with that. It is the 5% I don't understand that I am talking about.

Well, once again, what we would like to know is, what does that '5%' consist of? What phenomena are you specifically referring to? Could we have some actual examples of something, please?

And there a virtually NO unbendable arms that I can't bend, biomechanics or not!

Uh... say what?

By your description above, if I do a hip throw have I used biomechanical 'trickery' or biomechanics? If it is the latter why have I used biomechanical 'trickery' for an unbendable arm?

Someone is using trickery if they then try to convince me that the hip throw is evidence for anything other than the construction of joints, their manipulation by muscles, and very simple principles of Newtonian mechanics. Which is what you were doing when you brought in the unbendable arm as evidence for/illustration of 'ki', since clearly, you aren't equating ki with biomechanical leverage, eh?—after all, if that's all it was, then you'd hardly be saying, at the same time, that you... don't.... know. Your argument only makes sense, by your own lights, if the person in question is using the hip throw to convince me that something else, something hidden and not reducible to what we currently know about human myoskeletal anatomy, is the source of this effect. And if they are, well, yes, that's trickery. Of exactly the Uri Geller type. See below.

Cut the emotive language.

Emotive? I don't think I'm the one getting, uh, worked up here, K. All I'm asking for is some actual replicable evidence (that doesn't turn out to be like the unbendable arm, which you, I have to repeat, were the one to bring up), and some consistent reasoning in arguing from it, on the one hand, to the conclusion that we need to assume that something (which you persistently refuse to define, or identify, beyond saying you 'feel' it) exists that isn't covered by familiar properties of the physical universe, on the other.

That was the reason for asking for that in the OP. This thread has been worthwhile as demonstrated by the large number of members have been following it. Let's try to keep the debate clean. I don't believe in magic and I am not into trickery.

Good. Then let's agree that your own example of the unbendable arm, and any number other such effects out there, have nothing to do with the case at hand. So what is the 5% residue that you are claiming isn't reducible to the same simple kind of explanation as the unbendable arm? Why not just tell us what that 5% consists of? A simple list of replicable effects that defy reductionist explanation and establish that something metaphysical—literally, beyond our current account of physical phenomena—is called for. We're all attention. What are they?

Thank you exile for bringing Uri Geller into the debate. I was totally unaware of his martial arts prowess.

What gave you the impression that I was bringing up Geller because he had something to do with MAs? The relevance of Geller is that (i) he used perfectly ordinary effects to create the impression that he was manipulating some unseen source of power, thereby supposedly establishing that this source exists, and that (ii) under controlled conditions, in which all of his actions were carefully monitored and a few simple precautions were taken, he was unable to duplicate any of his stage performances.

See the connection now?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As I said before, with all apologies because this thread has developed in a way I didn't envisage, I didn't define anything as it was an invitation for people to fight among themselves.

Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.


Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.


If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.


I don't believe it is mystical or magical. I don't believe its use involves trickery, except in the sense that we may be using our mind to confuse the mind of our opponent. I don't believe it is involved with hypnosis or suggestion but I am willing to accept its use could be related.
In each of these instances one mind is influencing another. I don't believe it involves levitation and I don't believe anyone could influence an inanimate object with ki. So what does this leave?[/quote]

To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move.[/quote]

Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. Used in conjunction with pps it enhances the effect of the technique. Is it energy, well it seems that it is in some circumstances, but it is a 'mind energy' rather than the energy we think of in a conventional sense. 'Star wars', ??? a bit 'out there' for me, not anywhere near my experiences.[/quote]

The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Firstly, disregard my above post. My computer is a lousy piece of junk. Mods, please delete my above post, if you would.

As I said before, with all apologies because this thread has developed in a way I didn't envisage, I didn't define anything as it was an invitation for people to fight among themselves.

Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.

I honestly do not know what ki is.

Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.

I don't believe it is something that can be measured with a multimeter or any other scientific instrument.

If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.

I don't believe it is mystical or magical. I don't believe its use involves trickery, except in the sense that we may be using our mind to confuse the mind of our opponent. I don't believe it is involved with hypnosis or suggestion but I am willing to accept its use could be related.
In each of these instances one mind is influencing another. I don't believe it involves levitation and I don't believe anyone could influence an inanimate object with ki. So what does this leave?

It leaves you with Jedi mind tricks. Or it leaves you with biophysics and psychology. Psychology won't work on a nonliving subject, so you're correct about it not working on inanimate oobjects.

To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move.

I would not term it in this way, but a mind force is essentially biophyisics. The mind is, after all, a part of the human biological make up.

Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist. Used in conjunction with pps it enhances the effect of the technique. Is it energy, well it seems that it is in some circumstances, but it is a 'mind energy' rather than the energy we think of in a conventional sense. 'Star wars', ??? a bit 'out there' for me, not anywhere near my experiences.

Leveraged strength. Anyone can learn this, and it has nothing to do with Ki. I can do this and I can demonstrated to a student how to do it.

The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.
Since you don't know what it is, by your own insistance, then your assessment of the ability to measure ki and that it is "really not possible" for it to be biophysical is one that you cannot support and really shouldn't make so long as you preceed the comment with statements of ignorance regarding the subject.

As for Dilman, being an accomplished martial artists by no means prevents him, or anyone else, from being a charlatan. If anything, it makes it worse; he's accomplished, thus he knows that chi balls and no touch KO's are nonsense, but he pedals it anyway, even after it was disproved in his school on film by National Geographic. Incidentally, if he had been able to reproduce the no touch KO, National Geographic would have eaten it up and come back for desserts.

I believe this is half right. Stronger, yes ... more endurance ... yes because you are using much less energy. But now we can be confusing softness (biophysical) and ki. Faster ... definitely not, use of ki means we do not have to be as fast. Tougher .. certainly not. As soon as you posture you are tensing your body and ki goes out the door. I believe a person using ki will be exercising humility and be totally non-threatening. In fact it is the non-threatening nature that allows you to enter the opponent's space.

Completely incorrect. An accomplished martial artist performs stances tension free. Tension slows down responses, makes movement choppy, and allows opponents to read the martial artist's intent. The body is tensed only at the moment of impact.

Incidentally, no matter how 'non threatening' you may appear, any move into another person's space is threatening outside of a crowd context.

And would you please explain to me where the "humility" is in a no touch KO?

I agree with what you have stated with the addition that its effect can be manifested outside of the body.

This is what it all boils down to. You want me to believe that you can manifest power externally using an undefined force, basing your case on unreplicable and unsubstantiated claims.

Ki in the medical profession has been addressed by others here, so I won't make any judgements one way or the other, except to say that in all instances where Ki healing has been brought up to me, it is the use of the subject's own ki, not that of the doctor.

I don't mean to come across as harsh, but you really undermine most of your own arguements and rely far too much on disproven evidence, or evidence that does not support the existence of ki.

Daniel

 

[tellner]

K-Man, let's be clear about this. You made a challenge. And you got trounced on every level. Now you're left with nothing except "But I want to beeeeliieeeve!"

This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on. Otherwise your next ploys will be personal attacks. From there it just gets ugly.

 

[K-man]

K-Man, let's be clear about this. You made a challenge. And you got trounced on every level. Now you're left with nothing except "But I want to beeeeliieeeve!"

This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on. Otherwise your next ploys will be personal attacks. From there it just gets ugly.

Yes, I made a challenge. I don't believe anything I believe has been explained or rebutted. I have made no personal attacks but expressed my frustration at the references back to magic, mysticism, trickery, hoax etc etc that I do not believe in either. I have been asked what I think ki is and I have said "I don't know". When asked what it seems to be, whatever I say to try and explain what I feel is challenged, as if I am stating a fact. So let's look afresh, I am not making any claims as to what ki is.
Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki. Any discussion here is acedemic as they don't know what the discussion is really about. The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki. The third group are those that have experienced something that has been termed ki that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them.

This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on.

Not a personal attack, but the sort of comment that is designed to cause offence.

 

[K-man]

Actually, you begain the thread with an invitation to disprove the existence of Ki.

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.


Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.


If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.



It leaves you with Jedi mind tricks. Or it leaves you with biophysics and psychology. Psychology won't work on a nonliving subject, so you're correct about it not working on inanimate oobjects.


I would not term it in this way, but a mind force is essentially biophyisics. The mind is, after all, a part of the human biological make up.


Leveraged strength. Anyone can learn this, and it has nothing to do with Ki. I can do this and I can demonstrated to a student how to do it.

The reason I say that I don't believe it to be biophysics is that it can't be measured so a biophysical explanation is really not possible. It can be observed but unfortunately there are some individuals who are deliberately tricking people into thinking they have ki when they are using illusion. (Just for the record. Despite the crap that is thrown at GD I think he is an accomplished martial artist and I don't include him with the charlatans.) As a result there is a huge amount of deserved skepticism related to observing the use of ki. Hands on is the only way to test, and with total resistance.
Since you don't know what it is, by your own insistance, then your assessment of the ability to measure ki and that it is "really not possible" for it to be biophysical is one that you cannot support and really shouldn't make so long as you preceed the comment with statements of ignorance regarding the subject.

As for Dilman, being an accomplished martial artists by no means prevents him, or anyone else, from being a charlatan. If anything, it makes it worse; he's accomplished, thus he knows that chi balls and no touch KO's are nonsense, but he pedals it anyway, even after it was disproved in his school on film by National Geographic. Incidentally, if he had been able to reproduce the no touch KO, National Geographic would have eaten it up and come back for desserts.


Completely incorrect. An accomplished martial artist performs stances tension free. Tension slows down responses, makes movement choppy, and allows opponents to read the martial artist's intent. The body is tensed only at the moment of impact.

Incidentally, no matter how 'non threatening' you may appear, any move into another person's space is threatening outside of a crowd context.

And would you please explain to me where the "humility" is in a no touch KO?


This is what it all boils down to. You want me to believe that you can manifest power externally using an undefined force, basing your case on unreplicable and unsubstantiated claims.

Ki in the medical profession has been addressed by others here, so I won't make any judgements one way or the other, except to say that in all instances where Ki healing has been brought up to me, it is the use of the subject's own ki, not that of the doctor.

I don't mean to come across as harsh, but you really undermine most of your own arguements and rely far too much on disproven evidence, or evidence that does not support the existence of ki.

Daniel

By doing so, that makes you a challenger, so any fighting to be done will have to be between you and the challenged. As I believe that Ki exists as defined in my previous posts, I am not among the challenged.

Quite right, but as I explained earlier, It was a tongue in cheek challenge.

Then you shouldn't offer rebuttal when explanations are offered.

I wouldn't have even joined in if the discussion had not been taken so seriously. Out of respect I felt that the posts deserved a response that I tried to provide. The rebuttals were where people introduced magic, trickery, fraud etc. I feel that the discussion was great until the last couple of pages when all the trick stuff came back in.

I don't believe it is something that can be measured with a multimeter or any other scientific instrument.
If you don't know what it is, then you have no basis for making this statement. If I didn't know what electricity was, I'd be unable to envision a means of measuring it.

True, but this was in the context of answering those who said, if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist, and I don't know how you could measure it. In fact, your analogy of the electricity could be directed back at the ki sceptics. Because we don't know what ki is, none of us is able to envisage a means of measuring it. Of course the ki sceptics would say 'there is nothing to measure'.

It leaves you with Jedi mind tricks. Or it leaves you with biophysics and psychology. Psychology won't work on a nonliving subject, so you're correct about it not working on inanimate oobjects.

I am quite happy with the biophysics and psychology approach. That ties in with my understanding and allows a different avenue to those who insist it is all biomechanics.

Leveraged strength. Anyone can learn this, and it has nothing to do with Ki. I can do this and I can demonstrated to a student how to do it.

Agreed. However, depending on how the unbendable arm is offered. When the arm is not supported under the wrist it is almost impossible to bend and that is what I have seen most people teach. The practical application is in grappling to stop your opponent closing. Anyone can learn it in minutes or less. The other test is to rest the arm on your partner's shoulder. Most times this arm can be bent.

Since you don't know what it is, by your own insistance, then your assessment of the ability to measure ki and that it is "really not possible" for it to be biophysical is one that you cannot support and really shouldn't make so long as you preceed the comment with statements of ignorance regarding the subject.

You are quite right, I misread then misquoted 'biophysical' instead of 'biomechanical'. My fault, biophysical I am happy to entertain, I don't believe it to be biomechanical.

As for Dilman, being an accomplished martial artists by no means prevents him, or anyone else, from being a charlatan.

True. The dvds I have of Dilman are pp techniques and restraints. I find them very good. I have only seen the other ki stuff he does on youtube etc so have no comment as to its validity.

I believe this is half right. Stronger, yes ... more endurance ... yes because you are using much less energy. But now we can be confusing softness (biophysical) and ki. Faster ... definitely not, use of ki means we do not have to be as fast. Tougher .. certainly not. As soon as you posture you are tensing your body and ki goes out the door. I believe a person using ki will be exercising humility and be totally non-threatening. In fact it is the non-threatening nature that allows you to enter the opponent's space.
Completely incorrect. An accomplished martial artist performs stances tension free. Tension slows down responses, makes movement choppy, and allows opponents to read the martial artist's intent. The body is tensed only at the moment of impact.

Incidentally, no matter how 'non threatening' you may appear, any move into another person's space is threatening outside of a crowd context.

I agree totally with what you say about the tension free stance, tension free arm and tension at the moment of impact. That will always be valid, ki practitioner or not. What I am saying about ki is that somebody using ki (think Thai Chi if you like) does not rely on speed to either defend or attack. And I would also be happy to say that a relaxed, top class martial artist would posess the same quality.
The personal space issue is an entering one. Your attitude can buy you that fraction of a second to enter before your opponent reacts.

And would you please explain to me where the "humility" is in a no touch KO?

No experience so no comment. All I am saying is that to use ki in a soft context your body is calm and relaxed. Once you start strutting about with your chest pumped out and biceps bulging ki isn't going to work. The guy standing quietly and calmly is the one to watch.

I don't mean to come across as harsh, but you really undermine most of your own arguements and rely far too much on disproven evidence, or evidence that does not support the existence of ki.

No offence taken. Your points are all valid. We may have to disagree on the 'disproven evidence' as I have no evidence to provide to support the existence of ki, other than to say we experience what I believe to be ki in our regular training that any of you can come and join. After you have experienced it for yourselves I would love to hear your explanation. :asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One comment that I wish to make, K-man. I'm not sure who said that if it couldn't be measured, it doestn't exist, but I'm not of that opinion myself.

Any who hold religious or spiritual beliefs that involve a deity or spirit beings of any sort, likewise believe in the existence of that which cannot be measured. I am included in this category.

Inability on the part of humanity to currently measure something is not proof, if you will, of nonexistence. There was a time when we couldn't measure anything, yet everything that we commonly measure now still existed.

There are also certain abstracts that are 'immeasurable' by scientific means, yet we agree that they exist. A person's creativity cannot be measured, yet it does exist. Even though we use terms such as, 'I'm not that creative' or 'he's more creative than that guy', both of which denote quantity, we really don't have a means of measuring raw creativity. But we all agree that it exists.

If Ki falls into the category of biophysics, then it can indeed be measured, though we don't currently have the ability to measure certain aspects of biophysics as well as other aspects.

In any case, measurable or not, results of a technique are measurable. If I can deliver a no touch KO (I cannot), then the time it takes for me to execute the technique can be measured, the size of the target can be measured, the distance that I move the target can be measured, and the force with which I moved the target can be measured.

Many of the things that we "measure" are not measurments of the thing itself, but measurements of the result of those things when applied to something that we can measure. A thermometer is actually providing you with a measurement of the movement of mercury, which is graded to correspond with the temperature of the human body. Since we know how how mercury reacts to applied heat, we use the reaction of mercury to determine the temperature of something else. So we don't actually measure the heat itself, but the measurable results of heat as applied to the mercury.

So, if I claim to be able to teach the manipulation of something (be it ki or anything else), then am essenitally claiming to be able to produce either a measurable result, such as a human body being moved with an amount of force, or a discernable result, such as causing someone to drop their guard and be open to me, be it my attack or my suggestion that they 'go home and rethink their life.' If I claim to be able to teach it, and claim that it has martial application outside of the dojo students, then I need to be able to replicate my results within the dojo with the class for teaching purposes, and on uncooperating/noncompliant subjects as well.

It is not the existence of ki that is the problem, but the claims of those who supposedly teach you how to manipulate it within the martial arts and the nature of how Ki is defined that are the points of contention.

Daniel

 

[Aiki Lee]

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[jks9199]

One comment that I wish to make, K-man. I'm not sure who said that if it couldn't be measured, it doestn't exist, but I'm not of that opinion myself.

Any who hold religious or spiritual beliefs that involve a deity or spirit beings of any sort, likewise believe in the existence of that which cannot be measured. I am included in this category.

Inability on the part of humanity to currently measure something is not proof, if you will, of nonexistence. There was a time when we couldn't measure anything, yet everything that we commonly measure now still existed.

There are also certain abstracts that are 'immeasurable' by scientific means, yet we agree that they exist. A person's creativity cannot be measured, yet it does exist. Even though we use terms such as, 'I'm not that creative' or 'he's more creative than that guy', both of which denote quantity, we really don't have a means of measuring raw creativity. But we all agree that it exists.

If Ki falls into the category of biophysics, then it can indeed be measured, though we don't currently have the ability to measure certain aspects of biophysics as well as other aspects.

In any case, measurable or not, results of a technique are measurable. If I can deliver a no touch KO (I cannot), then the time it takes for me to execute the technique can be measured, the size of the target can be measured, the distance that I move the target can be measured, and the force with which I moved the target can be measured.

Many of the things that we "measure" are not measurments of the thing itself, but measurements of the result of those things when applied to something that we can measure. A thermometer is actually providing you with a measurement of the movement of mercury, which is graded to correspond with the temperature of the human body. Since we know how how mercury reacts to applied heat, we use the reaction of mercury to determine the temperature of something else. So we don't actually measure the heat itself, but the measurable results of heat as applied to the mercury.

So, if I claim to be able to teach the manipulation of something (be it ki or anything else), then am essenitally claiming to be able to produce either a measurable result, such as a human body being moved with an amount of force, or a discernable result, such as causing someone to drop their guard and be open to me, be it my attack or my suggestion that they 'go home and rethink their life.' If I claim to be able to teach it, and claim that it has martial application outside of the dojo students, then I need to be able to replicate my results within the dojo with the class for teaching purposes, and on uncooperating/noncompliant subjects as well.

It is not the existence of ki that is the problem, but the claims of those who supposedly teach you how to manipulate it within the martial arts and the nature of how Ki is defined that are the points of contention.

Daniel

As an expansion on this...

The Catholic Church recognizes miracles. However, for it to qualify as a miracle, every other explanation has to be proven wrong. Cures must be total, spontaneous, and occur without or despite medical intervention, for example. It's not easy to qualify something as a miracle...

When you make extraordinary claims for ki/chi/energy, you must provide extraordinary evidence. Does our body have energy channels, and do these channels have an effect on health and ability? Sure; at the very least, the nervous system has an energy component. But if you start to claim that you can disrupt my ki and make me collapse -- you're going to have to prove it. To the exclusion of things like hitting me upside the head hard enough to knock me out.

Under the right circumstances, I've "pulled" or "frozen" people using something. It's not a big effect -- but I've been on both sides. It happens. I don't claim that it's ki; I don't know what it is and I've not been very successful teaching it to others. It's very likely and very possible that it's simply the result of subtle psychological manipulation... Don't know.

 

[exile]

Yes, I made a challenge. I don't believe anything I believe has been explained or rebutted. I have made no personal attacks but expressed my frustration at the references back to magic, mysticism, trickery, hoax etc etc that I do not believe in either.

You say you don't believe in trickery. But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that of course 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothing—not one word—to identify what that 5% is. You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe. The fact is that, since you won't provide the necessary information about the fact that you think support your belief, all we have is your repeating over and over that you believe in it. Fine, no one doubts that. But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one hell of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. Don't like it? Then provide some evidence.

Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation.

I have been asked what I think ki is and I have said "I don't know". When asked what it seems to be, whatever I say to try and explain what I feel is challenged, as if I am stating a fact. So let's look afresh, I am not making any claims as to what ki is.

Actually, you have yet to say one word about what ki seems to be. You have yet to identify even a single experience that you think a concept called 'ki' is necessary to provide an explanation for. You have yet to provide a single explicit reason why someone, being told that there something called ki which you believe exists, would be inclined to agree with you that it exists. To make a long story short, you've said virtually nothing about ki that has any content. And this is kind of remarkable, considering how much you've posted on it.

Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki.

Well, you tell us, K: you yourself don't know what ki is, so tell us why you think there's such a thing in the first place. You have studiously avoided providing even a hint of criteria for others to use in deciding whether or not they'd experienced ki, so how can anyone possibly have any clue what you're talking about? What are the 'symptoms' or 'sign' or whatever of 'ki'?? Give us a LIST, OK? We're waiting, all ears, to hear just what these tokens of ki-hood are. I've asked you before for these; Ninjamom has asked you, and you've been totally silent. You have nothing to say about what it is that constitutes and experience of ki. Well, you started this thread, remember, giving the impression that you actually intended to discuss the issue. But you've avoided saying anything substantive that can be evaluated, to an extent that makes it doubtful that you really do want to defend your position.

Any discussion here is acedemic as they don't know what the discussion is really about.

You have got to be kidding. We keep asking you to make clear what this ki is that you think the discussion is about, or how to recognize it at least, and you say, you don't know so far as the first is concerned, and you're stone silent on the second. And then you have the sheer brass to say that 'they don't know what the discussion is really about'... like, you do??? :lfao:

The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki.

Since by your own inisistence you don't know what ki is, and have nothing to say about what something has to be like such that it gets called 'ki', this last statement is pretty vacuous.

The third group are those that have experienced something that has been termed ki that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them.

Termed 'ki' by whom? Not by themselves, since by your own assumptions, they don't believe in it. Not ki by anyone else, because who else would know what the people you're referring to have experienced except themselves? And why would it have been 'termed ki'??See, this is the problem with your 'reasoning': over and over, it turns out to consist mostly of words strung together that add up to nothing coherent.

Those are just a few of the gaping holes in your claims—they don't really merit the description 'argument'. Because as things stand, what you've offered is, as Sukerkin pointed out earlier, mumbo jumbo. No facts, no consistency, no reasoning.

This is one of those times when you need to take your ***-whipping like a little man, admit that you were wrong and move on.

Not a personal attack, but the sort of comment that is designed to cause offence.

Mostly, it's the sort of comment that's 110% true. And the fault is yours, alas, because you're just not carrying out the crucial components of a debate: an explicit statement of your position, the specific evidence for it, and a point-by-point defense of your reasoning to that position in the face of the other side's critique. So what do you expect?

 

[Flying Crane]

quick question for those who do not believe in Qi: do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice? This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?

I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?

As I've stated before, I believe that most of the teachers of these arts do not themselves have an adequate understanding nor mastery of their own qi, and are teaching the internal arts as a primarily external art. I don't think they necessarily are doing it on purpose, I suspect that most of them BELIEVE they have mastery of their qi, but they are fooling themselves or have been fooled by others. So having experience with these arts under the wrong teacher can also lead to a denial of Qi, but at least I'd like to know if you folks have made any effort in that direction during your martial careers.

I suppose yoga could also be counted among these arts, tho I believe the common healthclub yoga class falls into the same category as the deluded taiji teachers. I think most of those people are teaching a purely physical exercise version of yoga, and have likewise lost most or all internal connections. But under the right teacher, yoga could, I suspect, be a valid avenue as well.

Anyway, just curious. Thanks.

 

[K-man]

Under the right circumstances, I've "pulled" or "frozen" people using something. It's not a big effect -- but I've been on both sides. It happens. I don't claim that it's ki; I don't know what it is and I've not been very successful teaching it to others. It's very likely and very possible that it's simply the result of subtle psychological manipulation... Don't know.

Could that be referred to as ki? I believe the biggest problem with accepting ki is that it is so difficult to teach.

 

[bluekey88]

quick question for those who do not believe in Qi: do any of you have a background in any of the internal martial arts and/or qi-gong practice? This would be the various Taiji schools, Xing-i, Bagua, Aikido, the qi-gong that is usually practiced alongside these arts as well?

I'm just curious if any of you folks have made any attempts to actually experience it, or if you are making your judgements based on a purely scientific perspective without any hands-on experience with the topic?

As I've stated before, I believe that most of the teachers of these arts do not themselves have an adequate understanding nor mastery of their own qi, and are teaching the internal arts as a primarily external art. I don't think they necessarily are doing it on purpose, I suspect that most of them BELIEVE they have mastery of their qi, but they are fooling themselves or have been fooled by others. So having experience with these arts under the wrong teacher can also lead to a denial of Qi, but at least I'd like to know if you folks have made any effort in that direction during your martial careers.

I suppose yoga could also be counted among these arts, tho I believe the common healthclub yoga class falls into the same category as the deluded taiji teachers. I think most of those people are teaching a purely physical exercise version of yoga, and have likewise lost most or all internal connections. But under the right teacher, yoga could, I suspect, be a valid avenue as well.

Anyway, just curious. Thanks.

AIkido was my first serious martial art (6 years), also studied some Taijiquan. I used to really believe in the ki explanations....I don't now. Like I said before, I don;t discount the observed effects, jsut many of the explanations. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Peace,
Erik

 

[K-man]

You say you don't believe in trickery. But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that of course 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothing—not one word—to identify what that 5% is. You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe. The fact is that, since you won't provide the necessary information about the fact that you think support your belief, all we have is your repeating over and over that you believe in it. Fine, no one doubts that. But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one hell of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. Don't like it? Then provide some evidence.

Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation.



Actually, you have yet to say one word about what ki seems to be. You have yet to identify even a single experience that you think a concept called 'ki' is necessary to provide an explanation for. You have yet to provide a single explicit reason why someone, being told that there something called ki which you believe exists, would be inclined to agree with you that it exists. To make a long story short, you've said virtually nothing about ki that has any content. And this is kind of remarkable, considering how much you've posted on it.



Well, you tell us, K: you yourself don't know what ki is, so tell us why you think there's such a thing in the first place. You have studiously avoided providing even a hint of criteria for others to use in deciding whether or not they'd experienced ki, so how can anyone possibly have any clue what you're talking about? What are the 'symptoms' or 'sign' or whatever of 'ki'?? Give us a LIST, OK? We're waiting, all ears, to hear just what these tokens of ki-hood are. I've asked you before for these; Ninjamom has asked you, and you've been totally silent. You have nothing to say about what it is that constitutes and experience of ki. Well, you started this thread, remember, giving the impression that you actually intended to discuss the issue. But you've avoided saying anything substantive that can be evaluated, to an extent that makes it doubtful that you really do want to defend your position.




You have got to be kidding. We keep asking you to make clear what this ki is that you think the discussion is about, or how to recognize it at least, and you say, you don't know so far as the first is concerned, and you're stone silent on the second. And then you have the sheer brass to say that 'they don't know what the discussion is really about'... like, you do??? :lfao:



Since by your own inisistence you don't know what ki is, and have nothing to say about what something has to be like such that it gets called 'ki', this last statement is pretty vacuous.




Termed 'ki' by whom? Not by themselves, since by your own assumptions, they don't believe in it. Not ki by anyone else, because who else would know what the people you're referring to have experienced except themselves? And why would it have been 'termed ki'??See, this is the problem with your 'reasoning': over and over, it turns out to consist mostly of words strung together that add up to nothing coherent.

Those are just a few of the gaping holes in your claims—they don't really merit the description 'argument'. Because as things stand, what you've offered is, as Sukerkin pointed out earlier, mumbo jumbo. No facts, no consistency, no reasoning.




Mostly, it's the sort of comment that's 110% true. And the fault is yours, alas, because you're just not carrying out the crucial components of a debate: an explicit statement of your position, the specific evidence for it, and a point-by-point defense of your reasoning to that position in the face of the other side's critique. So what do you expect?

Exile, I appreciate the time you have taken to put together you posts but you are so far off the mark I am tempted to leave them totally alone.

But you give a simple trick, arising from simple skeletal anatomy, as your first explicit example of what the notion ki covers as a 'force', or 'mind force', or something equally vague, that can be 'directed'. And then when it's pointed out to you that this is a well understood mechanical effect of paired opposed muscle action at hinge joints, you act exactly as if you hadn't identified this effect as a by-product or manifestion or instance of 'ki', and proclaim indignantly that of course 95% of ki is biomechanical (or something like that) in origin, it's the other 5% that makes you believe in 'ki', and then you say nothing—not one word—to identify what that 5% is.

Your example of the simple trick of the unbendable arm is just that. A trick. I can bend most unbendable arms. The test for ki is the unbendable arm that doesn't bend!
I never said 95% of ki is biomechanical. Here is my post.

And talking of unbendable arms, you are right about the biomechanics, and probably 95% of all so called ki may be attributed to biomechanics. I have no truck with that. It is the 5% I don't understand that I am talking about. And there a virtually NO unbendable arms that I can't bend, biomechanics or not!

If you read what I wrote carefully you will see that I agreed with you. I said that 95% of what some people call ki is in fact explained by biomechanics. There is a small percentage probably much less than 5% that defies logical explanation that I ascribe to ki. As I have said, most 'unbendable' arms I can bend. Granted, they are much stronger when done without muscle tension, but they are not 'unbendable'.

then you say nothing—not one word—to identify what that 5% is.

What part of 'ki' don't you understand.

You've had all the time and opportunity to do so, and we've asked you repeatedly for just this information, and all you do is keep repeating, well, nobody's refuted what I believe.

What are you asking exile? You want me to tell you what ki is? I have stated time after time what I feel is ki. Nothing anybody has written has explained what I feel to my satisfaction. I am not trying to convert people to the 'religeon' of ki. I have my understanding and others have theirs. What pisses me off is when people who want to have a discussion about ki have their thread hijacked by those intent on saying they are poor misguided fools with weak minds and no understanding, tricked into believing something that doesn't exist. Everyone is entitled to their belief and their understanding.

But you haven't even tried a little bit to present your evidence for critical scrutiny. And I'm not surprised, because by now you understand that it's going to get one hell of a scrutiny, eh? But your position has no credibility at all unless you present something in the way of evidence. That's the feedback you've been getting. Don't like it? Then provide some evidence.

The only evidence is practical, hands on. Come and train with us, then comment.

Otherwise, don't start debates on topics and then refuse to subject your ideas to critical evaluation.

Because ki is an intangible and very difficult define you statement loses sense in the context of this discussion. Read the posts, I have put forward my thoughts and you disagree with my interpretation. It's a free world, sometimes we have to agree to disagree.

Actually, you have yet to say one word about what ki seems to be. You have yet to identify even a single experience that you think a concept called 'ki' is necessary to provide an explanation for. You have yet to provide a single explicit reason why someone, being told that there something called ki which you believe exists, would be inclined to agree with you that it exists. To make a long story short, you've said virtually nothing about ki that has any content. And this is kind of remarkable, considering how much you've posted on it.

Why use 10 words when you can use 98? I believe ki exists and it can be demonstrated to my satisfaction. You might believe God exists and that can be demonstrated to your satisfaction. I believe ki can be demonstrated by some people with the unbendable arm. I don't care if you don't believe what I believe.

Well, you tell us, K: you yourself don't know what ki is, so tell us why you think there's such a thing in the first place. You have studiously avoided providing even a hint of criteria for others to use in deciding whether or not they'd experienced ki, so how can anyone possibly have any clue what you're talking about? What are the 'symptoms' or 'sign' or whatever of 'ki'?? Give us a LIST, OK? We're waiting, all ears, to hear just what these tokens of ki-hood are. I've asked you before for these; Ninjamom has asked you, and you've been totally silent.

If you took a little more time reading the posts and less time ranting you would have read "To me, it is a force, call it a mind force if that makes people more comfortable, that can be directed. Internally it can make us stonger and harder to move. Think unbendable arm and lowered centre. Used against an opponent it can unsettle him to the extent that he loses the will to resist." Now you have demolished this proposal to your satisfaction and asked for more. I am a simple man exile. I have no thesis to provide you. What I have said above is what I have experienced and what I experience twice a week, every week.

Well, you started this thread, remember, giving the impression that you actually intended to discuss the issue. But you've avoided saying anything substantive that can be evaluated, to an extent that makes it doubtful that you really do want to defend your position.

Obviously you didn't read the OP so I will repost it for you:
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.

At no point did I say I would provide any evidence. I made a simple statement and set some conditions, that you didn't read, chose to ignore or did not understand.

You have got to be kidding. We keep asking you to make clear what this ki is that you think the discussion is about, or how to recognize it at least, and you say, you don't know so far as the first is concerned, and you're stone silent on the second. And then you have the sheer brass to say that 'they don't know what the discussion is really about'... like, you do??? :lfao:

Again, you didn't read the post!
Those who dismiss ki as non existant or hoax must be in three camps. The first are the ones who have never seen any ki or anything being called ki. Any discussion here is acedemic as they don't know what the discussion is really about. The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki. The third group are those that have experienced something that has been termed ki that they have a difficulty in explaining what has been done or how. They 'know' ki does not exist so there must be some other explanation. I would love to hear from some of them.
You took one segment out of context.
I would have thought what I wrote was self evident. If you have never seen ki or anything being called ki how can you possibly give informed opinion?

Since by your own inisistence you don't know what ki is, and have nothing to say about what something has to be like such that it gets called 'ki', this last statement is pretty vacuous.

Once again, read the post.
The second group have experienced what has been called ki and have found either some form of illusion or a logical biomechanical explanation. They certainly have the right to comment as they have readily done, but I maintain they have not experienced what others are calling ki.
We seem to be getting quite abusive here. What don't you understand in what I wrote? Someone sees something called ki that turns out to be a trick or an illusion and calls it. What I said is "what was demonstrated was not ki. It was a trick or an illusion". What is vacuous about that. If I said your posts were inane, stupid or lacking intelligence you might take that as offensive. For those who don't know what I am talking about please look up vacuous in your dictionary.

Termed 'ki' by whom? Not by themselves, since by your own assumptions, they don't believe in it. Not ki by anyone else, because who else would know what the people you're referring to have experienced except themselves? And why would it have been 'termed ki'??See, this is the problem with your 'reasoning': over and over, it turns out to consist mostly of words strung together that add up to nothing coherent.

Termed ki by the person performing the technique. Termed ki because that is the term used in MA circles. Termed ki because there is no other explanation. And, exile, if you are calling my posts incoherent, please reread yours.

Those are just a few of the gaping holes in your claims—they don't really merit the description 'argument'. Because as things stand, what you've offered is, as Sukerkin pointed out earlier, mumbo jumbo. No facts, no consistency, no reasoning.

Thank you for your considered opinion. I accept on behalf of all other practitioners who use ki or are trying to learn how to use ki that what we are using is 'mumbo jumbo'. I'm sure your comment has contributed enormously to the discussion.
You didn't even quote Sukerkin accurately:
If you want to claim something then have proof of it. If you want to make extraordinary claims, then have extraordinary proof, not portentious sounding mumbo-jumbo.
This is quite a valid statement in its context. Sukerkin was not, I believe, stating that ki did not exist, merely that if someone is making an extraordinary claim, and I acknowledge that ki is an extraordinary claim, then you need extraordinary proof, not Mumbo jumbo. He did not say what I had offered was mumbo jumbo!

 

[Sukerkin]

I do, however, think that you need to recognise a losing wicket when you're on one, K. It would seem that, no matter how you strive, you're not going to be changing anyones mind on this.

Whilst persistence is often a positive trait, it is sometimes necessary to accept that continuing to 'bang the drum' when the parade is over is a counterproductive measure; I suspect that it can only serve to harden peoples attitudes rather than sway them.

 

[K-man]

The sad part is, I am not trying to change anyone's mind!

 

[exile]

What I have said above is what I have experienced and what I experience twice a week, every week.

K, go to this site.

Look at the triangle. Yes, you'll see lines connecting the three vertices. When you have high quality graphics on paper in front of you, the lines are really sharp. Now cover the 'pac-man' circles with your fingers, and the lines disappear. They were never there. You see them, on paper or the screen, but they don't exist on the paper or screen. You experienced something that wasn't there in the world. It was there in your brain, the result of how the brain computes visual images. Contrary to what you said in a very early post in the other ki thread, perception isn't reality. If it were, the lines would still be there when you covered the circles. Go on, follow the links provided, for some extremely clear examples of this classic visual illusion.

Your whole argument is based on your assumption that the way you experience something necessarily corresponds to the way the world is. The illusory triangle is just one of thousands of such examples which make it clear that there is not one shred of support for that assumption. You have experiences that you attribute reality to. You have provided not one iota of evidence that those experiences correspond to something out there in the world—just as your experience of the triangle perimeter does not have anything to do with whether or not those lines exist on the screen itself, on the paper itself. How easy is a bush supposed a bear, eh?

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and you've provided none, except your own experience. Like your experience of the lines you see in the illusory triangle, that are not out there... 'in here', no question, but not out there. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the ki which you claim is there really is out there. Your subjective sense that there's 'something there' counts no more as evidence for that something than your perception of the missing parts of the triangle lines counts as evidence for their existence out there.

Is it clear now?