The Existence of Chi

[Xue Sheng]

upnorthkyosa

Per Chinese Studies

Internal Qi is not testable
External Qi is testable.

Is time a physical thing?

Mr Wade
Good luck and Happy New Year

 

[Makalakumu]

Internal Qi is not testable

This is as I suspected from my studies.

External Qi is testable.

How? What are the results?

Is time a physical thing?

Yes. As in spacetime...the Einsteinian concept.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes. As in spacetime...the Einsteinian concept.

Space-time is not time. If you are basing this assumption on Einstein, Space-time is a 4-point coordinate system that is 3 points in space and one of time. Basically where a specific object is located in space at a given point in time.

Time is a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

And although this is off the subject of QI it is on the subject of your previous statement abut naming a physical thing, therefore my question still stands, Is time a physical thing. It has no physical length, no physical width and no physical mass, so is it a physical thing.

As for external Tai Chi, this is for reasons of, I simply do not want to type a lot. Qi gong training such as Iron Shirt Qi Gong. It is demonstrable via physical testing such as when a spear is placed against the throat of a shaolin monk and he bends it by pushing and there is no penetration. This is one example and it is an example excepted by Beijing University of TCM as proof of the existence of external Qi

 

[Makalakumu]

Space-time is not time.

There is no such thing as a separate concept of time in the physical sense.

If you are basing this assumption on Einstein, Space-time is a 4-point coordinate system that is 3 points in space and one of time. Basically where a specific object is located in space at a given point in time.

If one says that time is a dimension, then it has to be quantified.

Time is a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.


And although this is off the subject of QI it is on the subject of your previous statement abut naming a physical thing, therefore my question still stands, Is time a physical thing. It has no physical length, no physical width and no physical mass, so is it a physical thing?

Actually, spacetime comes in units that derive from Plancks constant. Units of spacetime are one of the weirder things that come from quantum physics. Thus, time is a physical thing...totally dissimilar to chi.

As for external Tai Chi, this is for reasons of, I simply do not want to type a lot. Qi gong training such as Iron Shirt Qi Gong. It is demonstrable via physical testing such as when a spear is placed against the throat of a shaolin monk and he bends it by pushing and there is no penetration. This is one example and it is an example excepted by Beijing University of TCM as proof of the existence of external Qi.

Has this experiment been properly controlled? Could a skeptic make the spear and hold it?

 

[arnisador]

Physicists usually speak of 3+1 coordinates/dimensions (or for planar motion, 2+1) to emphasize that the 1, time, is different. (E.g., gradients are taken only w.r.t. spatial coordinates.) As to time (and information) being physical...well, I think this amounts to a definition of 'physical'.

 

[Rick Wade]

Physicists usually speak of 3+1 coordinates/dimensions (or for planar motion, 2+1) to emphasize that the 1, time, is different. (E.g., gradients are taken only w.r.t. spatial coordinates.) As to time (and information) being physical...well, I think this amounts to a definition of 'physical'.

Ouch :whip: that hurts can you warn me before before you make me think?

Thanks

Rick

 

[Shirt Ripper]

What the crap are you people talking about?!:idunno:

 

[Xue Sheng]

First Quantum physics and Einstein are not the same, Einstein did not agree with Quantum Physics “God doesn’t play dice – Albert Einstein”

Second, I could get into Einstein’s definition of time, separate from space-time, but I am not going to

Third, OK, I give up, can we get back to the topic of Qi? I was not attempting to compare time to Qi, I am entirely sorry I tried to make the point in that matter.

Sorry about the physics folks.

 

[heretic888]

It is entirely possible that chi is not real in the physical sense. It may only exist in our minds...which is another type of existence entirely. Thus it would be completely untestable by scientific methods....

Tell that to the social sciences. They seem to find ways to test 'non-physical' hypotheses all the time.

In any event, I would be extremly skeptical of any rigid matter/mind dichotomy in the first place (as I also am of a rigid nature/nurture dichotomy). Any subjective experience we have (such as, say, a thought) has objective correlates in the material organism (usually the brain) that help to bring it 'down to earth'. Conversely, any objective observation we make (such as reading the instruments that tell us about those material correlates) are inevitably filtered, distorted, and interpreted by our own subjective biases and a background intersubjective cultural worldview (such as, say, the language we speak), thus eradicating any fanciful appeal to the Myth of the Given.

As for myself, I would argue that ch'i is primarily a subjective experience. Simply recording the material spectacles that can supposedly be accomplished through manipulating ch'i constitutes no more "evidence" for this phenomena than recording brainwave patterns on an EEG constitutes "evidence" for hopes, dreams, and aspirations. They are fundamentally different (but interdependent) knowledge domains.

By that logic things only exist if they possess a name. If man had not named the wind would that mean it did/does not exist?

In part.

What you have to understand is that the phenomena you refer to as "wind" is an objective reality that has been subsequently filtered and interpreted through a series of subjective and intersubjective structures and biases, several of which you may be completely unconscious of. We do not observe objective reality in some sort of pristine, non-filtered, state of empirical purity. Never have.

Reality is not pregiven. It is, in part, a construction of our minds and cultures. To not acknowledge this is to invoke the fallacious Myth of the Given. In this particular context, even the language we speak can have a very powerful impact on what we do and do not "see" in the world.

Very nice response, very Zen, very Taoist, very appropriate.

Eh?? :idunno:

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I give up

 

[Makalakumu]

First Quantum physics and Einstein are not the same, Einstein did not agree with Quantum Physics “God doesn’t play dice – Albert Einstein”


Second, I could get into Einstein’s definition of time, separate from space-time, but I am not going to


Third, OK, I give up, can we get back to the topic of Qi? I was not attempting to compare time to Qi, I am entirely sorry I tried to make the point in that matter.


Sorry about the physics folks.

The physics is kind of off topic, but I believe that it does differentiate between physical concepts and concept of chi. Time, while it seems insubstantial and indefinable, is, in fact, at really small scales, an actual thing. Chi is not this way.

 

[Makalakumu]

Tell that to the social sciences. They seem to find ways to test 'non-physical' hypotheses all the time.

There may even be ways to study chi as a non-physical/mental concept.

In any event, I would be extremly skeptical of any rigid matter/mind dichotomy in the first place (as I also am of a rigid nature/nurture dichotomy). Any subjective experience we have (such as, say, a thought) has objective correlates in the material organism (usually the brain) that help to bring it 'down to earth'. Conversely, any objective observation we make (such as reading the instruments that tell us about those material correlates) are inevitably filtered, distorted, and interpreted by our own subjective biases and a background intersubjective cultural worldview (such as, say, the language we speak), thus eradicating any fanciful appeal to the Myth of the Given.

At the risk of dragging this discussion horridly off topic, I have to say that I think that an objective reality exists outside of our senses. It is not a two way street in the sense that the objective reality overpowers the effects of bias on our senses. Our minds do not imagine the universe, it exists all by itself.

The thought that our minds bring ideas "down to earth" is provacative, but I think it has little merit given the fact that we have no evidence that anything came "down" at all. We do, however, have evidence that biologic structures "create" these ideas and that altering the biology can change things.

Prozac anyone?

In regards to chi, I think that a number of physical and biological phenomenon have been given a totally artificial and primitive label. The concept of chi that we learn is merely a blanket term that describes these phenomenons' effects. It is a useful simplification...a hallmark of the human mind. In the end, chi is an idea inspired by our objective biology.

As for myself, I would argue that ch'i is primarily a subjective experience. Simply recording the material spectacles that can supposedly be accomplished through manipulating ch'i constitutes no more "evidence" for this phenomena than recording brainwave patterns on an EEG constitutes "evidence" for hopes, dreams, and aspirations. They are fundamentally different (but interdependent) knowledge domains.

I'm not sure I agree here, because when people talk about chi and about using it, real things happen in the real world. It is not just an event that takes place in a closed system.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Qi, is very important in Traditional Chinese Medicine. It is also applicable in Martial Arts and health.

There are several types of Qi in Traditional Chinese medicine, Stomach, liver, etc.

If your Qi is strong you are healthy if it is weak you are sick if it is gone you are dead. That is the over simplified TCM view of Qi from the Chinese medical standpoint.

I will have to get out my copy of the Yellow emperor and ask a couple of Chinese TCM doctors I know, from Beijing and Hong Kong, and my tai chi teacher to describe it to me better. Once that is done, I will let you know what I find.

Until then, I will just say if your talking physics or social sciences those classes were taken a long time ago, roughly around the time of the dinosaurs. I will happily leave that debate to heretic888 and upnorthkyosa.

 

[heretic888]

There may even be ways to study chi as a non-physical/mental concept.

Yeah, I think it's called ch'i kung.

At the risk of dragging this discussion horridly off topic....

We can start another thread for this topic, if you wish.

.... I have to say that I think that an objective reality exists outside of our senses. It is not a two way street in the sense that the objective reality overpowers the effects of bias on our senses. Our minds do not imagine the universe, it exists all by itself.

I would argue that reality is fundamentally psychophysical.

While objective and subjective phenomena are in a sense epistemologically separate, it is in my opinion a mistake to consider the two to be mutually independent (such as with the Cartesian dualism or with Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria). The objective co-creates the subjective and the subjective co-creates the objective. They seem to be interdependent in rather subtle and complicated ways.

Furthermore, to claim that reality exists independently of subjective observation, "all by itself", is a form of a priori speculation. It may very well be true, but no evidence exists to support such conjecture. Nor can such evidence exist, since it is an untestable assertion.

The thought that our minds bring ideas "down to earth" is provacative, but I think it has little merit given the fact that we have no evidence that anything came "down" at all.

I think you're confusing metaphors here. My previous post stated that objective correlates in the material brain bring our thoughts "down to earth" (i.e., allow us to empirically quantify them in an indirect fashion).

I never claimed it was subjective minds that bring thoughts "down to earth" (nor does such a claim make much sense).

We do, however, have evidence that biologic structures "create" these ideas and that altering the biology can change things.

Prozac anyone?

We also have evidence that both subjective and intersubjective (cultural) structures "create" (in part) our supposedly "objective" realities and that altering one's psychology can change our biology.

Long-term potentiation, anyone?

In regards to chi, I think that a number of physical and biological phenomenon have been given a totally artificial and primitive label. The concept of chi that we learn is merely a blanket term that describes these phenomenons' effects. It is a useful simplification...a hallmark of the human mind. In the end, chi is an idea inspired by our objective biology.

I would argue that since ch'i is experienced as a primarily subjective reality, that any objective reference is simply a correlation.

I'm not sure I agree here, because when people talk about chi and about using it, real things happen in the real world. It is not just an event that takes place in a closed system.

That might have been a poor analogy on my part.

A better example would be when your "mind" commands your "body" to move, such as when you decide to move your arm. The fact that you move your arm doesn't somehow constitute evidence that a "mind" exists or that it caused your "body" to move, it merely shows a correlation between your subjective thought and your objective behavior.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Is it safe to come out now.

I was doing some research on Qi today and I found something I thought was interesting that I though others may be interested in.

This is from Answers.com
"In the 1980s and 1990s, the increasing popularity of qigong and related practices led to the establishment of many groups and methods in China and elsewhere which have been viewed in a critical light by more traditional qigong practitioners as well as skeptical outside observers. In this view, a large number of people started studying qigong under inadequate supervision, indeed, perhaps the majority of people today who study qigong study from books or video tapes and DVDs without supervision by a teacher. This can lead to several problems, according to those who view themselves as representative of orthodox schools.

Most traditional training takes many years of practice under the supervision of someone who has also learned over years, someone who can guide and prevent the student from taking an unbalanced approach to qigong practice. The theory is that unbalanced circulation of inner energies eventually leads to unbalanced effects on the various systems of the body, both mental and physical. Stories of unguided practitioners or inexpertly guided students developing chronic mental and physical health problems as a result of such training are not uncommon.

A term used by English speaking practitioners and teachers for one example of this syndrome is "Qigong Psychosis" (Now included in the DSM-IV as a culture-bound syndrome: Qi-Gong Psychotic Reaction: DSM-IV General Information: Appendix I, Outline for Cultural Formulation and Glossary of Culture-Bound Syndromes). Another function of improper training involves frauds and deliberate charlatans who promote themselves as qigong "healers" promising miracle cures of any conceivable affliction for the right amount of money.

Traditionally, qigong is considered more of a health maintenance regimen, and any promises of miracle cures should be viewed with suspicion, according to traditional teachers and practitioners."

Also the conversation that I had with the OMD From Beijing Hospital confirms this. Also, she does not understand how so many people here and in China claim to do Qi Gong and have strong Qi in such a short time. And she does not believe it is possible to knock someone out with Qi. She also believes most people that teach Qi Gong lack the proper training. And to shorten the rest of the view of Chi, There are different types of Qi, liver, kidney, lung, etc. If you have strong Qi in the body you are health, if you have weak Qi in your body you are sick, if you have no Qi in your body you are dead. This is the abbreviated Readers Digest version of the conversation that I had.

 

[James Kovacich]

Can biological energy - or chi - be physically developed by training, just as muscles and cardio stamina can be developed by training? What are your thoughts on chi, it's existence, and the ability to develop it?

I beleive we all have chi but many don't understand it or know how to effectively access it. Through martial arts, some better than others, we gain access to it.

 

[James Kovacich]

peoplse spiritual, information that runs counter to the dogma is resisted. My personal feelings regarding "chi" lead me to wait until an ability can be repeated/studied by anyone, including skeptics, before I'll accept it as true. I find that I am able to ward off charletenry with this approach...

It sounds that your system dosen't involve chi. It not mystical at all. There are many things about our bodies that can't be explained by science. Chi is and isn't. I think for you it isn't.

I think that it's easy to "discount" that which we don't understand. But that dosn't mean it can't exist. If your system used it you should know it.

 

[green man]

One thing I can say is I've seen it used and I've felt it so I know it's there.

I agree, and personal philosophy aside, this is the only reason I have to believe in ki. I've seen some neat tricks from aikido using ki, but my strongest experience with what I call ki was from sensing attacks coming, and being aware of my body warning me before I got hit. Apart from the softer styles of ki development, for me, this was the key to drawing a connection between the feeling and the understanding.

 

[heretic888]

There are many things about our bodies that can't be explained by science.

Such as??

 

[James Kovacich]

Such as??

How and why we get multiple sclerosis.