Gene Ching Believes in No Touch Knockouts?

[KenGullette]

Hi,
I read the article with great interest in the new issue of Kung Fu/Qigong magazine -- the one in which Gene undergoes the "no-touch knockout" challenge.

Gene makes the comment (and I don't have the magazine with me at the moment so I'll paraphrase): in order to do kung fu you must believe in chi.

Gene, that is simply wrong. Chen Xiaowang, who is one of the most highly regarded tai chi masters in the world today, the grandson of Chen Fake and the descendant of Chen Wangting, says you do NOT need to believe in chi in order to do good tai chi.

I'm not being disrespectful here, but I would like to know why you think that belief in chi is required? Using chi as a concept is one thing -- but to actually require belief in this outdated scientific concept is another matter.

I submit that in order to do good kung fu, you need a qualified teacher who can teach the proper body mechanics. In Chen tai chi, for example, that begins with silk-reeling exercises, learning to open and close, learning to center the stance, shift the weight properly, rotate the dan t'ien -- all physical endeavors that require no belief in chi -- just a lot of practice.

Now, regarding the challenge that you undertook, since you already believe in the "no-touch knockout" I believe you were biased. Even though you weren't knocked out, I believe you were receptive to the idea, and that's why things went "buzzy."

I would love to undergo the same demonstration. So far, all alleged chi "masters" I've asked to do a demo have backed down. Perhaps because it only has a ghost of a chance to work even slightly (a "buzz") on those who already are receptive.

[Merryprankster]

Even that would be inconclusive.

You need a double blind study. The persons being touched or not touched are not to be told what they might experience... the persons recording the results cannot be told what to look for.

[DelicateSound]

Hasn't the James Randi Skeptics Organisation out out $1m for this kind of thing.

Give it a shot Rich, who knows..... :D :rolleyes:

[Royal Dragon]

Whether or not you believe in Chi is irrelevant, if you don't have it, your dead.

Now, as what you can do or not do with it, is another topic all together.

[Merryprankster]

Chi is real because??

Better yet, define it.

[KenGullette]

Actually, Richard Mooney, who was given a multi-page free ad by Kung Fu/Qigong magazine earlier this year, was tested in a double-blind study by an M.D. and a Ph.D.

He completely failed. You can read about it at
http://www.uechi-ryu.com/an_empty_force.htm

I am simply curious. I don't believe in it and I really would like one of the proponents of no-touch knockout to do it to me. I'll fly anywhere in the country for this demo as long as I can videotape it. I would be very impressed if I was only made to feel "buzzy" -- I don't even need to be knocked out. What a story that would be! Convince the skeptic! It could be a headline on the cover of the magazine!!

Heck, it would also make a great headline if this claim could pass just ONE double-blind study.

Gentlemen, we cannot knock other people out without touching them. It is impossible. Who are these guys kidding? The gullible folks who are looking for magic and will pay money for a seminar, or themselves?

[Shadow Dragon]

Ken.

I can knock you out by using "Chi" at 2 meters.
And I can promise you that not one of my bodyparts will touch you.

Ok, stand there, close your Eyes.

While I hurl my pet-rock called "Chi" at your Head.

See, I can knock people out without touching them using only "Chi".

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

Ah--brilliant. Here is the crux of the issue:


It is not the responsibility of investigators to disprove an extraordinary phenomenon. Proponents must provide evidence. This experiment underscores the need for a scientific process. In removing confounding influences, the double-blind study suggests how these effects occur without proper controls.


It is not up to people to DISPROVE chi. It's up to those who wish to show it exists and that its effects are demonstrable to prove it.

Occam's razor folks--The most mundane explanation that fits the results is more likely to be true than the others. If I can explain something in terms of body mechanics or biochemistry, that takes precendence over an unprovable chi manipulation or imbalance.

Belief in the existence of Chi is faith, not fact, until shown otherwise.

[Braden]

Mostly offtopic, Occam's Razor is more accurately described as 'we should not assume more things than are necessary to describe a phenomenon.'

[Merryprankster]

That's hardly offtopic. Your description is more accurate than mine--however, I thought this particular extension of the logic to be more suitable, in the sense that chi is another "thing," when it can be explained by more established (IE, proven) means.

[Braden]

Well, in my view, things like 'biochemistry' are just analogies to understand reality. In my view, science is the process of using the scientific method to establish more accurate analogies of reality. (As opposed to the process of determining the utter truth of what reality entails - which, in my view, is called metaphysics)Thus, 'mundane' is too loaded a concept for scientists to use. 'Chi', assuming it was a consistent theory, would be equally appropriate to consider as a scientific theory as 'biochemistry,' regardless of subjective concerns just as mundane-ness vs mystical-ness. One of the ways to compare such a 'chi' model vs a 'biochemistry' model would be Occam's Razor - comparing how much 'stuff' each model assumes.

I called it off-topic, as I didn't mean to imply that 'chi' WAS a consistent theory. And also because I didn't mean to conclude from my comment that anything concluded from YOUR comment was wrong. I just wanted to comment because so many people incorrectly use Occam's Razor, and conclude things which ARE inappropriate. Kind of a pet peeve. ;)

[Merryprankster]

Agreed. Mundaneness is loaded IF we provide Chi and Biochemistry a level playing field as objects to apply the razor to. However, as you so aptly pointed out, since one is so far unprovable, and the other is an entire field of study composed of certain things borne out by concrete evidence, I think mundane is a suitable word...

Semantics--and in this case, not too important since we both understand the gist of the other.

However, your definition of Occam's Razor is far more technically correct than the one I provided.

[diego]

ice cream is good with chocolate and bannanas

[Serpent]

Oh yeah? Prove it!

[diego]

http://www.wutangworld.com/forum/attachment.php?

[diego]

bah crap it doesnt direct attach i hate this no pic****

[GeneChing]

I knew this one would stir the pot a little. :D

I admit there is a leap in my statement the you must believe in qi if you practice kungfu. Call it writer's perogative. However, on the highest levels, most all the Kungfu masters will point to qi (save Chen Xiaowang apparently, I must ask him about that when I next see him.) But I'll certainly grant that there is a leap in that statement. It betrays my Chinese roots, I suppose. Or my sense of poetry.

As for what qi in a scientific paradigm, it's a little like looking searching for god with a microscope. It is fundamentally non-scientfic - an abstract heuristic to describe what science cannot. If you are locked into science as god, well, qi ain't on that roadmap. Nor is love or morality, for that matter. While I don't question the scientific method, I do question it's loveless and amoral applications. Now, there are some scientific qi studies (and I mention a few in the article) that have positive results, but I'll be honest here too and state that they are very sketchy, even to my limited training as a scientist.

The most important point here is that some people do go down. Not everyone, not all the time, but some. Now it's easy to counter and say that's just hypnotism, which would be fine in my book. If I could hypnotize someone to go down, or knock 'em out with qi, or whatever, I don't really care, they still go down. I mention that in my article too - good lord, there's a typo there - "vitcims" - man, it's tough working with so many esl people here...

I do beleive that some people can knock some people down with out touching them. What can I say? I pretty open-minded about stuff - I have to be to do my job here. If you saw all the craziness that comes across my desk... However, the no touch takes the right kind of master and a succeptible fall guy. My beleifs do cause a bias and I address that in my article. But despite my bias, Leon still couldn't knock me, so obviously, that has little to do with the ultimate result. If anything, it strengthens the scientific stance.

I've yet to believe so strongly in the method that I start training it.

[fa_jing]

A lot of people here don't seem to understand what "Chi" is. It is not something to be believed or not believed. It is just a term, that the Chinese have used as a catch-all to describe various, unrelated, loosely related, or closely related bodily phenomena.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS TERM, TALK AROUND IT. (sorry)

Now, in the relationships, effects, potential of Chi, there is room for argument. There is room for argument regarding the usefulness of the term, considering that it is rather broadly applied. But there should be no argument as the "existence" of Chi.

-FJ

[Merryprankster]

Show me it exists.

I'm not falling into the trap of trying to prove that Chi doesn't exist.

Take some of these relationships and tell me how and why they are related, and why chi is what relates them.

[fa_jing]

Here's a simple relationship. Hold your breath and punch your friend in the stomach. Think about lollipops as you do this.

Now, imagine your fist coming out the other side, holding your friend's innards. Breath out forcefully as you punch your friend.

Without completing the experiment, you already know the result.
You ask, how are these related by Chi? Because that's the term the Chinese use to help you make the connection. To teach you that mindful intention and use of your air triggers a mechanical response in your movement. That's why they group all these things together, which we think of as seperate.

MP, you're missing my point. Let me restate:

Chi = a term. Semantics, nothing more.


-FJ

[Merryprankster]

In that case, the use of Chi in a combative sense is nothing more than proper body mechanics and a great deal of practice.

[jun_erh]

reminds me of certain scenarios in "Chinese Boxing: Methods and Masters" . Muuch of it had to do with the psychological hold a teacher could have on a student. Like at one point the teacher is pointing at a student's foot and telling her to jump up and down. It seems like magic, but one of the other guys is like "it's just intimidation" like a ouji board. My sense is that mr mooney is interested and beleives in this stuff and has decided to sacrafise his image as a rational teacher of tai chi in order to express that, but has failed. He's just not a 100 year old guy in some temple in China.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
In that case, the use of Chi in a combative sense is nothing more than proper body mechanics and a great deal of practice.

I am not disputing that. In fact, you have gotten my point!! You almost make it sound like a bad thing. It's great! ;)

Just remember, proper body mechanics/practice means using air, having a healthy body, eating properly, taking care of yourself, etc. Because the Chinese also apply the term "chi" to what we would call "vitality" or "well-being." Well, they might call it "Shen," I don't know.

-FJ

[Merryprankster]

If what you say is true, then CMA are doing nothing fundamentally different than any other MAs out there.

[Shadow Dragon]

Guys.

You must remember that Chinese Doctors were not allowed to invade the Body to see how it works/fix it.

So they had to come up with concepts and terms to explain how Body/Mind/Spirit interact, hence the different "Chi" concepts.

Also that is why there is soo much confusion, but it is simply a Chinese term trying to explain certain changes/happening in the Body.

Remember that we westerners used to bleed People to let the bad influences out of the Body, and that was not too long ago either.

Peace.

[norther practitioner]

I agree with fa jing....
This chi thing has been getting hit a lot lately, I think that it depends on how you define chi, how you think about how the body works, (we are a very electrical species), etc.

[Merryprankster]

Shadow, the DIFFERENCE is that nobody seriously believes that 'bad blood' that should be let out is the source of your diseases anymore. People still believe that chi can do some rather fantastic things.

You (universal you) want to believe in it fine, but don't tell me "it exists," until you demonstrate it in a manner that can't be explained by physics/biomechanics/biochemistry, etc. In other words, recognize it as more of a 'faith' than a 'fact'.

[Braden]

Although, curiously enough, bleeding has been rediscovered by western medicine as an incredibly useful treatment. It's just funny how things work out.

[Merryprankster]

Braden, yes--for certain very specific things. But it's not a "cure what ails ya."

Very good to speed recovery for injuries that heal faster when swelling is reduced.

[Braden]

Maybe, in the same way, we need to stop thinking of traditional chinese medical concepts as 'cures for what ails ya' and distill them to their 'very specific' benefits too. ;)

[Merryprankster]

That's fine. I have no problem with that. But such specific benefits would still need to be verified in controlled studies, just like any drug, to prove their efficacy.

[Braden]

I know... the remark was kind of aimed at everyone else. ;)

[Merryprankster]

Ah---see what happens when you're stuck at work for 12 hours straight? And to think I made a comment about agreeing that most American's don't appreciate irony because we're too serious.

Pot? Kettle. YOU'RE BLACK!!!

[Shaolindynasty]

Qi is kind of like bioelectricity, at least that would be the closest western term to discribe it. What is called qigong by most people is little more than circus tricks. I was watching a masters demo from the 2000 usawkf tournament in baltimore and there was this guy who supposedly used his "qi" to make a newspaper catch on fire, he also broke some sticks or somthing with his finger. It's totally palor tricks in my opinon. Qi is real but most martial artists don't have a clue as to what it is. TCM actually is somthing better to study if you are interested in Qi.

[Shadow Dragon]

Shadow, the DIFFERENCE is that nobody seriously believes that 'bad blood' that should be let out is the source of your diseases anymore. People still believe that chi can do some rather fantastic things.

Those are the sheep that believe that.
Most People will happily a accept a new concept while "bleeding" is old, "Chi" is new.

How many people want their fav Pets cloned, but can't understand that they will only get a look-alike Copy and not their beloved Pet back.
Most People still don't understand cloning fully, but got a big Voice eihter for it or against it.

Same thing in the 70's People froze themselves to be revived later on to be heald of illnesses.
"Chi" is just the latest miracle thingy to make things better.

How many Westerners still believe that faith in God will save or heal them??

Chi, Jing and many other Chinese terms [B]were[\B] used to explain processes in the Body where only the outcome could be observed.

Looks like most of the Chi-mongering goes on in the US and parts of Europe.
(That is an observation)

People that believe those "Chi Fantasies" are the same that fall for the most obvious sales tricks and stage acts, IMHO.

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

So there aren't many "Chi Masters," hawking their wares in China/HK/Taiwan, like over here in western civ?

Just asking--not trying to start a war :)

[Shadow Dragon]

MP.

Not many that I have seen on my travels, naturally there are some of course.

Most of them hardly ever talked about "Chi" unless it was during Qi-Gong, or giving a specific explanation
.And none of the Students appeared to need an explanation of what was required either.

Said that there are also asians I met that dispute "Chi" and it's existence.

Peace.

[David Jamieson]

For me, Chi/Qi is simply "life essence", it is the air you breath, the energy that moves your body and that same energy which allows you to think about things like "what is chi?" :)

it is not supernatural. It is an alien term to many outside of eastern culture or those who have not been exposed to it.

It is no more unbelievable than , say, air.

what is air? is it just nitrogen and hydrogen and oxygen? Or is it more. Of course it is more than just the parts, it is a sum and it is in a state of constant flux, always changing and yet always "air".

Chi is very much like the buddha nature inasmuch as the more you seek to pigeon hole it's properties, the ****her you will be from understanding it.

whereas if you let it flow naturally, it will and you will benefit. You have it in you and around you all the time, just like air. You don' disbelieve the existance of "air" though do you?

peace

[Merryprankster]

I don't have to believe that air exists. I know it exists. Its component parts can be seperated and examined. Samples of air can be taken and chemically analyzed. The electron microscope can show us the electron cloud and the outline of the nuclei of an N2 molecule.

The energy that moves my body is furnished by a series of complex biochemical transactions involving ion transfer. These reactions are also well documented

The energy that allows me to think about these things is generated in the same way, same sort of documentation.

Bad analogy.

[diego]

Have they broken up the atom yet, i cant remember but i think they announced something that they finally mapped out the atom within the last few years?. They also mentioned something about originally they thought the atom was this!?, then when they got to that, they found out thier was like 20 more of those, like a chinese box. This Is A Meta4


Maybe They Havent Built the right MicroLens Yet Merry?.
Not patronizing im still waiting for a agreed upon explanation of chi:cool:

[Braden]

Maybe They Havent Built the right MicroLens Yet Merry?

Let's consider a muscle contracting. How can we describe it's behavior? Overt level - force and work equations. Organ level - strenghts, speeds and durations of contraction. Tissue level - muscle fiber recruitment and nervous activation equations. Cellular level - membrane potential and cellular metabolism equations. Molecular level - ion and metabolite movement. Sub-molecular level - protein subdomain and conformational changes. Then maybe... electron movement? wave functions?

Which one of these is right? Which one of these is reality?

There is a common conception that the western scientific mind is primarily oriented around reduction of the strictest sense - which is to say, elimination. As we are talking about tradional beliefs, or 'folk-science', it is worth pointing out that this stems from an ancient western folk belief called atomism. Atomism states that there must be a fundamental level of matter - where we could look no closer, and it could no longer be broken down into constituents. That other perceptions are larger scale manifestations of movement at this fundamental level, like multiple reflections in a carnival layer. That, to truly understand the nature of reality, we should look to this fundamental layer... or so goes the rational argument from atomism to elimination.

From a strictly eliminativist viewpoint, wave functions are surely the most accurate way of modelling muscle contraction. To anyone who holds this view, I put forth the challenge to actually model a muscle contraction using wave functions. Hopefully, even with this simple statement, we begin to see the collapse of the validity of atomism and reductionism.

Which one of these levels is right? The answer is not absolute, but interest-dependant (what are you using the information for?) and perception-dependant (how are you looking at the situation?)

This becomes more obvious, and more metaphysically robust, the more we evaluate the problem. Atomism and strong reductionism both necessarily result in a peculiar belief: that there comes a point when you can no longer look any closer at something. To the western mind, indoctrinated as it is in the concept of atomism, this seems like a reasonable enough presumption - but really think about it for a moment. As a thought experiment, free yourself from the limitations of technology and conceptual models - imagine that you live in a peculiar dimension where there exists magnifying glasses of any imaginable strength. Imagine that, to view this fundamental layer of reality (whatever you believe it to be) requires a magnifying glass of strength 100. Atomism holds that a magnifying glass of strength 101 would be absurd - it would be meaningless. If you observed reality with it you would see nothing (or perhaps the universe would suddenly end! I have no idea what would happen if you looked at things in a way which was metaphysically impossible - which is indeed the whole reason that atomism is ridiculous).

This position becomes stronger as we continue to analyze it. The same reasoning which was born from atomism also creates another peculiar belief, which I'll clumsily call 'discrete layer'ism, or DLism. Recalling the initial discussion, we have the notion of various levels of perception/reality: overt, cell, molecule, sub-molecule, quantum. Our whole way of thinking, and our entire language is based around considering these as discrete layers. We talk about cells being COMPOSED of molecules. Of molecules being BROKEN into sub-molecular components.

Is this an accurate way of concieving of the universe? Let's side track a moment. Over the history of science, we have, at several different times, believed that a certain 'thing' was the fundamental layer of reality - only to discover later on that we can in fact look closer. If we consider the history in detail, we will note that our ability to reach this conclusion (that is, our ability to look closer) has not ever come about due to new ways of thinking (eg. new conceptual models) but has always been dictated by available technology. As new technologies become available, we are able to look closer, and we are forced to conclude that something before unseen must be the fundamental layer of reality. Perhaps the irony of this itself should allready have resulted in the rejection of atomism?

It gets worse. What we concieve of as the discrete layers have also been dictates to us by the constraints of technology. It is no accident that we have overt -> cell -> molecular -> submolecular -> quantum. These 'layers' corrospond exactly with the resolution quality of each of the successive imaging technologies we've had available to us.

Let us return to the hypothetical dimension that has magnifying glasses of any and every power. Imagine that the cellular layer corrosponds to a power of 10, and the molecular layer to a power of 20. What do you see when you look through the hypothetical magnifying glass of power 15? The dedicated atomist in you wants to answer either 'a closeup of the cellular layer' or 'a distant picture of the molecular layer.' Let me provide an alternative answer which may be acceptable as it wouldn't conflict with those answers. What you would see would look different from the cellular layer, and if you observed it in real time, would exhibit different behaviors. In light of your conceptual model of discrete layers, you might maintain that that is how a closeup of cells LOOK and BEHAVE. But you must also no doubt conclude that it would be just as conceptually accurate to invent a new name, and a new set of equations to describe this layer. How is this different, and how is this the same from what we have actually done?

It seems undeniably clear to me from this argument that DLism must be rejected, atomism must be rejected, and strict reductionism must be rejected.

How this relates to the current conversation; I haven't the foggiest idea. But it's what I thought of when I read the thread, and it's clearly also what diego thought of - so what the hell. Not like anyone read this. ;)

[diego]

man, i'm ready for sleepy, wich forced me to read this!>
This is obviously a accumaltion of your prior readings:cool:
Sum up the major referance in your correspondence
are these mostly ideas from quantum physics?.

[cagey_vet]

there goes kenny, stirring up cr*p again.
same old argument.... go practice, dude.
give us an alternative and please stop
with the armchair diatribes.

[dezhen2001]

Braden: theres a chinese saying
"small has no inside, big has no outside" :)

david

[David Jamieson]

how is it a bad analogy MP. I think that if you think of Chi as a term, then you will find your descriptions of energy manifestation in the human body through direct and transformative process are what could be called Chi.

The problem is strapping a definition to it. It is the same thing as saying "what is life"?

Just because it has a chinese name doesn't mean it can't be analyzed with western methodologies. In fact, it (chi) is undergoing "tests" all the time. It is being researched and it is being measured. Because of an inability to explain the measurements does not by default make something not exist. By this process the universe itself would not exist (and didn't in it's presently understood form, until science argued the point with the church)

The argument cannot be flawed by mere semantics of convenience because the theory doesn't fit the facts. chi is life essence, breath and energy quite simply. What is so difficult to swallow about that?


peace

[Shadow Dragon]

Kung Lek.

I can see 3 problems that some westerners might have accepting that explanation.

1.) Too simply and obvious.
2.) "Life Energy" might be too close for comfort to the concept of "Soul".
3.) There is no western scientific proof for it.

I had this discussion many of times with many people and most of them won't accept what we tell them, they rather stick to denying and saying proof it, proof it.

Most of them will not accept a new term until it is accepted/approved by the FDA and so on.

Look at how many disbelief in natural remedies like Aroma therapy, Acupuncture and so on, but will happily swallow tablets that contains extracts that were found by analysing Aromatherapy for an example.

It is all the "placebo" effect to them.

Peace.

[No_Know]

"Belief in the existence of Chi is faith, not fact, until shown otherwise."

Faith based on theory/concept, perhaps.

Here are some other Faith not Fact things at some moment:


The World is round

Blacks are Human

People can go to outerspace

Computers can take-up less space than a large room

IBM stock might be worth something someday


Science type discoveries were muchly of things that already were in existance. Some people only recognize something that is recognized by Science-ish. There seems to be much stuff in existance. Perhaps more than Science~recognizes.


People were getting sick from germs before Louis Pasture~ Scienced that they existed. Some things people were doing before Scientific studies or Science indicated officially that they were good to do:

An apple a day keeps the doctor away--fibre

Sit-up straight (don't slouch)--how your lungs hang (at least); distortion of muscles

Certain kind of sick, eat moldy bread--penicilin~

Time flys when you're having fun--concentration/distraction(psychology~)

Talking to plants helps them grow--carbondioxide is useful to plants

Candles and their reflectin is brighter than just candles--something about luminesence (physics)


There might be something that exists that is useable and has more than one use. When referencing it, some might use a term that sounds like chee. It might also be a bit quarky.


If chee copuld be understood biochemically, that would not take away from it's existance. People who think it exists more-so seem to say that it exists, than the quality of it's existance. People who don't think chee exists seem more likey to give grandiose adjectives to create high goals to meet to discourage a concepte if chee existing.


"People still believe that chi can do some rather fantastic things."


Perspective: if you get hurt and take months to feel better and you find someone who makes hurt not there as much over days, that might seem fantastic.

[Merryprankster]

Good Lord.

No-Know--it's the process man, the process. If Chi exists as some kind of energy, I should be able to apply the scientific method to it and get consistent results within an acceptable error margin, as no two individuals or experiments are precisely the same. Drop an apple, it falls. Repeatable, consistent. Kinda like finding out if the earth is a sphere.

Kung Lek--it's a **** poor analogy because air has consistently demonstrable, observable substance. It's properties and effects are a direct result of its chemical and physical make up. Chi has not yet been shown to have a demonstrable, observable substance. The reasons its claimed properties and effects exists are unknown.

A better analogy would have been gravity. We've got this force we call gravity, and we've developed a theory that explains its existence and its mechanisms rather well. It's invisible, and we can feel its effects. However, the theoretical particle responsible for gravity (a graviton) has not yet been detected for a variety of reasons.

Where the analogy breaks down is that gravity has been thought about, studied and experimented with to determine its properties. These experiments and studies are repeatable within an acceptable margin of error. They are predicted by the results of previous experiments and a whole host of studied physical evidence. Chi has not undergone such rigorous testing, EXCEPT in an anecdotal way, passed down from person to person. That's good enough for a starting point to examine it, but hardly persuasive evidence. Kind of like the existence of ghosts....

Braden-- the reason we don't have a wave-particle model of biomechanics is because we don't know enough yet. Get back to it in a couple of thousand years, and I bet that Quantum Biochemicalmechanics is a standard field of study in respected universities :)

Also--w/regards to atomism, there's sort of a yes and no on that. Think of Zeno's paradox. That's atomism at its finest, from a mathematical perspective...and you never quite get there. Calculus however, shows that you do, in fact, cross the bridge :) Further, Calculus and other maths demonstrate that seemingly infinite series can result in a finite answer, and that a finite definite patterned result is the product of seemingly infinite chaotic series/actions. Whoever said "small has no inside and big has no outside," wasn't far off the mark. Higher math and the quantum world is very taoist in a way. The name given to a certain effect/aspect of quantum chromodynamics IS in fact, called the Eight Fold Way. Heck, quantum theorists, the study of the SMALLEST things in existence, and astrophysics--the study of the LARGEST things in existence, are getting more and more interlinked every day.

Shadow Dragon--A bad argument. If aromatherapy or traditional medicine is using an herb that has a compound or five that is claimed to be helpful, and western medicine verifies the effect, you've just demonstrated its efficacy. So it's NOT attributed to placebo effect. It's attributed to the actions of a specific set of compounds. Willow bark has salicylic acid in it. Anybody need an aspirin? Need to stay awake? Have some coffee. Heart problems? Welcome to digitalis, originally an extract of the foxglove. Now, that's all fine and good, but how about tiger ***** being used to promote virility in men? I'm a bit skeptical, thanks. That REEKS of animism. You're going to have to prove it.

Diego--Quantum Mechanics has gone well beyond the atom smashing phase. Read up.

In short, folks, I'm not against Chi. I don't actually care. But there is no PROOF that this exists. So the onus isn't on others to disprove it. The Burden of Proof in the scientific community is on the person who claims something IS.

Again--If Chi is a form of energy, then it can (and should be) subjected to the scientific method to learn more about it.

Heck, call Chi a theory--but if it keeps popping up unverified, then it will continue to shift into "faith"--where you continue to believe in something DESPITE a lack of conclusive evidence.

[apoweyn]

this is a prime example of why common definitions are established in the beginning.

if we're talking about a force that has a concrete effect on other forces, then merryprankster has a point that we should be able to measure it, quantify it, list its observable effects, and so on.

if, however, we're saying that qi is a term that describes life the way that kung lek and others are using it, then the term 'chi' is hardly unique. and hardly new to the western standpoint (however much some of us would like it to be).

if the second sense is the one we're working with, is qi any more or less difficult to test and quantify than consciousness? awareness? intent? yet each of these things is necessary for us to conduct the activities associated with human life.

from a strictly martial arts standpoint, presumably technique is a factor (otherwise we're wasting our time practicing). but we all know technical martial artists that still failed to be truly effective. their heart wasn't in it. they lacked a killer instinct. whatever. what we're saying in those instances is that they lacked intent (a nonmeasurable description). intent coupled with sound technique would result in effective martial arts, yeah?

is that more or less mystical than 'qi'?

where does that leave us? if qi can be manipulated, projected, harnessed, redirected, etc. then presumably its effects can be measured and observed. if qi is a descriptor of the synthesis of various aspects of human experience (consciousness, intent, etc.) then perhaps not.

so without establishing fairly precisely what people mean by the term (and not using it as catch phrase), the debate will rage on.


stuart b.

[GeneChing]

...to write more on this subject. Such passionate arguements and such pseudo-science. Love it.

But seriously, I think most westerners try to make an analog for qi in scientific terms and this is a big mistake. It's a techolophilic problem with our culture - we map undescribables as tech metaphors. Take the mind - early scientific models viewed it as cognition, inspired by the wheels, gears and cogs that drove technology of the day. Later an electrical model came into fashion (there was even a steam driven model.) Today the model is based on computers and holograms, but it is still an inadequate metaphor.

In China, qi describes an energy but not necessarily some thing electrical or even akin to the 'force.' You can say the architecture has qi - in fact that's the basis of feng shui. You can say there is great qi in a piece of art. A painting can have qi. The whole bioelectric/kirlian model breaks down here. Although you can look at those factors as running parallel to qi, perhaps even contributing, but personally, I think that's only a shred of the big picture. Who takes kirlian photos of the Mona Lisa?

Qi is more like spirit. Before all these techno/scientific metaphors, spirit was the key and like qi, it resided in the breath, thus terms like respiration, inspiration and expiration. The early studies of mind called it pnuema, again attaching it to the breath. And still we speak of breathing life into a painting.

So in the big picture, an expression of qi is far more abstract - a way of saying something works in a grand, divine sense. That makes if very subjective and by definition, beyond rational explanation.

[Merryprankster]

Gene--that works for me... and sounds suspiciously like what Ap was getting at.

Would you say that "belief in Chi," is necessary to proficiency in CMA? Or that's just been the traditional way to discuss it.

Pseudo-science eh? Hmmm....

If so, why?
If not, why not?

[apoweyn]

gene,

like merryprankster said, that's kinda what i'm getting at. if qi is used in the same sense that spirit is used, then i'm down with it.

but if i claimed to be able to knock you out with my spirit, you'd be skeptical, yes? or my pneuma, soul, consciousness, or any other intangible quality i possess.

if i claimed to be able to knock you out with my breath, perhaps that's more plausible. [smirk]

if qi is intangible and conceptual, great. but how does it then exert influence directly on reality? i don't think it's enough to dismiss the questions with lofty and poetic expositions. (i'm not suggesting that you're doing that. i'm saying that it's a temptation.)

take feng shui, for instance. we could say that articles of furniture jutting out into the room 'interrupt the flow of chi.' we might also say that it makes it difficult to walk in a relaxed fashion through the room without making starts, stops, and changes in direction. the first explanation is needlessly mysterious. the second borders on common sense.

does that make any sense? (as always, not a rhetorical question)


stuart b.

[GeneChing]

merry: You know, actually I thought about my original renege on my qi and kungfu comment and now I renege again. Writer's perogative. My quote was "..if you practice kungfu, you must beleive in qi." Now I stand behind this again, but point to kungfu as my out. The character 'fu' elevates it to something divine and that requires qi to me. But there's a lot of CMA that isn't kungfu. So in answer to your question, it's not necessary for CMA, but it is if you want to label your CMA as kungfu. That's splitting a few hairs, but that's the way I see it.

BTW, I know a lot of the real merry pranksters from when I used to work for the Grateful Dead. Did you just cop the name or might I know you too?

ap: Actually, I think I'm trying to get at something bigger. The knock out can be an expression of qi but it can have nothing to do with spirit in the lucasfilm sense of force nor breath in the altoid sense. Now here's a spin kick, if you can have good qi in how you paint, can you have good qi in how you hypnotize? Supossing I have a strong enough personality to dominate you psychologically, sort of like a witch doctor if you will, is that still qi? I've always had a problem with that hypnotism/brain washing excuse for phenomena since it doesn't deny that the phenomena exists, yet invalidates it with a straw man-like argument. Whatever the case, people do go down. Not everyone (back to that lucasfilm metaphor, perhaps it only works on weak minds) but some.

And I would hope lofty poetry would have some influence on reality - It gives me hope but perhaps that's just me. ;)

I am personally very skeptical that anyone can knock me out with qi alone - that's one reason why I challenged Leon Jay. I do beleive that he can knock others out. And I do beleive it is a legitimate practice (I'd rather do that then semen retention) but like I said in the article, it's a lot like ancient weapons, I wouldn't practice it for fighting myself. It's more for your own personal alchemical exploration.

[The Willow Sword]

the western mind will always be more designed to explain the workings of anything through a scientific and analytical perspective. even more so will the westernized "new age" mindset be inclined to over spiritualize something to the extent of it not making any sense and putting a shroud of disbelief over it.
of course i am speaking of Qi and its essence. i think it best to keep the workings of Qi and all aspects pertaining to it very simple, as with the breath,,breath is life. "you are all so busy trying to find out a way to explain the mystery and dissect it through tedious fumblings that you never stopped to think if you SHOULD."

Many Respects,,The Willow Sword

[Merryprankster]

Copped I'm afraid.

Anyway....Well, I guess you've got your perspective... :)

[fa_jing]

MPS, all -

1. Do you believe in Yin and Yang?
2. Can you "prove" that such things exist, can you "disprove?" 3. Can you understand what people that use these terms are getting at, without necessarily wanting to group things the same way yourself?
4. If you don't like these terms, can you come up with another way of describing whatever it is you want to talk about, using more Western terms?


My answers:

1. N/A
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.


-FJ

[apoweyn]

gene,

"And I would hope lofty poetry would have some influence on reality - It gives me hope but perhaps that's just me."

nope, it's not just you, mate. as a confirmed liberal artist (b.a., english language and lit.), i firmly believe in the power of those things. at the same time, i believe that even the effect of a poem on a person can be explained beyond 'me like.' (again, i'm not accusing you of that. just pointing out that there's a temptation to say that certain things 'just are' and therefore defy further investigation.)

"Actually, I think I'm trying to get at something bigger. The knock out can be an expression of qi but it can have nothing to do with spirit in the lucasfilm sense of force nor breath in the altoid sense. Now here's a spin kick, if you can have good qi in how you paint, can you have good qi in how you hypnotize? Supossing I have a strong enough personality to dominate you psychologically, sort of like a witch doctor if you will, is that still qi? I've always had a problem with that hypnotism/brain washing excuse for phenomena since it doesn't deny that the phenomena exists, yet invalidates it with a straw man-like argument. Whatever the case, people do go down. Not everyone (back to that lucasfilm metaphor, perhaps it only works on weak minds) but some."

well... i don't really rule out the possibility that a person can affect another in concrete ways using far less concrete tools. and i agree with you that if the guy falls down because of something you did, then explaining it away with hypnotism in no way detracts from the achievement. but 'he fell down' still doesn't represent the end of the reasoning road.

anyone that passes it off as 'he was hypnotized' is committing precisely the same act that we are by saying 'it's qi.' it's a nonanswer. it leaves avenues to be pursued. how was the guy hypnotized? how do we know he was hypnotized? did brain function change in some observable way? is the result reproduceable? can we prove causality? is it reproduceable?

if qi is indeed necessary for gungfu (and gungfu represents a higher skill than simply CMA), then shouldn't qi of this sort adhere to teachable, reproduceable, and reliable principles?

if it works sometimes, what marked those times as different from other times? if qi strikes are to be useful, i'd think that sort of information would be vital.

i love philosophy, theology, psychology, and various other disciplines of that sort. and i have next to no scientific training to speak of, so i'm not speaking as a natural cynic or pragmatist. but if martial arts is in the application, then shouldn't we be able to establish causality based on concrete explanation? anything less seems woefully unreliable.


stuart b.

[greendragon]

"mystery is science yet unexplained" do thoughts have substance or resonate down through the spectrum? if i visualize reversing your flow in certain meridians, you would be made weaker. This can be scientifically tested with applied kinesiology (muscle testing). I think KL hit right on it with "life force". Perhaps some do not recognize existance of that as well. Their loss. Let's say there is someone capable of breaking the limited view of physics. Why would they care to come forward to prove it ? especially to some biased skeptic.

[Merryprankster]

Why would they want to come forward? I dunno--maybe they broke out of the ridiculous "secret knowledge, closed door, inner circle," crap that seems to be so popular in CMA.

Oh, yeah... SURE it's been proven. Show me where. Or is this one of those sifu says things again?

I visualize your thought processes improving--hmm... did that work?

[apoweyn]

greendragon,

"if i visualize reversing your flow in certain meridians, you would be made weaker. This can be scientifically tested with applied kinesiology (muscle testing)."

and has it? has it been tested? have the results been published? reproduced? has causality been established? if so, what's the debate?

"Let's say there is someone capable of breaking the limited view of physics. Why would they care to come forward to prove it ? especially to some biased skeptic."

Because if they make said skeptic aware of their abilities, it's presumably to send a message. Otherwise, how would we ever know of such an individual? And if that individual chooses to make skeptics aware of what he or she can do, then part of that message needs to be proof.

if a person has no interest in convincing skeptics, then god bless em. good times. but if that person makes their claims public (discussion forums, marketing advertisements, etc.), then they're going to have to deal with skepticism in some way.


stuart b.

[greendragon]

Apoweyn, I see your point. MP, thanks, my thinking has improved. but that fighting spirit keeps running my mouth.

[Merryprankster]

Greendragon--

LOL--thanks! I'm glad you took it far less cantankerously than I did... I can be a schmuck.

Cheers!

[GeneChing]

willow sword - I agree with what you say, but being of western mind myself (for the most part) I try to step outside of the paradigm as much as possible. After all, the westerrn mind came up with McDonald's and I think we should all be ashamed of that :rolleyes:

merry prankster - So what inspired you to cop that name exactly? Don't say Tom Wolfe....
BTW, my thought process did imporve for just a moment. Keep on visualizing, I need all the help I can get nowadays :D

apoweyn - reproducible qi - hmm, now this gets real interesting... I suppose I could invoke the Heisenberg principle but that would be a default to that mcdonald's western mind. Let shoot back the painting analog again - Is the Mona Lisa reproducible? Actually I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, so I'm going to switch to my favorite Dali masterpiece, the Hallucinogenic Toreador (This is just my own personal preference, you can put any painting here.) I had seen that piece reproduced in book, on postcards, all over, but when I saw it in person (It's in FL) it blew me away. Now that was qi and it couldn't be reproduced. Look at how many people emulate Bruce Lee. Bruce had qi, but his followers? Not the same.

The concept of qi is elusive by defination. To me, to define it robs it of its power. It is the unexplained. Sure bioelectric forces or even lucasfilm forces might have plenty to do with it, but it's not x = x. It's parallel, like trying to map the acupuncture meridians on the endorphin sites or on the ayuvedic nadi system (actually I'm trying to save the acupuncture card from this discussion until it's really necessary.) Like any heuristic concept, when you define it as something else is when you get into trouble, like saying love is internet porn, hate is bin laden, real is reality tv.

Take it or leave it, qi is part of our heritage. Real or fake, if you accept that heritage, the question becomes how much of it will you take on faith? To me, if it's good enough to have faith in, it's good enough to test. That's why I let Leon Jay attempt to knock me out. But just because he failed doesn't mean that I've disproven the whole concept. I'm still open to the possibility with guarded skepticism.

[Merryprankster]

Nope.

Ken Kesey. A real writer. And a wrestler to boot! :)

[Braden]

diego - Just my reasoning. However, for an interesting account from a prominent quantum physicist, check out David Bohm's books 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' and 'The Undivided Universe.' There are also a variety of other works spawned by his thinking which might be of greater interest, depending on your background.

dezhen - I hadn't heard that one, thanks. ;)

Kung Lek / Shadow Dragon / MerryPrankster - I think what Kung Lek is saying, is that if you divorce yourself from 'discrete layer'ism, you may be able to adequately consider chi as an interpretation of reality, the way molecules or quantum level is (simply, one which is not entwined with the concept of visual resolution, and therefore not a layer in the explicit sense). Along this way of thinking, the concept may have as much validity as anything in western science, however it's unlayerness would explain why the western mind has a difficult time with it. Conversely, I think what MerryPranker and others are saying (and what has certainly been my experience) is that rather than actually being delt with in this manner, 'chi' has been used to write off anything and everything. I think we can all agree this is inappropriateness.

MerryPrankster - "Chi has not yet been shown to have a demonstrable, observable substance."

I think if you approached it as a conceptual model rather than a particle, you would have more luck. Although - see above.

"A better analogy would have been gravity."

Gravity is a GREAT analogy, in that science is still utterly baffled by it. But, like you pointed out, nonetheless we've managed to do a decent job of cataloging it's effects.

"the reason we don't have a wave-particle model of biomechanics is because we don't know enough yet. Get back to it in a couple of thousand years, and I bet that Quantum Biochemicalmechanics is a standard field of study in respected universities"

I doubt it. ;) This whole way of thinking comes about because people consistently confuse science (the process of applying the scientific method to develop increasingly accurate models of reality) with metaphysics (the process of determining the actual underlying nature of reality). Specialized fields in science (eg. biochemistry) come about not in an attempt to determine a metaphysics (except in the minds of people making the above mistake - which results in a large mess; see last rant). but rather from an attempt to deal most accurately with a given phenomenon. Biochemistry continues to develop today (in leaps and strides, we might note) in spite of the existance of quantum physics (for nearly a century now) and indeed, in spite of particle physics, and 'deeper' levels of chemistry (which are much, much more mature). Why is this? Because biochemistry deals with biochemistry better than particle physics ever will. That's the definition of what it is! When we send out deep space probes, bouncing them around 9 gravitational pools to get them out there (by all accounts, a sophisticated problem for physics), do we use quantum mechanics? No, we still follow the teachings learnt from an apple and a head meeting. Why? Because that model really is the best we've got for dealing with things of that sort. Again, it has advanced in leaps and bounds since the advent of quantum mechanics - contrary to what you'd observe if quantum mechanics really was going to replace it.

What gets people thinking otherwise is that they do see every layer in the layer they are looking at. Looking at the quantum layer, we really can see how it forms sub-molecular and how that forms molecular, and how that forms cellular... But we mistakenly conclude 'discrete layer'ism from this, as I have previously argued. Consider that reality really is just reality - this whole big continuum of things, in which there is no real discreteness (as I have previously argued). Would you expect to see all the others layers in one layer? Of course! How could you not? This model accounts for all the observations we have made, without the problems of the 'discrete layer'ism model outlined in this post and the previous.

"Further, Calculus and other maths demonstrate that seemingly infinite series can result in a finite answer, and that a finite definite patterned result is the product of seemingly infinite chaotic series/actions."

Yes! These are, to me, some of the most fascinating revelations. And they are necessary (if seemingly utterly nonsensical!) if we are to have the kind of metaphysics I have outlined, yet still percieve it the way we do. From utter chaos spawns order, from utter order spawns chaos. From infinity spawns finacy, from finacy - infinity. Yes, the taoists did say exactly this. And it is clearly the underlying ordering principle of reality. Spooky stuff!

"That REEKS of animism."

You don't want to get me started on panpsychism. ;)

"Willow bark has salicylic acid in it."

What does Lithium have in it? ;) I think we just have to be careful confusing scientific and medical approaches. In science we want an analogy of how things work. In medicine, we just want to know what things do. Of course, there's alot of crossover, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind when making these arguments.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--I appreciate your point, and I also believe that biochemistry CURRENTLY deals with Biochemistry better than anything else. However, I also forsee a time in which quantum physics and astrophysics are almost exactly the same field. Could not the same be said of biochemistry? We have no idea what odd manipulations will take place in the future. In other words, who is to say that quantum medicine might not exist in the future---we already use MRI's... :) It's a stretch, I know... I was just trying to point out that we might have "god knows what," as fields of study in the future.

However, I too am a great believer in the right time, right place. Why use relativistic equations, when on the normal everyday level, Classic mechanics work just fine? No reason to muddy up the waters.

I completely agree about discrete layerism. I personally would never expect to find quantum mechanics as an integral part of biochemistry. I was really just using that as an example of the kind of wierdness that frequently happens. Could you imagine how strange the electrostrong theory, that unifies 4 of the 5 forces, would look to Newton? That's really more what I was suggesting with my comment.

However, certain "particle physics" effects ARE integrally part of organic and therefore biochemistry--like the hybridization of electron orbitals in atoms--especially carbon, being responsible for local charges and the rigidity/flexibility of certain bonds, which greatly affect the entire scheme of things---even liquid water is a by product of quantum level effects.

When I was discussing Chi not having demonstrable observable substance, I wasn't thinking of it as a particle--I was pointing out that that is part of what makes "air" an unsuitable analogy.

As far as the willow bark thing--that was specifically addressed to Shadow's comments--and that medical research does USE the scientific method, even if it's not modeling anything. They develop a theory, they test it out, and continue refining and retesting until they get it right-- like penicillin--hey, there's something in this mold that's an antibacterial, I think. Let's grow it again and see if we get results similar to the first one--yep... well, heck, will an extract of the mold do the same thing... yep... ok, well, what part of this extract is causing this---let's test the components... ok, there it is....

Anyway, basically Braden, I'm trying to agree with you--just pointing out that the future has a way of surprising us with wacky sh!t :)

[Merryprankster]

Braden, where are you located, just curious...

[Braden]

I think we agree, or at least see eye to eye.

Not a disagreement, but just a clarification - that one 'layer' will positively influence understanding of another (eg. orbital hybridization in biochemistry) is an observation independant of the existance or nonexistance of reductionism. For anyone interested, do a google search for "special sciences"+fodor to get a very different account of the thing I'm driving for here.

"Braden, where are you located, just curious..."

Ottawa, Canada. :)

[Merryprankster]

Yeah I didn't think you were US.

Yes-- I completely agree that one layer affecting the other is independant of the validity of reductionism.

[No_Know]

"Good Lord.

No-Know--it's the process man, the process. If Chi exists as some kind of energy, I should be able to apply the scientific method to it and get consistent results within an acceptable error margin, as no two individuals or experiments are precisely the same."

Process?

"Gravity is a GREAT analogy, in that science is still utterly baffled by it. But, like you pointed out, nonetheless we've managed to do a decent job of cataloging it's effects. "

" Drop an apple, it falls. Repeatable, consistent. Kinda like finding out if the earth is a sphere."


The process of Gravity has been referred to. You see it's effects. Not it. The wind is not seen yet you would say it exists. You say Gravity exists yet cannot hold it. Cannot see it with your eyes, would not claim to hear it or taste it or smell it. Perhaps the same should be with chee. While you've lived with it you've not needed to name or refer to it. But in the Orient areas they do.~ So they named it. The Hawaiians have many names for waves. Waves is their life.-ish The Eskimos have many names for snow. They know snow. Chinese claim there is some stuff called chee, which is versitile. They are not necessarily wrong just because it hasn't been proven to you.

I could, ten times out of ten get MerryPrankster in a throat lock from behind after we face off. But with what he knows of himself and perhaps has thought of me, he would not readily believe that. Merely his belief that it is not likely or not possible, would not keep it from being true. If it were. :-)

"I should be able to apply the scientific method to it and get consistent results within an acceptable error margin, as no two individuals or experiments are precisely the same."

Good, so you realize that with this chee stuff one might not compensate appropriately to a new subject or diffent yet seemingly similar situation. And therefore not have a succesful result. Not that Chee does not exist. Merely that that the practitioner did not use it right enough at that moment.~

" Drop an apple, it falls. Repeatable, consistent. Kinda like finding out if the earth is a sphere."

The Earth was round for at least centuries before finding out it was sphereish (more-so eliptical-ish). Yet theoretically it was round before it was found out to be. So (needle-and-thread), perhaps you can admit to not knowing! As chee might exist and is perhaps analyzeable; but, perhaps it would be at least centuries before there is enough comprehension to grasp what has been there.

Repeatable, consistant. The result, yes. But seeing the result is not seeing the thing! You still can't prove to me Gravity. Merely show me the Result of things not readily emperical. I can put my hand near strong pain--headache, migraine, menstral cramps, backaches, tight lungs (asthmatics) and there can be less pain from within seconds to two hours later to the next day.

"A better analogy would have been gravity. We've got this force we call gravity, and we've developed a theory that explains its existence and its mechanisms rather well."

How is chee different? It sounds remarkablely similar to what you said about gravity, just there.


Wind is the result of a something, a force. Waves are the result of a something, a force. Gravity a name for something of which results are noted, yet it is not. Perhaps chee is one of these energies/forces/whatevers which are yet not proveablely noticeable to exist.~


People who claim chee knockout capability might should come out about it when they can do it while moving around and having to defend too. Then they would be most capable when it has success here. Some people might use good techniques with out full enough comprehension of those techniques. The techniques aren't bad because of this. They just need someone who can readily execute them. It doesn' t mean there's no chee. Perhaps some such, some might say.

[Merryprankster]

Because No_know, it's the process.

Chi has been passed down, it is true, but it has been passed down in the way that an herbalist used to pass information to her daughters---anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotes have a way of going beyond the facts.

The study of Gravity has, however, been very systematic and very well documented under acceptable expirimental guidelines. The study of Chi has not.

I am not suggesting that chi does not exist. I am not suggesting that certain kinds of knowledge that are now thought to be correct will stay that way in the future.

What I am suggesting is that the claims made in the name of chi be studied, catalogued and tested, vice passed from person to person. A hypothesis to be developed, tested and studied under appropriately controlled conditions. For instance, the idea that you use chi to help heal yourself or eliminate pain... GREAT! Let's study that. There's a real effect of chi we should be able to study.

And if you can take my back and choke me 10 out of 10 times, good god man, you're good! :)

[No_Know]

Study it....(0 0), ohhhhhhhh! :-) O.K. :-)

[Merryprankster]

Yup! Subject it to the same sort of objective analyses we study other things with. That's all.

Until then, it's an unverified concept. Useful perhaps to some, and perhaps having real effects, but the process of studying it is where I think we'll get some answers.

[David Jamieson]

wow, the ebb and flow of this thread is chi like.

Well, I personally believe in the constant and persistent existance of chi, and accept it without actually being able to accurately and fully describe it.

I do feel it's effects when I breath, eat food, drink water, squint my eyes in the bright sun, etc, etc, etc.

I see it's effects when body and mind connect, which in turn I feel encourages and broadens ones spirit, intent, will and resolve.
I have experienced it's effects through time as my body ages and as it grew. I imagine it will still be felt as I expend my last breath :D

I understand what's been said about inanimate objects possessing chi, however, to me, it is residual in nature (like an object under water) at that level and as semantics go, it is a more broadly accepted term in the east to be used in such fashion. On the other hand, on a much wider scale, the whole of the universe has chi.


peace

[KenGullette]

Kung Lek wrote:
Well, I personally believe in the constant and persistent existance of chi, and accept it without actually being able to accurately and fully describe it.
_______________________________

But why?

Why would an intelligent guy like yourself believe that you feel something like chi in the sun, in the air -- when so many others believe they feel different things other than chi (God, radiation, etc.).

Why do so many intelligent folks just buy into it? Is it the romance of the ancient Chinese culture -- some perception we have that these old theories are cool, so they must be right?

Just curious. I'm always curious when people say "Yep. I believe it. Can't describe it. Can't prove it. But I believe it."

[apoweyn]

gene,


Originally posted by GeneChing
apoweyn - Is the Mona Lisa reproducible? Actually I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, so I'm going to switch to my favorite Dali masterpiece, the Hallucinogenic Toreador (This is just my own personal preference, you can put any painting here.) I had seen that piece reproduced in book, on postcards, all over, but when I saw it in person (It's in FL) it blew me away. Now that was qi and it couldn't be reproduced.

agreed. but then we're reverting back to a philosophical sense of qi. we can't liken no-touch knockouts to painting the hallucinogenic toreador because dali couldn't teach someone else to paint the hallucinogenic toreador. right? he could teach someone to reproduce it. but it would be different. it would feel different to you. right?

personally, i'm not arguing that qi doesn't exist. i'm perfectly comfortable with the concept myself. less so with the notion that it's a force than can be brought to bear on a person.

with the painting analogy, you're suggesting that it has a certain unique energy signature (perhaps not in the scientific sense, but i don't know the scientific sense so... ). that is a judgment (observation) made after the fact. dali wasn't claiming that he could bring some mystical energy to bear on the painting before the fact, to my knowledge. certainly, he claimed that he brought his own talents to the painting. and the successful synthesis of those talents might be described as qi. but he also did not claim to be able to bring those talents to bear on another sentient person.


The concept of qi is elusive by defination. To me, to define it robs it of its power. It is the unexplained. Sure bioelectric forces or even lucasfilm forces might have plenty to do with it, but it's not x = x. It's parallel, like trying to map the acupuncture meridians on the endorphin sites or on the ayuvedic nadi system (actually I'm trying to save the acupuncture card from this discussion until it's really necessary.) Like any heuristic concept, when you define it as something else is when you get into trouble, like saying love is internet porn, hate is bin laden, real is reality tv.

from a philosophical standpoint, i can respect that. it just is. labels will never accurately depict it. etc. (i'm a big fan of daoism myself.) and all of that is absolutely fine until someone claims to be able to do x, y, and z too you using this qi. at that point, it becomes reasonable for people to want to understand either what's happening to them or what they could do with it themselves.

generally speaking, "it just is" isn't satisfactory to many people. and i don't think that's necessarily a shortcoming of the western mind. i've heard of plenty of chinese gungfu teachers that had similar misgivings. for instance, panqinfu seems to disbelieve the idea of qi as an exertable force. but i daresay he's fine with it as a characterization of proper execution, timing, etc.


Take it or leave it, qi is part of our heritage. Real or fake, if you accept that heritage, the question becomes how much of it will you take on faith? To me, if it's good enough to have faith in, it's good enough to test. That's why I let Leon Jay attempt to knock me out. But just because he failed doesn't mean that I've disproven the whole concept. I'm still open to the possibility with guarded skepticism. [/B]

well, i can't (or rather won't) argue with this. someone made a claim to you and you put it to the test. i can dig that.

in short, if qi is being billed as a force that can act upon other things in a concrete and observable way, then we can test it. and if people are trying to sell it to us, then we should test it.

if, instead, qi is a neuristic (is that the right word?) for the sense that things are all working together smoothly (be those things attributes of a fighter, furniture in a living room, friends in a relationship, etc.) then i'm completely in agreement with that.


stuart b.

[GeneChing]

If we take qi from it's taoist roots, they speak of universal qi that permeates everything. It's a divine thing, an almighty if you will, and every deity in the taoist pantheon is part of it. So in a way, it's like the big holy spirit in a universe of gods and demons. Now if we take the word 'qi' and substitute it with 'god', what happens? Is the hallucinogenic toreador a manifestation of qi/god? Was Dali a vessel of divinity then? Could he show others how to be similar vessals? Mind you, this could turn to a rather complex philosophical discussion quickly, and I 'd rather not go there. I'm just trying to get everyone to think outside of the box.
You can't put qi in a box.
But you can use it for boxing.

[greendragon]

KungLek FEELS it, Ken mentally analyzes it. which sense do you trust? "trust your feelings Luke"

[apoweyn]

gene,

i understand substituting 'god', 'spirit', etc. for qi. and i understand that they're philosophical concepts. i'm perfectly fine with that.


You can't put qi in a box.
But you can use it for boxing.

this is where we transition from philosophical theory to application. can't put it in a box. fine. can use it for boxing. ... how?

you wouldn't say that you use God for boxing. and if you said that you used spirit or awareness or consciousness for boxing, you'd presumably be able to explain that statement.

how do you define its use in boxing? is it the synthesis of various factors? is it an indefinable feeling you get? or is it a palpable force? if it's the latter, then it can be tested.

which is what you did.

(sorry that i sound frustrated. it's not this discussion. it's work. mea culpa.)


stuart b.

[Braden]

KenGullette -

"But why?"

Maybe he experiences something, and is simply seeking to find meaning in the experience by associating it with experiences other have had - ie. giving it a name. Apply all the same arguments to the results of transcranial magnetic stimulation to the temporal lobe.

[Gabriel]

Sigh.....not this again. Don't you guys take days off? :rolleyes:

There are scientific studies ongoing now about bioelectricity and electromagnetic forces. Also Electromotive Force. An important pioneer in this study is Dr. Robert O. Becker. In his publication, The Body Electric, he outlines alot of his theories and some things that he has "proven" through experimentation.
As far as chi related phenomena, A scientist by the name of Albert L. Huebner states: "These demonstrations of body electricity in human beings may also offer a new explanation of an ancient healing practice. If weak external fields can produce powerful physiological effects, it may be that fields from human tissues in one person are capable of producing clinical improvements in another. In short, the method of healing known as the laying on of hands could be an especially subtle form of electrical stimulation." Also, Dr Richard Leviton reports: "Researchers at Loma Linda University's School of medicine in California have found, following studies in sixteen countries with over 1,000 patients, that low-frequency, low-intensity magnetic energy has been successful in treating chronic pain related to tissue ischemia, and has also worked into clearing up slow-healing ulcers, and in 90 percent of patients tested, raised blood flow significantly" You want more? read it yourself. I will not type incessantly for days and days to pound unwanted ideas into your hard heads... :(

some publications you might wish to try to get a basic understanding of the western concept of chi are :

"Life's Invisible Current" by Albert L. Huebner
"The Body Electric" by Robert O. Becker M.D. and Gary Selden, Quill, William Morrow
"Bioenergetics" by Albert Lehninger

Ironically, none of that even matters to me. I've become familiar with a "scientific" explanation only to fend off the countless skeptics, IRL and on this forum. I do not try to push my ideas on them, but they certainly try to push theirs on me. Call it self defense.

No, scientific blah doesn't matter to me. I agree with the opinion that to describe something to closely is to take away from it. IMHO, qi cannot be truly studied, at least not yet. It cannot be measured, put in a petrie dish, put on a microscope slide, decantered, weighed, or even seen. I think it is unreasonable to ask for proof of such a thing. In my current level of chi cultivation, I can only feel it myself, let alone show it to someone else. One would have to be proficient in qi indeed to be able to show someone else. there was reference to God earlier. I don't necessarily agree with the angle it was applied, however to you that believe in God, prove it. What about the soul, can any of you prove that exists? To you who believe in heaven, prove it. To you who believe there is life on other worlds, prove it. What about black holes where does the stuff "sucked in" empty out? Prove the Big Bang isn't just a theory. Do you see what I'm getting at? Some things cannot presently be "proved" or explained without attaching some sort of metaphysical element to it, and I believe things will always remain this way in some respect. After all, human understanding is finite, and science is a wellspring of human interpretation.
Even if someone did try to prove chi exists, it will inevitably be looked upon as a hoax, no matter how legitimate the person may be. There are just too many charlatans to tell the real from the false. And no, it wasn't just passed down as anecdotal, but through demonstration as well. I remember seeing something on TV once on the discovery channel about a scientific research team that went up to one of those mountain temples and put heart monitors and such on monks undergoing some sort of initiation rite where they have to sit out in the cold...deathly cold...all night in just their robes. The monitors showed that these men could actually raise their body temperature to stay warm throughout the night. This seems to be legitimate proof all in itself that the monks are on to something.... although many can denounce that I even saw this random documentary about monks. That is the nature of information and so called proof.

Merry P, Apoweyn, and others. I respect you all as martial artists and as intellects, however I believe the best way to prove something is to experience it. Have any of you practiced deep breathing, meditation, or tai chi-qi gong? Have any of you honestly tried to cultivate or "feel" this mystery force? Or do you merely search for intellectual proof? I believe qi is deeply experiential. So in order to attain for yourselves whether you believe or not, take up tai chi, deep breathing, and meditation. If I offend, please keep in mind that most of this is just my opinion and not meant as a slight.

We are all light bearers of the aquarian age....

Gabriel

[diego]

The monitors showed that these men could actually raise their body temperature to stay warm throughout the night. This seems to be legitimate proof all in itself that the monks are on to something.... although many can denounce that I even saw this random documentary about monks. That is the nature of information and so called proof."

I saw one like this, they were in tibet and every morning the monks would go down to the lakes, break the ice jump in naked.
Then they would form a circle and levitate
:)

Nah, they formed a circle and they would dip thier towels in icewater buckets, wrapped them on they back and practise drying them, the doc said t hey do this every morning.

Do like navy seals have mind over matter practise like this?, i would like to understand the bio process how you build heat by thought!?!....

[Brad]

Nah, they formed a circle and they would dip thier towels in icewater buckets, wrapped them on they back and practise drying them, the doc said t hey do this every morning.
I saw this(or something like it) on one of those TLC martial arts documentaries(though the monks were not martial arts monks). They lived up on some mountain in Thailand I think.

[apoweyn]

gabriel,

not offended. don't worry. i will try to address some of this though.


Originally posted by Gabriel
Sigh.....not this again. Don't you guys take days off? :rolleyes:


okay, not the most diplomatic start. but i'll assume you're having a lark and move on. :)


There are scientific studies ongoing now about bioelectricity and electromagnetic forces. Also Electromotive Force. An important pioneer in this study is Dr. Robert O. Becker. In his publication, The Body Electric, he outlines alot of his theories and some things that he has "proven" through experimentation.

that's all that some of us were asking for.


As far as chi related phenomena, A scientist by the name of Albert L. Huebner states: "These demonstrations of body electricity in human beings may also offer a new explanation of an ancient healing practice. If weak external fields can produce powerful physiological effects, it may be that fields from human tissues in one person are capable of producing clinical improvements in another. In short, the method of healing known as the laying on of hands could be an especially subtle form of electrical stimulation."

okay. these demonstrations may offer a new explanation of an ancient healing process. the fact that it hasn't offered said explanation suggests that the experiments haven't proceeded very far yet. and the fact that the researcher refers to a hands-on healing practice quite clearly divorces it from the practice of no-touch knockouts. as i've said before, i'm comfortable with the idea of qi in some sense. even in this sense of bioelectricity. i am not, however, quite ready to buy into the idea of bringing that force to bear on someone else. does that mean it's impossible? of course not.


Also, Dr Richard Leviton reports: "Researchers at Loma Linda University's School of medicine in California have found, following studies in sixteen countries with over 1,000 patients, that low-frequency, low-intensity magnetic energy has been successful in treating chronic pain related to tissue ischemia, and has also worked into clearing up slow-healing ulcers, and in 90 percent of patients tested, raised blood flow significantly"

i'll absolutely accept this too. but as i said, that's a world different from using qi to attack a person without touch.


You want more? read it yourself. I will not type incessantly for days and days to pound unwanted ideas into your hard heads... :(

okay, now you're beginning to stretch the boundaries of 'not meaning to offend.' i don't believe i've been discourteous in this discussion. i've even apologized preemptively for any possible offense. so what's say we pass on future suppositions about the density of my skull.

PART TWO TO FOLLOW. (I'VE ACTUALLY TYPED TOO MUCH TO FIT IN ONE ENTRY. STRUTH.)

[apoweyn]

PART II


No, scientific blah doesn't matter to me. I agree with the opinion that to describe something to closely is to take away from it. IMHO, qi cannot be truly studied, at least not yet. It cannot be measured, put in a petrie dish, put on a microscope slide, decantered, weighed, or even seen. I think it is unreasonable to ask for proof of such a thing.

why? if qi really can be used to heal through bioelectric stimulation, how does it detract from that to be able to apply different terminology to it? to understand it? how did the first practitioners of acupuncture map the body's meridians if not by breaking things down, observing and recording causality, etc.? certainly not by saying, "i stuck him in the shoulder with this pin and now he doesn't feel so bad. best not to examine it closely."

besides, according to the studies you cited, it has been measured, put on the petrie dish, etc. it has been approached in a scientific manner.


In my current level of chi cultivation, I can only feel it myself, let alone show it to someone else. One would have to be proficient in qi indeed to be able to show someone else.

and i would bloody well hope that anyone trying to demonstrate the ability to strike a person using 'empty force' was indeed adept at it. i wouldn't go around demonstrating the effects of a thai roundhouse to the head unless i understood it pretty thoroughly.


there was reference to God earlier. I don't necessarily agree with the angle it was applied, however to you that believe in God, prove it. What about the soul, can any of you prove that exists? To you who believe in heaven, prove it. To you who believe there is life on other worlds, prove it. What about black holes where does the stuff "sucked in" empty out? Prove the Big Bang isn't just a theory. Do you see what I'm getting at?

yep. and i agree. proving that you have awareness (or soul or whatever) is near impossible. it's a philosophical debate.


Some things cannot presently be "proved" or explained without attaching some sort of metaphysical element to it, and I believe things will always remain this way in some respect. After all, human understanding is finite, and science is a wellspring of human interpretation.

i think you hit the nail on the head here. we attach a metaphysical element to it. and we're not wrong to do so. if i execute a technique with the proper timing, structure, force, etc., the whole thing seems effortless. all the variables fall into place. it just seems to happen. as if i were in synch with the ebb and flow of the way things are naturally supposed to be.

and you know what? i haven't got a problem in the world with that. if a person is able to do that, i do believe that it's nothing short of mystical. but i don't believe that mysticism comes from not understanding. i believe it comes from feeling an intimate part of things. and that feeling isn't hindered by understanding.

humans have developed enough self awareness and self control that they are actually able to 1) perceive a feeling of connectedness with the events and environments around them and 2) perhaps manipulate their own bioelectrical forces, physiological functions, etc. none of that is made less miraculous by asking questions.


Even if someone did try to prove chi exists, it will inevitably be looked upon as a hoax, no matter how legitimate the person may be. There are just too many charlatans to tell the real from the false.

isn't that the point of scientific testing? to tell the real from the false? the tricks of charlatans are made possible by our unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to observe the phenomena in an organized and impassive fashion. on the occassions that we can do that, we begin to understand. and when we begin to understand, the charlatan's job becomes much much harder.


And no, it wasn't just passed down as anecdotal, but through demonstration as well. I remember seeing something on TV once on the discovery channel about a scientific research team that went up to one of those mountain temples and put heart monitors and such on monks undergoing some sort of initiation rite where they have to sit out in the cold...deathly cold...all night in just their robes. The monitors showed that these men could actually raise their body temperature to stay warm throughout the night. This seems to be legitimate proof all in itself that the monks are on to something.... although many can denounce that I even saw this random documentary about monks. That is the nature of information and so called proof.

actually, i accept that. i don't doubt that it's possible. in fact, i'm hoping it is. despite what you might think based on this thread, i'm quite keen on the mystical. i just don't think it losses anything through careful observation, assuming that it's the real thing (and i do believe in the real thing).


Merry P, Apoweyn, and others. I respect you all as martial artists and as intellects, however I believe the best way to prove something is to experience it. Have any of you practiced deep breathing, meditation, or tai chi-qi gong? Have any of you honestly tried to cultivate or "feel" this mystery force? Or do you merely search for intellectual proof? I believe qi is deeply experiential. So in order to attain for yourselves whether you believe or not, take up tai chi, deep breathing, and meditation. If I offend, please keep in mind that most of this is just my opinion and not meant as a slight.

and it's a good point. i have done a little qigong, but not nearly enough to experience what you mention. from studies in psychology, though, i do believe that we are capable of convincing ourselves of an awful lot. practicing qigong day in and day out, i could very easily convince myself to subjectively feel warmer. or dizzier. or more relaxed. now, scientific testing could easily tell me whether i genuinely was getting warmer, or the tension in my musculature was releasing. so why wouldn't i want that information? if it's available, why wouldn't i want it? and if it's not available, is that experience completely subjective or did it actually have a concrete effect on the concrete world?

here's the thing: i'm not out to disprove qi. just the opposite. i'm interested in proof because i do want to believe. but not as an act of faith. as an act of understanding cultivated from objective research.

i'll agree that experience is important. but consider that game in which one person whispers a sentence into the next person's ear and so on down the line. by the time it reaches the last person, the sentence has changed. each person down that line misheard the sentence uttered by the person before them. but they experienced precisely the sentence that they then passed along. experience is subjective. and it doesn't always reflect 'reality.' a great many philosophers throughout the ages have acknowledged this.

scientific experiments don't define reality. but they also don't define an individual's subjective experience of reality. what they do is provide a mutually-agreed-upon set of standards for perceiving reality so that when i say "i'm getting warmer", everyone else who's not me can say "yep, you are."

ultimately, i think we're talking about two different aspects wrapped up in one term. one is philosophical and cannot (and needn't) be proven. the other is more concrete. and not only can it be proven, but it is being proven, based on your own citations. and if reasoned inquiry can illustrate that the power of qi to change bioelectrical patterns is real, why should it not also be used to determine whether it can knock a person out?


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Ahem.

First--more or less what Ap said.

Now, allow me to be less diplomatic.

I don't HAVE to experience chi or meditation for my comments to be valid. Why? Because I'm not adovocating that we discuss its spiritual or personal benefits. I'm advocating that we measure its claimed effects. That's it. Cut and Dry. Assuming that Chi produces an effect, that effect should be tied into a causality and its effects repeatable. As Ap mentioned, it'd be nice to know if that warmness you're feeling really is a rise in temperature. That experiment with the monks was spot on--but the NEXT question that you have to raise is--can this be explained in another way--through our current understanding of the human body-mind connection? Some people can manipulate their bodies with biofeedback. Does this fit that pattern? Or is it something else again. If it's something else again--well, now we're starting to build a case for the existence of an "energy" that is called chi that can't be explained by science.

Until that happens, this word of mouth is anecdotal, and a lot of VERY wrong ideas get passed word of mouth.

Instead, you'd rather discuss the "experience," of chi, as if I experienced it, I would "believe."

Guess what? I shouldn't have to "believe," in its effects. I should be able to be shown, repeatedly, on a variety of test subjects. I should be able to collect the data and analyze it and talk about its effects in a meaningful way rather than "Oh, I felt this glorious warmth and my hands seemed to glow blue for a moment." You can measure the healing effects of chi against a placebo and against legit drugs for heavens sake, and if the healing effects are HIGHER than the placebo, then there's some more evidence--but not yet conclusive. More research more time, more answers. Will there always be more questions? YES!!! That's the nature of knowledge. I'd rather not have it stuck at "Because that's the way it is," which is what is being advocated.

Bollocks. You want to "believe" in chi, go ahead, and if it makes your life better in a metaphysical and spiritual way GREAT. If it improves your lifeGREAT--but don't expect those of us who are skeptics, who don't blunder around listening to what "sifu said," as though it were the infallible word of the All-Knowing Eye-In-The-Sky to share your same belief in its EFFECTS without some tangible evidence that cannot be easily explained in some other concrete manner.

But that's ok--you'll just shake your heads and smile at how unenlightened we are, and we would just UNDERSTAND if we attended your service this Friday and listen to the Pastor...

Oh wait, I'm sorry... I have you confused with the Jehovah's Witnesses that I couldn't make leave. Or maybe, just maybe... I DON'T. :rolleyes:

[HongKongPhooey]

I keep seeing that word used in threads like this. What does it actually mean?

[Merryprankster]

Some people are able to alter their heart rate, body temp, etc, by concentrating on it. There are some measurable effects on their brain activity etc, when it occurs. That's biofeedback in a nutshell.

[HongKongPhooey]

Thanks

[GeneChing]

Actually I would say I use God for boxing if I used that terminology. But I'm Buddhist, so I'd say I use Buddha for boxing. It's a Shaolin thing.

[apoweyn]

gene,

fair enough. no arguing with that.


stuart b.

[GeneChing]

This reminds me of a converse version of that monty python argument sketch. You're not supposed to agree - now I'm stuck. ;)

Well, my point was to derail the whole bioelectric scientific measurement idea, which seems to be pretty tough. People keep coming back to it and I personally feel it's a horrid analog. It gets you in more trouble to try to scientificially measure qi so, than to look at factors like cultural paradigms or mass hypnosis.

btw, nice discussion all. I love storming the gates of heaven intellectually - it's where a forum can really shine. Should we go into acupuncture theory now or shall we just drop it?

[apoweyn]

gene,

don't remember that skit specifically. but i am now remembering the soccer (football) game of philosophers. also very funny.

anyway, arguing with someone on issues of faith is a bit like punching yourself in the nuts with a steam iron. yes, you could do that. but... why?

as i've said, i like a sense of the mystical. but i don't think it's an unreasonable request to want proof of claims like this. and you clearly didn't either. so i don't think we're arguing at all.

:)

but if you insist: my feeling is that the central theme of star wars is actually the quiet majesty of the gentle gungans.

discuss.



stuart b.

[Braden]

HKP - Specifically, biofeedback is where you are attached to a machine which gives you information regarding some of your body processes - for example, heart beat, cortical EEG, muscle tone, GSR, etc. Through this feedback of normally subconscious processes you can learn to alter them willfully; with training, the ability persists without access to the biofeedback machines. You can find alot of info on the net about this. If you're interested in brain biofeeback, google for "neurofeedback" and/or "eeg biofeedback". Aside from intellectual curiosity, it is used as therapy for a variety of disorders. For instance, EEG biofeedback has had considerable success treating attention deficit disorders, and there's currently alot of research into it's possible application in neuropsychological disorders of all sorts, as well as cognitive rehabilitation.

[apoweyn]

by the way, hats off to braden's posts throughout this thread.


stuart b.

[Braden]

A frightening but appreciated sentiment.

[apoweyn]

hey, you've made some of the best arguments i've ever heard. really dug reading them. what can i tell ya.


stuart b.

[Gabriel]

Hmmm..alright guys.

I've got class and training, but Ill clarify and reply tonight

Gabriel

[GeneChing]

Arguing is the wrong term - discussing is better. And a fine discussion indeed.

I guess that's the tough thing about qi, is that it's so abstract that it becomes a faith. But even that is a bad analog to me, of the same bent as the bioelectric one. Again we try to map it on to our paradigm, either faith or science. Very Decartean (speaking of soccer philosophers...) I've been trying to break away from Decarte for so long.

[apoweyn]

gene,

death sticks. yeah, that's better than gungans. again, no argument.

just went back to school for psychology. so suddenly i find myself hip deep in descartes. [sigh]

anyway, you're right. regardless, it's a good discussion.


stuart

[Gabriel]

Ok. I went back and read through my post and the others thoroughly. Alrighty, lets just dive right in, shall we?

Apoweyn


"okay, not the most diplomatic start. but i'll assume you're having a lark and move on. :)"

Yep, you're right. Its just my quirky humor coming into play.



"that's all that some of us were asking for."

That can't be all that you guys are looking for, cause the discussion hasn't swung to a single side yet. You want something else. More evidence perhaps? There is more to be found, as I outlined before, for one who wants to find it.



"okay. these demonstrations may offer a new explanation of an ancient healing process. the fact that it hasn't offered said explanation suggests that the experiments haven't proceeded very far yet. and the fact that the researcher refers to a hands-on healing practice quite clearly divorces it from the practice of no-touch knockouts. as i've said before, i'm comfortable with the idea of qi in some sense. even in this sense of bioelectricity. i am not, however, quite ready to buy into the idea of bringing that force to bear on someone else. does that mean it's impossible? of course not. "

Yes, they may offer a new explanation. One reason he may have not made it declarative is politics. For instance, my uncle is a particle physicist, and he has contempt for what he calls "those bio guys", as do many of his colleagues apparently. If Dr. Huebner had made it a declarative statement, would his studies be met with scorn by the rest of scientific society? I don't know. True, that has nothing to do with no-touch knockouts. In fact, I forgot to comment on the subject of the thread alltogether on my last post. My take on No touch come in two parts.

Scientific Theory : we will have to verge into electromagnetic fields here, i think. For the benefit of those reading who are unaware what a EMF is, Modern science has shown that magnetic fields and electrical fields cannot be separated (Faraday's Law and Maxwell's equations), and indeed are aspects of the same force. Where there is one, there is also the other. This type of field is commonly called an EMF. Oh, Farady's law of magnetic induction is: a changing magnetic field causes an induced electric field. Maxwell showed that the opposite is also true: a changing electric field causes an induced magnetic field. With these concepts in mind, consider the human body as a collective electromagnet, with the small and large intestines the core, because science says there are three types of muscles in the body, in ascending order of our ability to control them and descending order of conductivity they are, heart muscle, those which contract automatically (diaphragm, eyelids, stomache[large and small intestines] and reproductive organs) , And muscles that are directly controlled by our conscious mind. The large and small intestines, out of this lot, are the best energy storers. After all, they are collectively about 6 times the hosts height, and have such electrically conductive tissues sandwiched between all of the mesentery, water, and outer casings. They make a perfect wire of sorts. (I COULD call this the dan tian, but that would start a war) ;) Well, tying in with this we can insert the statement of Dr. Richard Broeringmeyer, a chiropractor, nutritionist, and publisher of the Bio-Energy Health Newsletter: "Life is not possible without electromagnetic fields, and optimum health is not possible if the electromagnetic fields are out of balance for long periods of time. Magnetic energy is nature's energy in perfect balance. Each of a magnets two poles has a different energy and influence. The bipolar function is near the heart of biomagnetism." This is just speculation on my part, but what if no touch knockouts is the subtle manipulation of your own EMF field to disrupt another's? That would tie in with the healing practice too, in a skewed sort of way. Just the opposite effect, sort of like yin and yang. Heal or destroy..

Just call me Magneto... :D

Not-so-scientific - I tend to lend more creedence to this explanation. No touch knockouts are most probably achieved through a power of suggestion, or hypnotism. Have you ever looked a person in the eye, and it made your eyes water or avert? Some people have extremely strong personalities, whether it be through qi or no. And I imagine they could use their powers of persuasion to make a weaker minded individual do stuff..



"okay, now you're beginning to stretch the boundaries of 'not meaning to offend.' i don't believe i've been discourteous in this discussion. i've even apologized preemptively for any possible offense. so what's say we pass on future suppositions about the density of my skull. "

No, you haven't been discourteous, and it was a mistake to say that in the sense it was said. For that, I apologize, it was late when I wrote that and I suppose I was a bit cranky. However, do we not all have a certain hardness to our heads when protecting our thoughts, morals, beliefs, and viewpoints?


"why? if qi really can be used to heal through bioelectric stimulation, how does it detract from that to be able to apply different terminology to it? to understand it? how did the first practitioners of acupuncture map the body's meridians if not by breaking things down, observing and recording causality, etc.? certainly not by saying, "i stuck him in the shoulder with this pin and now he doesn't feel so bad. best not to examine it closely." "

This may sound fanatical, but in my practice, if i am thinking of the scientific explanation of what is goin on, it only serves to dillute my focus. Hard to explain.. I believe Qi is a very ambiguous term, and cannot bear close scrutiny without being separated into parts. And Qi, imho, should be experienced as a whole, not in dissected parts. So I always cast my scientific learning out of my mind at that point.


"besides, according to the studies you cited, it has been measured, put on the petrie dish, etc. it has been approached in a scientific manner. "

No, imho, only one aspect of qi is being studied, not the whole. I think you were trying to get at this very idea at the end of your post.


"and i would bloody well hope that anyone trying to demonstrate the ability to strike a person using 'empty force' was indeed adept at it. i wouldn't go around demonstrating the effects of a thai roundhouse to the head unless i understood it pretty thoroughly. "

Ok. you got me there. However, I don't think anyone proficient enough is going to be surfing the net, so thats part of what I meant by being unreasonable. Most guys proficient enough probably won't feel terribly inclined to prove themselves to anyone. After all, aren't they one with nature, sitting in caves, ect? ;) Thats always the image I got.


"yep. and i agree. proving that you have awareness (or soul or whatever) is near impossible. it's a philosophical debate. "

Yep, an endless, unsolvable debate.


"i think you hit the nail on the head here. we attach a metaphysical element to it. and we're not wrong to do so. if i execute a technique with the proper timing, structure, force, etc., the whole thing seems effortless. all the variables fall into place. it just seems to happen. as if i were in synch with the ebb and flow of the way things are naturally supposed to be.

and you know what? i haven't got a problem in the world with that. if a person is able to do that, i do believe that it's nothing short of mystical. but i don't believe that mysticism comes from not understanding. i believe it comes from feeling an intimate part of things. and that feeling isn't hindered by understanding.

humans have developed enough self awareness and self control that they are actually able to 1) perceive a feeling of connectedness with the events and environments around them and 2) perhaps manipulate their own bioelectrical forces, physiological functions, etc. none of that is made less miraculous by asking questions. "

Im glad we agree on some things. I do advocate understanding, but my best understanding hasn't come from a scientific means. I don't think science is the end-all for understanding something.


"isn't that the point of scientific testing? to tell the real from the false? the tricks of charlatans are made possible by our unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to observe the phenomena in an organized and impassive fashion. on the occassions that we can do that, we begin to understand. and when we begin to understand, the charlatan's job becomes much much harder. "

Ok. G'luck finding a subject though. I shudder at the thought of being hooked up to countless machines as I try to meditate, lol.


"actually, i accept that. i don't doubt that it's possible. in fact, i'm hoping it is. despite what you might think based on this thread, i'm quite keen on the mystical. i just don't think it losses anything through careful observation, assuming that it's the real thing (and i do believe in the real thing). "

For the first time, I don't really grasp quite what you mean. Could be me. What do you mean by 'the real thing' ?

Continued ->

[Gabriel]

Continued


"and it's a good point. i have done a little qigong, but not nearly enough to experience what you mention. from studies in psychology, though, i do believe that we are capable of convincing ourselves of an awful lot. practicing qigong day in and day out, i could very easily convince myself to subjectively feel warmer. or dizzier. or more relaxed. now, scientific testing could easily tell me whether i genuinely was getting warmer, or the tension in my musculature was releasing. so why wouldn't i want that information? if it's available, why wouldn't i want it? and if it's not available, is that experience completely subjective or did it actually have a concrete effect on the concrete world? "

Ah, the self-hypnosis argument. I expected it sometime, I suppose. Well, I guess I could be fooling myself into feeling these feeling or whatever, but i never put much store in psychobabble. I think a person should get their thoughts squared away before trying to analyze others' thoughts. This is a slightly sore subject to me, as psychologists really screwed my sister over in her early years. I will drop it, cause it does make me unconstructively angry. Well, I could be a nudge here and argue what the difference is between subjective and concrete...but i wont :) Anyway, I guess you should get info and understanding however you feel the most comfortable getting it.


"i'll agree that experience is important. but consider that game in which one person whispers a sentence into the next person's ear and so on down the line. by the time it reaches the last person, the sentence has changed. each person down that line misheard the sentence uttered by the person before them. but they experienced precisely the sentence that they then passed along. experience is subjective. and it doesn't always reflect 'reality.' a great many philosophers throughout the ages have acknowledged this. "

A great many, but not me! Here's why: If you take a bunch of unruly, unbehaved, flighty, unfocused, mischevious children and do this excercise, then of course things will be skewed. Try the same experiment with men or women of great focus, such as MA masters. And, why whisper. The teachings of qi and MA weren't taught through whispering to students. True it was behind closed doors in many instances, but the master communicated well with the student, that, to me, is vitally important in MA. So, imo, its an inaccurate analogy.


scientific experiments don't define reality. but they also don't define an individual's subjective experience of reality. what they do is provide a mutually-agreed-upon set of standards for perceiving reality so that when i say "i'm getting warmer", everyone else who's not me can say "yep, you are." "

Mutually agreed upon set of standards for perceiving reality. There are many mediums other than science that provide the same service.


"ultimately, i think we're talking about two different aspects wrapped up in one term. one is philosophical and cannot (and needn't) be proven. the other is more concrete. and not only can it be proven, but it is being proven, based on your own citations. and if reasoned inquiry can illustrate that the power of qi to change bioelectrical patterns is real, why should it not also be used to determine whether it can knock a person out? "

I agree. We are talking about two aspects of the same thing. I still contend, however, that qi should not be dissected, because we can only view it in parts, and not benefit from the whole.

Well, Apoweyn. As always you provide intelligent and well thought out debate in a civil and altogether cordial manner. Again I apologize for my rough edged first post. Have a good one. :)

Gabriel

[Gabriel]

MP

LOL! Judging from your last post and other posts you've made, in thought and temperament you remind me of my bro. He's a United States Marine. He's a "science" guy (Mech Eng.). He's straight forward. No nonsense. Doesn't beleive in any of that "wussy kung fu s h i t", and has no use for "d amned chi hippies". He enjoys an occasional scrap. ;) He's smart. yep, you fit the bill to a T. I love my bro, but me and him are as different as peas and carrots. Similarly, I think you and I fall on the opposite side of the spectrum on many issues. Ok.. on to the post. :)


"I don't HAVE to experience chi or meditation for my comments to be valid. Why? Because I'm not adovocating that we discuss its spiritual or personal benefits. I'm advocating that we measure its claimed effects. That's it. Cut and Dry. Assuming that Chi produces an effect, that effect should be tied into a causality and its effects repeatable. As Ap mentioned, it'd be nice to know if that warmness you're feeling really is a rise in temperature. That experiment with the monks was spot on--but the NEXT question that you have to raise is--can this be explained in another way--through our current understanding of the human body-mind connection? Some people can manipulate their bodies with biofeedback. Does this fit that pattern? Or is it something else again. If it's something else again--well, now we're starting to build a case for the existence of an "energy" that is called chi that can't be explained by science. "

But dear mp, the effects, benefits, and spirituality of qi cultivation are all parts of a whole that cannot be understood unless experienced AS A WHOLE. By your words, Cut and Dry, you are suggesting Black and White. I think you will find that the world is not a place of black and white, but a virtual shade of greys. Lets look at it this way MP. Say I wanted to ride a bike, but not ride it until I did proper research and quantified it with science. I could follow bicyclers around take notes on their hand placements, feet placements, posture, ect. I could do research on how the gears interacted with each other to make the bike go. I could research the brakes, and get a good understanding of how they work as well. If i observed the "effects", I would see the bike takes us somewhere faster than walking and usually faster than running. I can theorize, postulize, conceptualize, study, observe, agonize, and make a chopsticks model of it. Does this define the entirety of riding a bike? Hell no. When I get on that bike, Ill fall on my @$$ a couple of times, just like everyone else. Your supposed point is that if you did enough research on a bike you could ride it? or you could believe that you could ride it? So what. Who cares about belief. Just do it man..jump in. If there's nothing there for you, fine. Its not for everyone. What I meant in my first post : "So in order to attain for yourselves whether you believe or not, take up tai chi, deep breathing, and meditation." Notice i said whether or not. I am not telling you to believe based on my words, but to try and judge for yourself. Okay, I am bothered by this biofeedback idea. BFB sounds to me like a rename of regulating the body with qi, except you become aware of yourself through a machine instead of meditation. You assert that biofeedback is a pattern. A pattern suggests longevity, and originality. BFB does not outdate the thousands of years of qi cultivation in china and india. They should be considered the pattern, not BFB.


"Until that happens, this word of mouth is anecdotal, and a lot of VERY wrong ideas get passed word of mouth. "

Fine. It is not all word of mouth though. Word of mouth suggests a story, a silly tale, a barely remembered anecdote. Bolsheet. People dedicated their whole lives to the study of qi cultivation, and passed on their life-learnings to a limited few. Aside from that, what is that saying?It takes a thousand scientists to prove something, and one to disprove? Science isn't infallible either...


"Instead, you'd rather discuss the "experience," of chi, as if I experienced it, I would "believe." "

Yes, I would.


"Guess what? I shouldn't have to "believe," in its effects. I should be able to be shown, repeatedly, on a variety of test subjects. I should be able to collect the data and analyze it and talk about its effects in a meaningful way rather than "Oh, I felt this glorious warmth and my hands seemed to glow blue for a moment." You can measure the healing effects of chi against a placebo and against legit drugs for heavens sake, and if the healing effects are HIGHER than the placebo, then there's some more evidence--but not yet conclusive. More research more time, more answers. Will there always be more questions? YES!!! That's the nature of knowledge. I'd rather not have it stuck at "Because that's the way it is," which is what is being advocated. "

And, who quantifies what is meaningful and what is meaningless..alot of science's so-called meaningful revelations are written in a dusty ledger and thrown in some corner to be forgotten. You are making qi to static. testing on a variety of test subjects, qi does different things for different people It doesn't do A to everyone. I never mentioned what or how I felt in my practice. So this warmth and blue light stuff comes across as a little childish. How much research do you desire MP? How many warehouses need we fill with adequate "proof"? As I said before, there is plenty of evidence to be found if you just look.


"Bollocks. You want to "believe" in chi, go ahead, and if it makes your life better in a metaphysical and spiritual way GREAT. If it improves your lifeGREAT--but don't expect those of us who are skeptics, who don't blunder around listening to what "sifu said," as though it were the infallible word of the All-Knowing Eye-In-The-Sky to share your same belief in its EFFECTS without some tangible evidence that cannot be easily explained in some other concrete manner. "

Ok, I will. I don't do much blundering. I have an exceptional sense of balance actually. I haven't only had one Sifu. I was a Karateka, I took TKD, and KF, and Tai Chi. I discovered deep breathing and meditation by myself in a troublesome time in my life, so I do not just follow Sifu's word or whatever. It is not just the effects I believe in montivo.


"But that's ok--you'll just shake your heads and smile at how unenlightened we are, and we would just UNDERSTAND if we attended your service this Friday and listen to the Pastor... "

Its not like Im sitting back in my padded chair, in my incensed, candlelit room, sipping my jasmine tea, smirking at your insolence. I lend creedence to anyone's opinion, if it is presented intelligently. The only reason I was so..declarative in this one is I'm matching your pace.


"Oh wait, I'm sorry... I have you confused with the Jehovah's Witnesses that I couldn't make leave. Or maybe, just maybe... I DON'T. "

Hmm.. Jehova's Witness huh? Well lets look at that one for a minute. They come knocking on peoples doors do they not? Try to indoctrinate someone in their faith. First off... I am not knocking on your door MP. The very nature of this forum is going out to meet people. You are bound to disagree with some of them. Deal with it. Secondly, I am not trying to indoctrinate you or anyone into "believing" in qi. I was just trying to present a viewpoint, and take part in the debate. Perhaps the tone of your response was triggered by my hard head comment, if it was, sorry. Careful that you do not become a Jehova's Witness of Science, cause they are nearly as annoying as the other. ;)

Well, sorry if this makes you angry, but I let the tone of your post set the tone of my reply. I truly believe we can get along..lol. Equality through diversity my friend. But now I sound like a Jasmine tea sipping hippie. :D

Gabriel

[Braden]

Gab - I think your scientific argument for no-touch knockdowns requires too many conceptual leaps. Not that I would disagree with the underlying concepts, but the specific examples and implication that they are based in accepted science I believe are incorrect. For example, unified field theory is more the holy grail of physics and not a current reality. There's no reason to consider the intestines as the electrical core of the body.

"such electrically conductive tissues sandwiched between all of the mesentery, water, and outer casings. They make a perfect wire of sorts"

As I'm sure you know, human organs are not 'electrical' in the conventional sense, and don't work at all like wires, as you've described.

"This is just speculation on my part, but what if no touch knockouts is the subtle manipulation of your own EMF field to disrupt another's?"

If this were the case, we would surely observe such a defense in predator-prey interactions in the natural world - we don't.

"No touch knockouts are most probably achieved through a power of suggestion, or hypnotism."

The exact phenomenon observed as 'no touch knockouts' can of course be replicated exactly via hypnosis. And of course in this case has no martial value - which is contrary to the claims of people doing 'no touch knockdowns' explicitly.

"i never put much store in psychobabble"

Empiracle concerns over the reliability of introspection are hardly 'psychobabble.'

"A great many, but not me!"

Just to clarify - are you seriously proposing that personal reality (at least for "men and women of great focus", has no subjective character?

"Say I wanted to ride a bike, but not ride it until I did proper research and quantified it with science."

This is not at all what MP proposed. Following your analogy, what MP proposed is: Say I wanted to know if people rode bikes, but not until I saw some evidence that exerting muscular pressure upon the pedals of a bicycle would permit locomotion. I could follow bicyclers around and note that they did indeed locomote when they pressed the pedals appropriately. Then I would know people rode bikes. That is the sum total of what he proposed. The concerns such as "Does this define the entirety of riding a bike?" were never implied by his argument.

"BFB does not outdate the thousands of years of qi cultivation in china and india. They should be considered the pattern, not BFB."

Patterns are conceptual models to help people understand things, or to better approximate reality. The age of a possibility is not an important consideration in either definition.

[greendragon]

Hypnotism and explanations aside, i don't think anyone would be too eager to fight the guy that gave this demonstration. Gotta give him that.

[Braden]

I wouldn't be too eager to fight anyone. But no less eager to fight him. Why would you think otherwise?

[greendragon]

Because of his credibility and having studied under George Dillman, known for point striking. I have seen masters barely touch a person and they drop to the floor totally unconscious and need to be revived. Not just impressionable disciples either. I watched an Okinawan master invite several attackers from other styles and without exception they all went down.

[Gabriel]

Braden. Hey how are ya.

First off, I didn't really present that as an argument per se. I think if you go back and read my post you will see that I said 'this is just speculation on my part'. I may be getting a little vague here, but who decides what is "accepted" in science? I found actual scientific laws supporting EMF's. Faraday's Law and Maxwell's equations. There are more, but that would mean reading with my careworn and sore eyes. :) Seriously though, what makes one set of scientific laws more acceptible than the other? I feel that its the question of politics rearing its ugly head. My cited sources are a teensy bit different than Einstein's UFT. They were an interesting read, even for a chi hugger like me. ;) Lol..look on the bright side. At least im not citing something like the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Alright Braden, its not like a wire. I suppose I was trying to simplify. I was not insinuating that the body carries electricity in a conventional sense. Biolectricity is different than the electricity you'll find in an appliance. That's a given. However, I still maintain that the small and large intestines are about 6 times the host's height when stretched end to end, and are the most bioelectically conductive tissues aside from the heart and possible the brain. Being sandwiched between all of the mesentery, water, and outer casings, it forms.....a coil of biolectrity. The outer casings are less conductive, so it acts more like a battery of sorts. I will also throw in that quite possibly, ones center of balance is also in the general area of the small and large intestines. If center of balance = magnetic core, then this falls within the parameters of Faraday and Maxwell.

Predator-prey interactions? I do not think an animal could gain the necessary control and refinement of the mind that would be required to regulate your EMF fields to the point of being able to knock someone out. Actually, it is my opinion that most humans are not at this level, myself included. Plus, do we see acts of no touch or even touch healing in nature? If we do, I am not aware of it. I believe humans are capable of things that animals are not. Although I heard somewhere that dolphins use more % of their brains than us! Good thing they don't have opposable thumbs eh?

Ah, but what if the so called no-touch phenomenon is JUST hypnotism and suggestion at work? but, I agree that there can be room for both suggestion and something else..im just saying what if.


"Empiracle concerns over the reliability of introspection are hardly 'psychobabble.' "

Ahhhhhhh Psychobabble strikes back! :eek:


"Just to clarify - are you seriously proposing that personal reality (at least for "men and women of great focus", has no subjective character? "

I was not suggesting that, no. I was merely trying to point out that the analogy is grossly inaccurate. Because people don't generally whisper to one another, unless they are childeren huddled under a blanket with a flashlights reading nudie mags. :D
I am suggesting that the greater the focus, the less is lost between the cracks.


"This is not at all what MP proposed. Following your analogy, what MP proposed is: Say I wanted to know if people rode bikes, but not until I saw some evidence that exerting muscular pressure upon the pedals of a bicycle would permit locomotion. I could follow bicyclers around and note that they did indeed locomote when they pressed the pedals appropriately. Then I would know people rode bikes. That is the sum total of what he proposed. The concerns such as "Does this define the entirety of riding a bike?" were never implied by his argument."

Why would you wanto to know if you could ride a bike, if you're not going to ride it in the first place? :confused:

A pattern is this.

pat·tern Pronunciation Key (ptrn)
n.

A model or original used as an archetype.
A person or thing considered worthy of imitation.
A plan, diagram, or model to be followed in making things: a dress pattern. See Synonyms at ideal.
A representative sample; a specimen.

An artistic or decorative design: a paisley pattern. See Synonyms at figure.
A design of natural or accidental origin: patterns of bird formations.
A consistent, characteristic form, style, or method, as:
A composite of traits or features characteristic of an individual or a group: one's pattern of behavior.
Form and style in an artistic work or body of artistic works.

The configuration of gunshots upon a target that is used as an indication of skill in shooting.
The distribution and spread, around a targeted region, of spent shrapnel, bomb fragments, or shot from a shotgun.
Enough material to make a complete garment.
A test pattern.
The flight path of an aircraft about to land: a flight pattern.
Football. A pass pattern.

As you can see, it supports either definition and many others besides.

Ok. Good to get the brain moving. I think far to little nowadays. ;)
I think Ill hit the hay though. Very tired. Cannot keep eyes open.........

[Braden]

Gab - :)

"I found actual scientific laws supporting EMF's... My cited sources are a teensy bit different than Einstein's UFT."

Yes, but since we're not actually dealing with electromagnets here, UFT would have to hold for your argument (in the loose sense of the word) to be consistent. Although, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with an underlying theme - being generally that parts of the body react to magnetic waves.


"However, I still maintain that the small and large intestines are about 6 times the host's height when stretched end to end, and are the most bioelectically conductive tissues aside from the heart and possible the brain."

I wonder if you took the area of the entire gap junction network of astroglia cells and neurons in the brain (which would have much higher conductance than the intestines) if it would be larger than the intestines.

"The outer casings are less conductive, so it acts more like a battery of sorts."

Hopefully not, as gross changes in the electrical state of the entire intestines (as you would surely see if they were batteries which recharged and expended themselves) would severely effect the functioning of our digestive tract. If 'no touch qi knockouts' had the side effect of giving their 'doer' simultaneous small and large bowel obstructions, I don't think it would be worth it! ;)

"I do not think an animal could gain the necessary control and refinement of the mind that would be required to regulate your EMF fields to the point of being able to knock someone out."

Surely animals, at least to some extent, adapt to their environment according to natural selection? If you're maintaining that 'no touch qi knockouts' are a pseudo-electromagnetic function of the body, you can surely not claim that they are reliant upon some quality of 'soul' or other 'betterness' that only humans possess. In the biological sense, of course, there is nothing 'better' about humans [that would cause us to conclude that some biological capability X (such as your proposed EMF notouch knockout) would only be available to us].

"Plus, do we see acts of no touch or even touch healing in nature?"

Are you suggesting that the mechanism for all touch and no touch healing is magnetic field manipulation? The distances involved in some experiments on the topic would put this view into question.

"I believe humans are capable of things that animals are not."

And vice-versa.

"Although I heard somewhere that dolphins use more % of their brains than us!"

A confusion of popular thinking. High simultaneous activation of a large amount of the brain is called a seizure and isn't a desirable quality, let alone one correlated in time with high intellectual ability.

"but what if the so called no-touch phenomenon is JUST hypnotism and suggestion at work?"

If this is the case, it challenges some of the conclusions one might make about the phenomenon - such as whether or not it has martial usefullness.

"Psychobabble strikes back!"

Funny. But not a response. ;)

"I am suggesting that the greater the focus [on X], the less [of X] is lost between the cracks."

Sounds good to me, with the addition I put in.

"Why would you wanto to know if you could ride a bike, if you're not going to ride it in the first place?"

Good question, you'll have to wait for him to respond! ;) Intellectual curiosity, maybe? The desire to have enough information to decide whether or not riding a bike is a skill you wish to invest the time in?

"A pattern is this."

Dictionaries lose much of their usefulness when it comes to epistemology. Ironically enough. ;)

[No_Know]

"how did the first practitioners of acupuncture map the body's meridians if not by breaking things down, observing and recording causality, etc.? certainly not by saying, "i stuck him in the shoulder with this pin and now he doesn't feel so bad. best not to examine it closely." "

""i stuck him in the shoulder with this pin and now he doesn't feel so bad." Perhaps, but not perhaps the sarcastic seeming " best not to examine it closely."" more at your concept of breaking it down. But not necessarilly the direction you had in thought. ..And now he doesn't feel so bad. What bad feeling did he have? O.K., a pin here has this effect on a person with this situation. Next person similar or expected same situation put pin in same place. If different effects (not as good) consider what else? Many patients or decades later; the pin, accidentally in further, great results. Realization: Depth is a factor to make better or worse results...other factors realized from observation of patient to patient, from decade to decade century to century (that's a lot of case studys) being, temperature of pin, celestial influences, season of the year section of the season, section of the lunar cycle, time of day, age of person gender of persninitial health of person, general strength of person's constitution.?.Stuff like that. But the breakdown is theoretical with trial and error, yet wouldn't necessarily get definitively atomic with the definitions that the ghoulish studies of those who cut people (et al) open to see how people function might get.

When dealing with variables not specif-ish can better convey the situation. When you are aware of your partners business dealings, and your partner tells you relevant to a current deal, "It's bad" You know what the few possibilities could be and it is not necessarily uncommon that you would know Exactly what was bad~ and completely comprehend the situation. The Chinese (et al) have high level communication skills (their culture trains it it seems), where by a few words can convey, many sentences worth, paragraphs worth, pages worth...volumes or realization/information as to particular matters, understood at least some what by all~ parties.-ish


""I do not think an animal could gain the necessary control and refinement of the mind that would be required to regulate your EMF fields to the point of being able to knock someone out.""

Yet, it's been said that they have paralyzed people with fear. And since even you would not consider yourself an expert on the workings of the mind, it doesn't seem significant to state what you do not think on the subject.

"Why would you wanto to know if you could ride a bike, if you're not going to ride it in the first place? "


Note: Theoretically, you couldn't validly Know that you were not going to ride a bike.-ish (ever) ...Because, people just like to know if they can do things. Even things they wouldn't try to do again. It's a fun thing. It's a confidence thing. It's a test-myself thing.

[GeneChing]

nevermind dillman, consider Leon's dad.

BTW, how many people discussing this topic actually read my article? Just curious...

[No_Know]

I saw that you can grow facial hair besides eyebrows. :-)

There's at least one (although it might not be considered that I'm discussing this) :-)

[roughnready]

Can that truly be achieved? I mean I seen it in movies but is it any real? I always thought it was just fantasy from the movies. Life has many secret wonders. Does anyone have any solid proof that it can be done?

[No_Know]

No-touch Knock-out, or Qi use some other way?

[guohuen]

Well written article Gene. Just bought a copy today at borders.

[apoweyn]

gabriel,

i wanted to thank you for responding to my post. i'm so swamped right now that i won't be able to respond soon (if ever). but i wanted to tell you that i read it and appreciated it.


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Gab--

First, Braden nailed it--I really don't care if it exists or not--or even if I should cultivate it or not. Call it intellectual curiosity. Why read about times past I will never experience or about places I may never go to?

Secondly, I'm hardly upset. I appreciate your response, truly.

The source of my frustration, and this is something that I CANNOT seem to get through people's heads, is VERY simple:

Chi is one of two things--either a demonstrable, measurable (in its effects at the least) energy of some kind, or it is 'faith'. It is NOT somewhere inbetween. Disagreements about it's effects/causes/sources might exist, but that is no different than any other invisible energy (gravity/electrostrong and its constituents)--this provides a basis for exploration.

This is one of the very rare either/or's. They don't pop up too often in real life, but in this case, it's a proper perspective. Either there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the probable existence of chi, or you believe in its effects DESPITE the lack of empirical (not personal) evidence. That's faith.

I have no problems with either of these points of view.

What I get frustrated by is a lack of both curiosity and powers of deduction/reduction (not directed at you), coupled with an insistance that it's "real." Well, the truth is that you (universal you) don't KNOW that, and you (universal) don't have any real, studied evidence beyond tradition to back it up right now. A couple of studies here and there, but no major bodies of evidence.

That's it--that's all I'm advocating. Research, research, research. I don't think that's too much to ask. People go on talking about paradigms and western vs eastern mindsets, and all it is is circuitous language designed to say, essentially "well, you just don't UNDERSTAND---if only you'd EXPERIENCED it!"

That, my friend, is the language of FAITH. And that language is fine, until you (universal) start telling me it's a fact/natural law...those are two distinctly seperate things--metaphysically linked (which is not where I want to go with this), but seperate.

Think of it this way--peyote provides a "spiritual awakening" according to many, whereas a neurochemist/MD would provide the mechanisms by which it acted on the brain as an explanation of its effects.

I CAN'T say, with certainty, that peyote does NOT provide a spiritual awakening. People have FAITH that it does, but it cannot be verified. I can, however verify its neurophysiological/chemical effects on the body. One does not preclude the other.

Chi might have a spiritual awakening element to it that cannot be verified, but its physical effects SHOULD be able to be measured. One is a faith issue, the other is a matter of research.

[GeneChing]

It certainly has made for a fun thread here.:D
But I still wonder how many people actually read it on this thread... I guess it's a big enough topic that we can't accuse those who haven't read it of anything, but I hope that they all do read it, since it'll save some posting from me.

[Gabriel]

Apoweyn, I know what its like to be busy. Been there done that. Take it easy bro.

Well folks, I just had a revelation, an epiphany even. As long as I am happy with what I do, and what I practice, why should I try to convince the world of its benefits? I mean, it makes for good intellectual mangling, but little else. And, surprisingly, I've lost my fight for this particular subject. With that, I will withdraw myself from this thread with my precepts, thoughts, and beliefs intact.

MP.

I get a little bit more of where you are coming from now, and thats the first step to understanding. Study and experiment all you want, I won't stop you. :)

I will respond to one comment that irked me for some reason..


"And since even you would not consider yourself an expert on the workings of the mind, it doesn't seem significant to state what you do not think on the subject. "

This, is ridiculous. NK, what is an expert exactly, in your definition? An expert is someone who has paper to back up there suppositions? Hmm, I've met supposed "experts" that were dolts, thrown through college because oftentimes, its the holding pen that parents put there kids in. They show no interest whatsoever in their field of study. Yet, still they have that piece of paper that quantifies them. And, who is an expert on the "workings of the mind". Psch guys? They are only proficient in their particular branch of mind study. Similarly, if you take, say, a Qi Gong guy hes only proficient in his area of mind cultivation. There are no experts of the mind in its entirety, that would be a VERY large subject NK. Ok, are the people that put forth the original argument experts of the "workings of the mind"? I highly doubt it. Intelligent yes, but not experts of the "workings of the mind". So you're saying in order to respond to a non expert, I must be an expert? Are YOU an expert NK? Come on, if you reduced people that can comment on a given subject to the "experts", this forum would be sparcely populated indeed.

And whats with all those ISH es? :confused:

I don't know why, but I was annoyed by that post..anyway.

Gene

I'm afraid that I'm guilty as charged of not reading your article. If I see and Issue of Kung Fu Magazine in the store when I go grocery shopping, Ill pick it up though. :) I know you said Qi is essential to Kung Fu or something like that.

Gabriel

[guohuen]

Haha, that's great! I like what they told us in demolitions school. All the experts are dead. There are only specialists.

[GeneChing]

Gabriel - We aren't in many grocery stores anymore. When the megabookstores took over, it changed the distribution of magazines tremendously and most grocery stores moved to more popular fair. You'll have better luck at a bookstore or specialty mag rack.

I've been pondering this whole qi thing some more, and I'd like to readdress qi being a larger concept. Good art, like a painting, sculpture, song etc. is said to be the product of good kungfu and it is said to express good qi. When you look at it this way, it becomes more than any bioelectric metaphor can reduce it to. The art works on a level that is above all that, indescribable, like when the taoist speak of universal qi. There is a resonance, a unity. It's outside the box - which is always hard to discuss.

Oh and to follow up on that reference earlier (I think it was this thread but I'm too lazy to go back and confirm it) about GM Chen Xiaowang denying qi, I just heard that GM Fu Zhongwen said something similar - no qi in taiji. However, this is the subtext - china was cracking down on qigong practices (falun gong is probably the most well known, but others, zhong gong, have been criticized for years too.) Many leading tiaji masters were attemtpting to divorce taiji from qigong to avoid oppression. They were stating catagorically that taiji is not qigong, denying that it had anything to do with that sort of qi practice. Perhaps this was what Chen meant too?

[Fu-Pow]

Alright I really hate to get involved in this conversation especially because Braden is involved :p but here goes.....someone wrote...

"Alright Braden, its not like a wire. I suppose I was trying to simplify. I was not insinuating that the body carries electricity in a conventional sense. Biolectricity is different than the electricity you'll find in an appliance. That's a given. However, I still maintain that the small and large intestines are about 6 times the host's height when stretched end to end, and are the most bioelectically conductive tissues aside from the heart and possible the brain. Being sandwiched between all of the mesentery, water, and outer casings, it forms.....a coil of biolectrity. The outer casings are less conductive, so it acts more like a battery of sorts. I will also throw in that quite possibly, ones center of balance is also in the general area of the small and large intestines. If center of balance = magnetic core, then this falls within the parameters of Faraday and Maxwell."


What I think is interesting is not so much the physics but the biology. Why is biology always left out of these conversations, we are after all biological?

Aside from the physics, the intestinal area also has the largest concentration of nerve endings next to the brain, so much that gastroenterologists have gone as far as to call it the "second brain."

So it kind of makes sense that if you can connect the whole body to the "bowel" area that you can make use of things like "listening" energy. Although the head obviously has more nerve cells inside it you can't really connect your head to the rest of the body in the same way.

I'm just throwing this out there I haven't really thought this through all the way.

[SanHeChuan]

Dear god i haven't had college courses that challenged me to thinks as much, which is no big surprise really. I've only read about half the thread but I'm going to post any way.

I Would Define Chi As Thus

Chi is the "movement" of all energy in the universe. Not just the energy it's self but the movement/transfer of energy. With out the transfer of energy no life would exist, no planets would move, no thought would occur, no light would reflect off of little swirls of paint so that we could see the result, like the mona Lisa.

It is not A single form of unknown energy to be quantified but the result of all energy, the process of life. The transfer of energy is the Essence of life. It occurs in all things animate and inanimate.

How breath or feng shui affect these transfers i don't know, but it is painfully obvious that they do or at least could.

By this definition the question then is how much can we influence Chi to produce results, not weather or not chi exists. It has been proven that we can consciously control the processes of our bodies with various degrees of success, I believe the term coined is mind over matter. For example we can increase our body heat/energy, like monks who can exercise such a high degree of control over their own body heat as to melt the snow around them, or like in tai chi when you relax and let your chi flow, you often get warmer, right? Most people do experience that when the do tai chi do they not? THAT IS CHI, there proven I'm done. :D:p ;) :rolleyes:

Does that fit everyones definition of chi, if you think of something that you define as chi that doesn't seem to fit here, I'm sure i could rationalize it for you. ;) :D

[GeneChing]

Wujidude - Thanks for the clarification. Fu passed away several years ago after a disasterous trip to the U.S. It was very tragic. Certianly many master before and after him addressed qi with out getting smacked down. It was just postulation on Chen;'s comment. Context is everything.

Fu-pow - Oh get involved - it's just a forum after all ;) Your gastroentrology anology reminds me of all those qi critics who jeeringly claim to be able to do the no touch knockout by passing wind. You know, between you and me, I'd love to be able to knock someone out that way :p

SanHeChuan - Sounds like your getting "atomic" about qi. That's an interesting perspective especially if you abandon the scientific post-micorscope view of atoms and embrace the ancient view. After all, the ancients veiwed the breath as the source of spirit, not unlike the way qi is defined. Thus spirit is connected with respiration - same root word.

[rubthebuddha]

spirit:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French or Latin; Old French, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
Date: 13th century

thank you, merriam-webster. :)

[redfist]

i am hard pressed to believe that the present day practitioner has developed there internal energy to the level to be able to do a "no touch knock out".
we live in degenerate times and this is another example of it.
especially leon jay,he recieved his "high level"training in advertising from the p.t.barnum of martial arts, george dillman,
they spew there bull$hit into the trough of the media and they know some people will dine upon it like manna from the gods.
and pay through the nose to be able to do it.
he should stick to jujitsu and forgo the snake oil.

the people i think who are on the right track with this stuff are the
russian martial artists.

leon should look these guys up and take mooney with him.

[No_Know]

"Predator-prey interactions? I do not think an animal could gain the necessary control and refinement of the mind that would be required to regulate your EMF fields to the point of being able to knock someone out. Actually, it is my opinion that most humans are not at this level, myself included. Plus, do we see acts of no touch or even touch healing in nature? If we do, I am not aware of it. "

Gabriel, I gathered that you were talking to convince. Which is what any orator might do. You were saying things that sounded good but didn't seem sound. I didn't have to ~ say anything. But I did.

In the above quote you indicate your opinion, basically, with an opener of that you Do Not think an animal could gain the necessary control and refinement of the mind that would be required to regulate your EMF fields to the point of being able to knock someone out. I used the word expert. If one bothers to share, it's possiblly from their experiences. They are an expert on their experiences. I gathered that you were not talking from your experiences as much as your speculations. You seem to regard Humans as higher than (other)animals as fas as mental workings. I perha[ps got that you were knowing what it took to regulate EMF fields to the point knocking someone out. Sarcastiocally speaking-ish, that seemed like an expert type claim.

As far as touch healing in Nature, animals tend to cuddle and lick a lot. And No-Touch Knock-out capability by animals, there seems to be something there when animals look at each other.

The -ishes are relevant to words having more than one meaning. In a friendly arena one could take the gist of what I meant. In an open forum I prepare for deliberate mangling of my meaning so that others could misconstrue what I meant. It's less than easy usually to get back on track from there.~ Ish would mean sorta this sentence or word.~ Keeps me from getting trapped as much.

The indication that you No_Know what you've been doing might be what seemed annoying to you. And there might have been some doubt that stirred within you that you might not fully understand some significance to what you've been doing and at which you might consider yourself good.

I get the impression that you are a monster fighter. :-)

[GeneChing]

Both 'placebo' and 'please' come from the same root. A lot of modern medicine - the western stuff - is really placebo. Ask anyone who works in medicine, and you'll understand the power of placebo. Certainly, much of faith healing is based on placebo, at least in the perspective of medicine. Now if we get away for the whole EMF/qi analogy and visualize qi in a more metaphoric sense, imagine the reverse of healing placebo, a harmful suggestion to the subconscious. It could have a cultural context - the faith healer in church parallel to the no-touch knock-out in martial arts. Science acknowledges the power of placebo and hypnosis despite being unable to explain them to any depth. Now within your world view, is this feasible?

[guohuen]

Sort of like Voodoo.

[GeneChing]

Yeah, I'm down with that.
Can I wear one of those cool hats and shake bone rattles?

[guohuen]

Feel free! Don't forget the rum.

[GeneChing]

Finally someone talkin' some sense on this thread! ;)
I once got so sick that I broke a blood vessel in my eye doing dry heaves. The last thing I remember before that was a shot of rum. Couldn't drink the stuff for years, not until a vacation in the Bahamas. But that's probably way more information than you need to know about me.

[guohuen]

Hehe, had that experience once with scotch. Didn't touch it again for twenty years. Then someone gave me some 25yr old Macallan's at a wedding, which is probably more information than you need to know.:D

[blooming lotus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KenGullette
[B]Hi,
I read the article with great interest in the new issue of Kung Fu/Qigong magazine -- the one in which Gene undergoes the "no-touch knockout" challenge.

Gene makes the comment (and I don't have the magazine with me at the moment so I'll paraphrase): in order to do kung fu you must believe in chi.

QUOTE]

I knew you had it in you :D

lol....:p

[bamboo_ leaf]

Weather one believes in it or not, with out experiencing it its not something that your going to be convinced by reading something on the net one way or another.

Why should anyone who has this or any ability come out and prove something that he or she knows about from direct experience? This really applies to those that really have the ability to use it. Why for what?

On the other hand many seem fervent to prove something that they don’t believe in or cant feel as fake again why? What value dose it add if its fake and doesn’t work what has been changed?

There are others trying to rename it, and fit it in with western ideas, which someday they will find what it is or what the Chinese mean when they speak of this. When they do people will say oh so that what it is.

I would say no it is what it is. The Chinese have a structured many pactices based on this concept and use from med. to MA.
for many including the leaf it is real and is used in there practices.

If one is interested, really interested invest some time and go look for it, if you dont find it then it was never there nothing has changed. But what if you do ;)

[scotty1]

Delicate sound, Braden and Guohen.

I think 1999 wants its thread back. :)

[Shaolinlueb]

there are a lot of pages here and i havent read all of them so i dont know if this was said or not. but here in america i doubt any of the practioners should worry about chi. with the amount of time the average american puts into practice, we can only really touch the bottom of the chi pyramid. there is so much we cant touch. 1 because we dont have the proper teachers, and 2, if we do have the proper teacher, we dont have the time or devotion to put into the practice because america is a workaholic country. so yes the average martial artist can experience chi but in a very small way. i have heard and seen experiences of chi, but these have all been masters or grandmasters from the old country. I have yet to see a modern american martial artist have a lot of explosive hard and soft chi.

[GeneChing]

Wow, BL goes diggin' in the archives and ttt's a classic thread.

I've changed my believes on this topic somewhat - or rather I should say that I'm streamlining them. The infusion of the concept of qi from TCM doesn't seem to have occured until the Ming/Qing period, when the term quan arose to define martial arts. Prior to that, of course there were fighting skills, but "martial arts" may not have existed as we know them. The notion of internal cultivation as part of this discipline may not have appeared until then. That's when people first start talking about 'qi', or at least that's the earliest we can document it at this time.

Now on the notion of qi, if you reveiw the 10 pages, you'll find a lot of discussion of 'bioelectric energy' and I personally beleive that this is a latent effect of scientific modelling that prejudices us to misinterpreting what qi might be. For example, in early studies of the workings of the mind, it was compared to the current technology. For a period, the mind was believed to be parallel to wheels and cogs, akin to cognition. There was even a steam driven model when teh steam engine was popular. Today, there's a computer model of course. When we approach something elusive, we try to pin it on something we understand - in qi, we pin it to electrical energy. Actually, this is a little dated and shows how most people trying to characterize qi are really not well read. String theory would be a better modern model.

I say this (and I hope I didn't say this before two years ago) because I think that the model is limited and fails to describe what we're talking about. In Chinese, you can say a painting has good 'qi' or someone's calligraphy has good 'qi'. Now, how does eletrical energy reside in something inanimate? Perhaps we can redeifne qi as a way of saying 'in the groove' or 'in the zone'. There's your connection to divinity, if you will. The term qi can be used to describe an intangible excellence. That can exist in a good fighter, a good artist, a good doctor, a good hypnotist that can make you rfaint on command, anything that's a cut above. This is a more abstract way of defining qi, and it does have it's holes, but I submit it just to try to break us out of the mental box of bioelectric energy or jedi powers.

[Indestructible]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
If I can explain something (chi) in terms of body mechanics or biochemistry, that takes precendence over an unprovable chi manipulation or imbalance.


I like this explanation. I mean, that's what chi is right? Body mechanics of a living thing. Body mechanics is how we learn to magnify our chi. I don't think understanding what something is lessons it at all. I do however, get the immpression that many people want the concept of Chi to remain in the mystical realm to satisfy their own perception, or notion of romance and mystery of the "asian arts".... ohhh.
I like to compare the whole thing to color. Color is light reflected off or through an object, at it's most simplified. That doesn't mean that color is any less beautiful, it just means we understand.

[GeneChing]

Now apply that to the painting. When someone says a painting has good qi (and this is commonly said of good paintings) what does that mean?

[Indestructible]

Originally posted by GeneChing
Now apply that to the painting. When someone says a painting has good qi (and this is commonly said of good paintings) what does that mean?

Not a dang thing:D Locations have good Chi too. Where the hills meet the sea and its cool year round and the air is filled with negative ions...

Chi as it relates to MA and the MA practictioner was the point of my little post, but the word has more dimensions as you have explained above.

[Merryprankster]

String theory would be a better modern model.

qi requires 11-dimensions and 6 dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds to explain? No wonder it's rough going!!!

****!!! :D

[brothernumber9]

is there any way to define even theoretically 11 dimensions?

[Ben Gash]

Surely the easiest way to sum up Qi is to say it's the indefineable quality that makes the whole greater than the sum of it's parts? I personally have never viewed it as a big mysterious thing, and I'm assured that most Chinese don't.
I think much of the confusion about Qi doesn't come from martial artists, but from new agers and ecclecticists, and has then fed back into martial arts.
I think Gene's painting allegory is a good one. When you see the painting for real, you get the added effect of the brush strokes and the paint texture, which in turn serve to make a more impressive hole (I have seen the Mona Lisa, I've seen better paintings).
However, MP is right, if Qi is a genuine energy, rather than a conceptual, then it's effects should be observable and recordable. (No Know, this is the thing with Gravity et al, their effects are directly observable and recordable)
Interestin anecdote, a few years ago there was a Chinese guy in London proclaiming that he could use empty force, and giving demonstrations. Liokault's Sigung walked into his class one day carrying a bottle of watare. He announced loudly that he was going to empty the water over the teacher's head, unless he stopped him with his empty force. He promptly walked up to him and poured it over his head :D
Does Leon Jay achieve what he claims? If Gene says so, I must assume so. Is it in the way he believes? I doubt it.

[Ben Gash]

I thought string theory was discredited?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
However, MP is right, if Qi is a genuine energy, rather than a conceptual, then it's effects should be observable and recordable. (No Know, this is the thing with Gravity et al, their effects are directly observable and recordable) 4% of the universe is atomic matter. The other 96% is dark matter and dark energy. I don't believe in empty force, but I'm not near-sighted enough to believe we can currently quantify and measure everything either.

[Meat Shake]

Qi = the energy released when enzymes in your body synthesize and break down protein.
Simple as that.
Everytime a protein strand is broken down for your body to use, a little "spark" is made. This "spark" has been scientifically proven as an EMF, or electromagnetic force.

Theres your "simple" definition of qi.

[GeneChing]

...nice to know someone's up on their string theory, at least for the amount you would need to know on this forum. Nice reply MP. And yes, I do think it might take at least 11 dimensions. ;)

[Ford Prefect]

Ben,

String theory is the only show in town as of right now for unifying theories (GUT/TOE whatever you wanna call it) in physics. I've studied quantum physics, but I never formally studied string theory. I've read a lot of material on it though. It was a little too far out there for me. It requires a few leaps of faith. Sub-plank length strings and sub-plank length sized folded up dimensions... I dunno. I'll probably be long dead before we can probe things like that.

[Merryprankster]

Ford,

The latest manifestations require close to planck length strings, not necessarily planck or sub planck length. It turns out that all the string theory work has been done with approximation methods that worked really well in the past.... the problem is that now the gradations are so fine and have such a tremendous impact on the results that the approximations don't work so well. The conceptual physics have outstripped the mathematical tools--but they're working on that.

Turns out that the 11 dimensions, vice the original 10 are required because somebody came along and UNIFIED all the accepted string theories out there into "M" theory and demonstrated that each "theory" was, in fact, a different mathematical facet of looking at the problem. What is an insurmountably complex problem in one facet can be effectively translated to another to be solved in many cases. That's a bit astounding. Also, it turns out that the dimensions don't have to be curled up. In fact, this turns out to be one possible explanation for gravities relative weakness when compared to the other forces...

We actually have a verifiable prediction now from string theory. It turns out that Higgs bosons, according to string theory, should be produced at much lower energies than classical quantum mechanics. The new Large Hadron Collider (at least I think that's the new one) SHOULD be able to produce these **** things. If they are, that's powerful evidence people are headed down the right path.

One of the other interesting things about String Theory is that it predicts the PROPERTIES of the particles that exist mathematically rather than requiring them as inputs.

Of course, this could be a self-consistent theory that has no experimental evidence to support it... and I think the Higgs boson may be the make or break....

[Merryprankster]

4% of the universe is atomic matter. The other 96% is dark matter and dark energy. I don't believe in empty force, but I'm not near-sighted enough to believe we can currently quantify and measure everything either.

Bad analogy. Cosmologists and quantum mechanics/string theorists are working towards this goal, and have some ideas which may eventually prove true. Science is a process....not, "take what I say on faith."

I'll grab my texts and post some stuff in a bit, possibly tonight or tomorrow. There are some fairly interesting things on this issue. One of them is the gravity bleed over I was referring too earlier.

[Merryprankster]

Oops the gravity bleed over was for something else. My bad.

But here's the relevant portion:

"According to many of the proposals, right now, billions of dark matter particles are shooting through your body every second, so viable candidates are only those particles that can pass through bulky matter without leaving a significant trace.

Neutrinos are one possibility. Calculations estimate their relic abundance since they were produced in the big bang, at about 55 million per cubic meter of space so if any one of the three neutrinos species weighed about a hundreth of a millionts as much as a proton, they would supply the dark matter. Although recent experiments have given strong evidence that neutrinos do have mass, according to current data they are too light to supply the darm matter; they fall short of the mark by a factor of a hundred.

Another promising proposal involves supersymmetric particles, especially the photino, the zino and the higgsino (the partners of the photon, the Z and the Higgs). These are the most standoffish of the supersymmetric particles - they could nonchalantly pass through the entire earth without the slightest effect on their motion and hence could easily have escaped detection. From calculations of howm many of these particles would have been produced in the big bang and survived until today, physicists estimate they would need to have a mass on the order of 100 to 1000 times that of the proton to supply the dark matter. This is an intriguing number, because various studies of supersymmetric-particle models as well as of superstring theory have arrived at the same mass range for these particles, without any concern for dark matter or cosmology. This would be a puzzling and completely unexplained confluence unless, of course, the dark matter is indeed composed of supersymmetric particles. Thus the search for supersymmetric particles at the world's current and pending accelerators may also be viewed as searches for the heavily favored darm matter candidates."

That's with regard to dark matter which appears to account for about 25% of the universe.

Dark energy has some current experiments out looking for it right now... and hopefully will yield some results about both the amount and nature of this stuff.

So... a little different than qi. We've got theoretical predictions that can be verified or discounted that people are out looking for RIGHT NOW.

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by GeneChing
Wow, BL goes diggin' in the archives and ttt's a classic thread.


:D ;)

I've changed my believes on this topic somewhat -

lol...thought you might 've ...but some of us cant afford to miss an opp
:

D



The infusion of the concept of qi from TCM doesn't seem to have occured until the Ming/Qing period, when the term quan arose to define martial arts. appeared until then. That's when people first start talking about 'qi', or at least that's the earliest we can document it at this time.



thats bs Gene...what about taiji and daoist practices ...origin prior ???

Now on the notion of qi, if you reveiw the 10 pages, you'll find a lot of discussion of 'bioelectric energy' and I personally beleive that this is a latent effect of scientific modelling that prejudices us to misinterpreting what qi might be. For example, in early studies of the workings of the mind, it was compared to the current technology. For a period, the mind was believed to be parallel to wheels and cogs, akin to cognition. There was even a steam driven model when teh steam engine was popular. Today, there's a computer model of course. When we approach something elusive, we try to pin it on something we understand - in qi, we pin it to electrical energy. Actually, this is a little dated and shows how most people trying to characterize qi are really not well read. String theory would be a better modern model.

I say this (and I hope I didn't say this before two years ago) because I think that the model is limited and fails to describe what we're talking about. In Chinese, you can say a painting has good 'qi' or someone's calligraphy has good 'qi'. Now, how does eletrical energy reside in something inanimate? Perhaps we can redeifne qi as a way of saying 'in the groove' or 'in the zone'. There's your connection to divinity, if you will. The term qi can be used to describe an intangible excellence. That can exist in a good fighter, a good artist, a good doctor, a good hypnotist that can make you rfaint on command, anything that's a cut above. This is a more abstract way of defining qi, and it does have it's holes, but I submit it just to try to break us out of the mental box of bioelectric energy or jedi powers. :

hmmmmmm...of course ...you do realise that some folks comparitively see these guys/gals skill and knowledge as "jedi"natured...even if it's only truth in jest......;) ;) :cool:

[Ford Prefect]

lol! Dillman Dim Mak vs BJJ

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/romogracie/dimmak.zip

Save as and unzip. This is a realplayer file. To get a free realplayer go to www.real.com This is a Fox News special...


Merry,

Any resources I can read about that? The latest book I read was Greene's and that was a while ago. Thanks.

[Ray Pina]

This thread has officially gone geek. Can we go back to kicking and punching now? Just kidding, I take an interest in all of this, from qi to quantum.

I had an experience a few years ago with an attractive friend of mine who was studying alternative medicine. She stood with our palms facing each other but not touching. She told me to relax, close my eyes, ect. And we did this for what was about to become uncomfortable in the, “what the hell am I standing here for, nothing’s happening” when I was rocked back by what was a very gentle force.

I don’t know if it was genuine or suggested or what, but it made me go “hhhmmmm.” My master can also take full punching and kicking to most areas (excluding head/neck/sternum) and says it’s because of Chi, describing it as having a bubble wrap effect.

Though he doesn’t talk to us about this much, instead we do some standing in class but mostly for him to correct our postures and take it home. He doesn’t want to hear from us about it either, saying you’ll know, as to not pollute our experience.

I have felt enough to know there is something to this, but can also understand why many say rubbish.

[Ray Pina]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/18/dark.energy/index.html

[Merryprankster]

He came out with a new book. The fabric of the cosmos. Better than the old one.

[Nick Forrer]

One useful way I was told by a friend to envision the idea of the universe expanding is this:

Imagine a series of dots drawn 1CM apart on some elastic material (like a rubber band) and then imagine the rubber band being stretched. Although the dots are not moving away from one another per se, the net effect is that they are further apart from one another.

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

I find an even better model is the balloon, vice a band. It's much easier.

The trick is to remember that you're "trapped" on the surface of the balloon, so there's no center of expansion (as you've correctly pointed out).

[Nick Forrer]

Merry/James,

You're right. That is a better model:)

[GeneChing]

I need to clarify my earlier post

The infusion of the concept of qi from TCM doesn't seem to have occured until the Ming/Qing period, when the term quan arose to define martial arts. appeared until then. That's when people first start talking about 'qi', or at least that's the earliest we can document it at this time. As you mention, Taoism, and more significantly TCM, have a tradition of qi that goes back 2000 years. But it doesn't come over into the martial arts until somewhere in the Ming/Qing transition, so we're talking around the 16th/17th centuries. Prior to that, extant martial documents only record battelfield tactics - bing fa - and there was no discussion of self cultivation or qi in fighting. Prior to the 16th, Chinese martial arts were more like what all the MMA/BJJ/street self defense guys are always on about, so you can say that their take on martial arts a de-evolution, like the cro-magnon view of the art. ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

But each of the dots on the surface of a ballon has a width and length, right? I mean, unless we're talking about mathematical points. So, when the surface of the balloon expands, don't the dots expand with it, thus rendering the change in distance meaningless within the system? It seems to me that if this analogy is accurate, whatever change occurs would only be apparent to an outside observer.

This post was brought to you by the guys who are kinda interested in this stuff but only have the barest 'pop science' level understanding of it.

[Merryprankster]

But each of the dots on the surface of a ballon has a width and length, right? I mean, unless we're talking about mathematical points. So, when the surface of the balloon expands, don't the dots expand with it, thus rendering the change in distance meaningless within the system? It seems to me that if this analogy is accurate, whatever change occurs would only be apparent to an outside observer.

1. Grrrrrrraaaaaaavvvvvvvity! :D That's what keeps those blobs together even though they are all moving away from each other.

2. More spacetime is being added, not stretched out.

[Ford Prefect]

Thanks for the tip, Merry. I haven't done much reading up on physics lately. Last book I read was "End of Time". Bleh.

[MasterKiller]

They expand proportinally. The amount of expansion occuring to a galaxy itself (a dot) is minimal in relation to the enormous increase in distance between galaxies.

Or, what MP said. I dunno. I'm still trying to finish reading up on Schrödinger's cat.

[Chang Style Novice]

"2. More spacetime is being added, not stretched out."

So in the analogy, spacetime is the air inflating the balloon, rather than the surface of the balloon? OK, that's getting a little clearer. I hope.;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
They expand proportinally. The amount of expansion occuring to a galaxy itself (a dot) is minimal in relation to the enormous increase in distance between galaxies. That sounds like they're expanding disproportionately. Was this a typo, or am I losing the thread?

[MasterKiller]

I dunno. I've mettled in this stuff, but MP seems to have a better grasp. I'm still trying to finish reading up on Schrödinger's cat.

[Merryprankster]

Nope, space time is the surface of the balloon.

except, instead of STRETCHING spacetime, you're adding more fabric of reality TO it. If you were stretching it, then you're right, the stretch would be the same throughout and relatively speaking there would be no change in measurements

But the dots (galaxies) stay cohesive because gravity keeps them together. So, more fabric is getting sewn in, all over, pushing the universe apart...but gravity keeps the bunched up bits bunched up tight.

Think of raisin bread as it bakes... the raisins all separate, but remain very much raisins...

[Chang Style Novice]

You gave me an inexact analogy, then! Well, I guess all analogies are inexact, but you know what I mean.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

[Merryprankster]

Well, there's no good analogy.

"Imagine a 4, spatial dimension sphere. That's the universe and we live on the surface."

Did that help? I thought not. :D I sure as hell can't envision it...so we use 3-dimensional spheres and talk about the 2-d surface as an analogy....

[Nick Forrer]

I think the fundamental point is that space/time is not an absolute/fixed/immutable (the newtonian picture) backdrop against which events unfold.

So when we talk about the universe expanding (which is suggested by the phenomenon of red shifts i.e. the fact that light from receding stars migrates to the red end of the spectrum) we mean just that i.e. that the universe really is expnading- not that the things inside it are moving away from one another whilst the context in which the movements occurs (space/time) stays fixed.

This leads to the idea that the universe does not have boundaries/borders (which would explain why we can't sensibly ask what lies beyond the borders). Instead to get to the end of the universe would be to end up at the beggining.

[GeneChing]

there's no good analogy. This is my whole reason for bringing string theory into a discussion of qi. When we describe string theory et. al. (and I guess that's the BIG COSMIC ET.AL. ;) ) we quickly see that our vocabulary isn't well equiped to discuss this theory. It's a new paradigm and it doesn't map well on to the old dominent one. The same is true for qi. It may not be new, but it's a new import and we are wrestling to map it on to what could be called an obsolete Cartesian grid. Now the notion of qi has been with the Chinese since the time of the Caesars, and the Chinese are perfectly happy about how it fits into their paradigm. It's just us westerners who have a problem.

Look at the painting. See the qi.

[Merryprankster]

This leads to the idea that the universe does not have boundaries/borders (which would explain why we can't sensibly ask what lies beyond the borders). Instead to get to the end of the universe would be to end up at the beggining.

Finite but without bound....


Gene,

I think your effort is admirable, but falls short of the mark.

Many people try to talk about qi as something with measureable, demonstrable effects. If it HAS them, we should be able to test them.

It's not an issue of proving or disproving qi. It's an issue of saying "you say qi cultivation does this. let's go find out!" And doing the appropriately conducted studies to make that happen... We're out LOOKING for and running experiments to verify these western notions that have no good analogies through the effects they have on the universe and the predictions they make.

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist
This thread has officially gone geek. Can we go back to kicking and punching now? Just kidding, I take an interest in all of this, from qi to quantum.

I had an experience

I don’t know if it was genuine or suggested or what, but it made me go “hhhmmmm.?My master can also take full punching and kicking to most areas (excluding head/neck/sternum) and says it’s because of Chi, describing it as having a bubble wrap effect.

.

now we're talking tantric luv....

dimmakin qi ...good for luvvin and fighting ;)

still can't open the clip, but now that you mention it Ford, I don't know if you were serious but I don't think I've seen a dim mak fighting vid....reasons should be obvious but does anyone have one????

Ps...universe is expanding to the point of nothing becomming something new as many nothigs meet and morph....dongma?? / understand??

[Toby]

*Tries to hold back, but fails miserably*

BL, I fscking hate your new habit of saying "dongma". It is so pretentious it makes me cringe.

[scotty1]

And it's probably better to say dong bu dong anyway. :)

*stops being a smartarse*

[blooming lotus]

pretentious nothing!!!...that's innocence baby

it's a term I seem to use alot here at the moment...duibuqi

but thx for the trolling effort all the same ;)

[GeneChing]

Indeed, you raise a good point, and that is that individual instances are testable. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for testing. In fact, this thread started because I subjected myself to a test of a reputed martial artist who claimed to be able to do no touch knockouts. How many other people on this forum can say that? (Saying "I would test them if given the opportunity" is not equivalent, especially not in MA - for example "I 'would" choke out Gracie if given the opportunity" "I would kick a Shaolin monk's butt if given the opportunity" - that just doesn't hold weight). I set that up personally because I wanted to see for myself. My conclusion, it didn't work on me. But given the nature of my little uncontrolled experiment, it would bad science for me to conclude that it would or would not work on others.

My point is that while those tests can validate/invalidate specific examples, they don't necessarily address the big picture. Or big painting. I think there's great value in it, but in the big painting, it's a little like looking at the ingredients of the paint.

[KungFuGrrrl]

Hello,

I thought you would find this interesting. Master Wong Kiew Kit is well known.....

Check out the entire site, there is some good stuff. This should keep you talking for a while hehe

http://wongkk.com/chikung/chikung-experiences.html

[richard sloan]

I find WKK's presentation to be alternately insulting and hilarious. Slightly insulting because he tries to present it in such a way as to seem somehow scientific, like we are dupes. For example- he presents his 'handwritten' notes as if that somehow infuses his observations with some kind of value or worth, when they neither add to nor subtract from his statements at all.

What he describes is a string of logical fallacies- at best, delusions of a grand scale at worst.

He reminds me of Qi Fei Long, who does bar mitzvah level parlor tricks and passes it off as Chi Kung "powers."

Several of us had an infamous "question and answer" session with WKK on the Russbo.com forum. It was quite illuminating.

It was pretty funny- especially since his students who frequented that forum dispersed ghosts by mispronouncing names of Chinese deities, and one claimed that Shi De Cheng had "low" energy levels- he knew this because he could "see" them.

[Waxwood rod]

Many have experienced no touch orgasms, I can believe in a no touch knock out happening.

[unixfudotnet]

Originally posted by KenGullette
Hi,
I read the article with great interest in the new issue of Kung Fu/Qigong magazine -- the one in which Gene undergoes the "no-touch knockout" challenge.

Gene makes the comment (and I don't have the magazine with me at the moment so I'll paraphrase): in order to do kung fu you must believe in chi.

Gene, that is simply wrong. Chen Xiaowang, who is one of the most highly regarded tai chi masters in the world today, the grandson of Chen Fake and the descendant of Chen Wangting, says you do NOT need to believe in chi in order to do good tai chi.

I'm not being disrespectful here, but I would like to know why you think that belief in chi is required? Using chi as a concept is one thing -- but to actually require belief in this outdated scientific concept is another matter.

I submit that in order to do good kung fu, you need a qualified teacher who can teach the proper body mechanics. In Chen tai chi, for example, that begins with silk-reeling exercises, learning to open and close, learning to center the stance, shift the weight properly, rotate the dan t'ien -- all physical endeavors that require no belief in chi -- just a lot of practice.

Now, regarding the challenge that you undertook, since you already believe in the "no-touch knockout" I believe you were biased. Even though you weren't knocked out, I believe you were receptive to the idea, and that's why things went "buzzy."

I would love to undergo the same demonstration. So far, all alleged chi "masters" I've asked to do a demo have backed down. Perhaps because it only has a ghost of a chance to work even slightly (a "buzz") on those who already are receptive.

There is a difference between believing in chi, and it just existing. If you try to believe in chi, you never will just get it.

I think what Chen was talking about, was that just do your Tai Chi as instructed and do not worry about chi. It is counter productive to do think about it, it is just is. It is only something that can come into light by not looking for it.

I higher levels on kungfu, it is more about touch and feel and only applying the hardness when needed for the exact amount of time it is needed and to very specific parts of your body. chi and chi sensitivity are most important and the ultimate goal really. If you are missing this, then you are truely missing your art and style.

At higher levels in your cma development, Tai Chi and Kungfu lines start to become more blended. Which may take a lifetime to figure out... but that is ok with me :) It is the journey that matters :D

[GeneChing]

It's funny what returns from the grave from Halloween.

I think I clarified this early, but I should say that I beleive in the possiblity of no touch knockouts. I believe in a lot of possibilities. It has yet to be proven to me since obviously, if you read that old article, the experiment failed and I wasn't knocked out. I do beleive in qi, but my personal defination of qi is quite different from the standard definition - it's a bit more abstract than the bio-magnetic arua stuff that most people visualize.

And I'm always in search of a good buzz...;)

[SanSoo Student]

I believe in qi palm blast KOs.

[Toby]

:(

[The Willow Sword]

There was a comment earlier about Chi beng explained as bioelectric and chemical energy in the body( to explain it is western scientific terms)
let me expand on this if i may. in the years that i have studied and practiced martial arts,,CHI is essentially energy. we all know that energy exists and it takes that energy to make things work,,whether it be electricity, solar,,biochemical,,nuclear.

In the human body we generate an energy,,it is our body temperature it is our life stream,,,these terms are a tad new agey but guess who capitolized on the CHI concepts and b@stardized them in to this fantasy video game? YES you guessed it the new agers and hippis who live in a peyote induced brain f@rt.

the chinese dont see chi as us westerners do,,but i know that they placate to our sense of grandier in this realm.

SO i would encourage people who say that they dont believe in chi to rethink that statement,,all chi really is are the energy systems in the body that are believed to be something that we with our our minds can control and manipulate to either,,slow down respiration,,facilitate a healing process in the body,,to generate power in your punches and kicks through the help of resisitance etc etc.
as far as the no touch knock out???? Force of suggestion really,,manipulation is what it is, it works on those who get it in their minds that they are going to be knocked out without being touched(which is actually how the **** technique works anyway)
and it doesnt work on most of us who have a strong will and mind to not be manipulated or have the suggestion forced upon us.

we all need to get real with what the terms and definitions are,,i certainly have never had this grandious idea about "chi". maybe others should follow that cue.

Peace,,TWS

[Ray Pina]

Delibandit, I understand what you are saying, and yes, that happens all the time to people who are surprised and turn around to see someone poking a pencil towards their eye, etc.

But what about the trained fighter? He is not going to flinch at your movement; he is going to come in and jam it or slip and counter.

I don't need any more methods on how to beat the cluts. I need more sound methods on how to beat the good guy.

Interestingly, I've read and have seen footage of something related involving Kia(s), stopping an incoming apponant with the voice alone.

Again, I would want to see it done on me, when I have the intention to really strike out.

.....
I am sort of a dreamer type though, so I haven't completely ruled out coming across some old man in China town who zaps me for accidently stepping on his toes or something. That would be a good day. It would also be good to find a million dollars in my trunk as I go to lunch now.

[Shaolinlueb]

if i dont shower for a long time, i can do no touch knockouts :D

[Ray Pina]

Who's your teacher's teacher and to whom did he do these things?

Did he do them here or in China (I presume)? Did your teacher witness them first hand?

Just curious, while we're on the topic.

[Ou Ji]

http://plsthx.com/Misc_videos/466_He_can_knock_you_out_without_touching_you.html

Why is it the juijitsu guys always have to ruin things. :D

[IronFist]

The heart rate going up thing was weird.

But I still say BS.

lol @ that guy "I get hit in the head a lot." :D

[Samurai Jack]

I liked the newscaster lady's ****ed-off reply to stumbling after getting dim-maked:

"Well duh! You just hit me in the head!"

[SimonM]

Ok, I've seen enough!

That was such freaking bull5h!t.

"Well... um... it doesn't work on these guys because they are athletes."

Though I had really seen enough when he refused to do it to the sceptical news lady.

[IronFist]

This is just like systema that the teacher can always scare his students to death.

Systema does that? Wait is systema that Vasiliev guy?

[FuXnDajenariht]

i wanna soooo study systema! that would be t!ts :D. it seems really unique. but i wanna get some tuition money up first. everything in manhattan is so god**** overpriced. :rolleyes: i dont think its bs. seems like really effective **** honestly, and some martial artist with some serious experience back it 100%.

i dont think the students aren't scared to death or overreacting aikido style either. their exercises are something that most people haven't seen before and you can't judge them or put them into context from the standpoint of a kung fu artist. sounds like a cop out but its evasion drills from what i gather....maybe...

go to their forum...they have good reasoning for whats going on in the vids.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Just another buttload of crap as usual. I love that the guy is like 325 lbs. as well. It's just so funny that these guys can never seem to make any of this sh1t work on anyone other than their own brainwashed students. What a scam!

[OdderMensch]

the skeptics, in there irational need for facts and reason, fail to see the deeper meaning behind exercises such as the "no touch knock out"

namely, that there is a sucker born every minute, hand lesson really.

[Royal Dragon]

LOL!! This guy is very close to some good freinds of mine!! I think maybe I should go in and get knocked out with no touch!

[IronFist]

Go for it, RD.

What good is a technique if it only works on your own students?

[Ou Ji]

While you're there have him knock me out too. Since contact isn't neccessary he should be able to get me wherever I am. ;)

[IronFist]

I can no-touch-KO you with a f.art after I eat the right things.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

if i could do it for real i would do it to random people on the street.

constantly.

i'd be like sleep .....

[Willow Palm]

"Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know."

Is this guy serious? It only works on his students because they are fourteen and suspectible to that kind of BS. I'm not saying dim mak isn't real mind you, but the no touch thing has always been a touchy subject.

If there is someone out there that can do that kind of thing, I find it highly unlikely that he would show a bunch of eight graders, let alone a news reporter.

Warren

[SimonM]

To be blunt I don't believe that no-touch KO's exist. At all.

But if they did and I could do them I wouldn't ever tell a soul. And I wouldn't do as GDA did and do it to random people on the street. I would make a lot of money betting on sporting events though...

[Mortal1]

That guy needs to lay off the carbs! What a phat a$$! The best part is it looks like he has a succesful school with paying students.

He looked like a giant egg with a black belt.

[Matrix]

That guy needs to lay off the carbs! What a phat a$$! The best part is it looks like he has a succesful school with paying students. Totally irrelavent. Let's stick to the issues and lose the cheap shots. :rolleyes:

The part of the clip that interested me was when he tried his stunt on the BJJ guys. He claimed that since they were trained atheletes they "had learned to translate the energy, so they weren't affected by it as much." Where "as much" seems to mean "not at all". But wouldn't you think his own students would have learned to "translate" the energy as well??? ;)

[SimonM]

Yeah, that irony was not lost on me.

[IronFist]

What good is a technique if it only works on your own students?

Brilliant point, IronFist!

[SimonM]

Uh oh! Call the men in the white coats! Iron fist has begun replying to his own posts to complement his own comments.:D

[Willow Palm]

LOL ironfist.

I suppose people like that have to have a bag of tricks to sucker people in. It's sad that not only does it apparently work but his students support it. Trickery of that kind doesn't belong in a school. Maybe in Vegas however!

Warren

[Chang Style Novice]

Some people, people show should know better, people we are all counting on to know better, take this kind of crazy nonsense far, far too seriously.

The Men Who Stare At Goats (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743241924/qid=1129092093/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8589769-9198336?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

READ IT

[IronFist]

Uh oh! Call the men in the white coats! Iron fist has begun replying to his own posts to complement his own comments.:D

I made an awesome post and no one replied, so I felt the need to quote it and make its presence known to those that missed it the first time.

[IronFist]

$1000 if you can hurt him with your chi, $2,500 if you can knock him out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szVzylud6b4).

[BoulderDawg]

That's a strange video.......

He gave an open challenge to anyone? I hope he realizes when he offered money that all the nuts are going to come out.

I'll do better than that: If anyone wins this guys challenge I'll give 10K to that person...IF........if he can stand 20 feet away from me and knock me across the room just by waving his hand, Chi , whatever!:D

[Adventure427]

nice, i would absolutely LOVE to see the failures and sucesses (if there is any) keep us posted

[Corwyn]

Hey, be careful! There are a couple of contenders on this forum who should be able to take your money with half their chi tied behind their backs :p

hint chi vampirism thread.

or at least b8tch slap you with "there you go again not thinking straight, using all that logic":D

[Corwyn]

ps

I'll throw in an extra $5K but only if I get to hit back after their chi fails:D

[Takuan]

"Qi is only exchanged from two people upon contact" - Erle Montaigue
Not an exact quote, but that's the basic idea.

[B-Rad]

I think he'll have to be careful of con artists if it's not in a controlled scientific setting. Like someone who decides they're going to try to fake it (with a taser or something). Saw those yellow bamboo guys pull something like this before.

[BruceSteveRoy]

this would make for an interesting discovery channel miniseries. like the american idol of chi blasters.

[Beginner]

I know in Singapore, they have Sim Poh Hoo using empty force to KO ppl ( aka his students) without touching.:D

[mickey]

Greetings,

This is very easy for a man to do.

Just go to a secluded convent and expose yourself.




mickey

[BruceSteveRoy]

exposing yourself can get you arrested depending on how secluded it really is. :p

[diego]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4&eurl=http://hiphopulation.y2hiphop.net/showthread.php?t=50898&page=426

[David Jamieson]

nice that your tax dollars go towards a weapon that will be used on you at protest marches and such. I mean hey, why taze individuals for speaking out when you can microwave a bunch of them at the same time!

suckers, enjoy your millions of square miles prison camp that you get to live in within the next quarter century.

[B-Rad]

WTF are you talking about? I think you need to lay off the reefer...

[Black Jack II]

Don't try and put any sense into what Dave is saying, its like trying to speak with a crack addict when it comes to these subjects, foaming at the mouth, has no idea what day it is and filled with that old-time voodoo crazy.