Chi?

[BrokenTitanium]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!

[bakxierboxer]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!

"Anything is possible!" :D

It's possible, even probable (to some degree), that it's "an element" of it.

OTOH, depending on your experiences, there are instances where various manifestations of "chi" very obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of oxygen within your blood.

[AdrianK]

Which begs the question of whether experiences of Chi are mainly psychological :)

[sideslider]

Which begs the question of whether experiences of Chi are mainly psychological :)

the experience may be - but the energy that is qi isn't

[SDJerry]

Chi is the primary element used to make "Yoga Fire".

[RonH]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!

No, qi is qi. Qi is not energy detectable directly by the hard sciences' technology.

[sideslider]

No, qi is qi. Qi is not energy detectable directly by the hard sciences' technology.

im not sure about hard science but it is often referred to as "life energy"

and I do remember reading something about reading levels of biochemical activity or something...

I'll find the article but basically they had a reading that they associated with qi.

http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2006/5/21/health/14296936&sec=health

some good info and I can can ask my wife who has a masters in oriental medicine for more resources if you are intrested

[AdrianK]

I'd definitely be interested. A complete scientific link to Chi would be fantastic.

[Hendrik]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!

Nope.

But energy that travel parallel with blood to supply energy to different part of the physical body.


Qi is similar to electricity. you cant see electricity, but you can know its existance from the fan or light it drive.

[RonH]

I'd definitely be interested. A complete scientific link to Chi would be fantastic.

There isn't one. The connect to electricity and biochemistry is that they show qi's exitence indirectly. The changes in them are because of a change in qi.

Let me ask you something, do you ever ask for a complete scientific link for a painting or a movie? What about music or a well written book? You don't need science for them and you don't need science for qi.

[bakxierboxer]

Which begs the question of whether experiences of Chi are mainly psychological :)

I believe I noted that it depended on your experiences.

[AdrianK]

Qi is similar to electricity. you cant see electricity, but you can know its existance from the fan or light it drive.

No, its not similar to electricity.

You can see electricity. You can feel electricity. Other people can see and feel electricity without any training, too.



There isn't one.

Then it does not exist.



The connect to electricity and biochemistry is that they show qi's exitence indirectly.

Then what is it? Manipulated electricity in the body? Willpower? Psychological mindset? Circulation? All of these can be explained through science.



Let me ask you something, do you ever ask for a complete scientific link for a painting or a movie?

The ridiculous thing about your statement is that there IS a complete scientific link to our ability to create and express ourselves. YES, there ARE things we do not yet understand about the human brain, but there is CONSISTENT PROGRESS being made to understand these things.



What about music or a well written book? You don't need science for them and you don't need science for qi.

Actually music, painting, and writing are all complete technical sciences. Then when you add in the human component they become expressive. The ability to express ourselves are ALSO Sciences related to psychology, our understanding of the human brain, and how our five senses shape our world for us.

If you don't understand melody or rhythm you can't exactly produce any kind of music, now can you? If you don't understand the language you're writing in, or the technical aspects of writing, you can't properly express yourself in writing, either. Nor can you properly express yourself in painting or drawing, unless you understand the technical aspects of that, either. Otherwise you're just drawing stick figures and ink blots.

Is it a valid artistic expression to draw, paint, or play music with no technical abilities? Absolutely. But the technical understanding of these things allows us to express ourselves to the fullest of our abilities.

That is NOT to say you can't teach yourself these things, or create your own ways, but even those ways are a result of a learning process, they become your technical abilities which you use to better express yourself.

And the expression itself can be explained scientifically, too. That doesn't make it worth any less, it simply means we're an incredibly developed people who understand the organic , incredibly complex computers that are brains really are.


You frickin' anti-science ass-hats really crack me up.

Yeah, we don't NEED science to explain to us why we can walk, talk, or learn.

But if we want to continually develop as a culture, if we want to continually develop and understand these concepts, then yes, we do NEED science.

[taai gihk yahn]

"qi" is a metaphor, albeit one that encompasses a variety of phenomena;

the character for "qi" was originally a pictogram depicting vapor rising off of fermenting rise; as such, the concept was firmly grounded in observable phenomenon; in TCM it generally correlates with a variety of relatively objective physiological processes that are clearly described and understood using contemporary knowledge paradigms; it was / is utilized to describe those physiological functions that were at one point observable only at a macro level; in some cases it was a discreet function that we would recognize today, such as respiration; in other cases, it was the net function of what we would refer to as a physiological system, such as digestion; in other cases, it referred to what would at present be defined as relating to a psychological state, be it a primary organic (e.g. - schizophrenia) or environment based (e.e.g - PTSD); of course, "ancient" Chinese culture included ideas about spirits, demons, etc., as well as a variety of other fantastical stories, so"qi" got tied up into some of this stuff as well, such as Taoist Immortals riding around on purple clouds...

the idea of "rhythm" permeates the metaphor of "qi": that is, a fundamental concept is periodicity, which is part of what gives the construct a great deal of predictive and prognostic power in context of medicine: basically by observing various rhythms in the body, one can become adept at correlating changes in one rhythm with another

"qi" also is used to describe a variety of relatively subjective sensorial experiences, such as what one might experience during certain types of exercises that impact the sensorimotor system; these include meditation, qigong, taiji, etc.; like any other form of exercise, these practices impact the physiology in different ways; if one ones 5 miles, the physiology will change to reflect that sort of activity, and one will experience an internal state change (e.g. - "runner's high"); likewise, if one practices "100 Days Opening", one will also have a set of "internal" experiences that reflect the nature of that particular practice; specifically, one will experience changes in one's autonomic nervous system that will cause various sensations internally, such as heat, feelings of lightness or heaviness, euphoria, calmness, etc.;

the idea of looking for "qi" as a discreet entity, as some sort of energy akin to heat, gravity, electricity, magnetism, potential / kinetic energy etc. is a fallacy; that's because the processes that "qi" describes all contain these energies to a varying extent: if we talk about the function of the human body, any time you describe any physiological process, you involves all of these forces; "qi" is a the unifying descriptor; that includes emotional / psychological function as well;

saying that "qi" cannot be described by / doesn't need "science" is an extremely narrow-minded perspective; the bod is the body; the universe is the universe; different people / cultures have described it in different ways, but we are all looking at the same thing; the difference is one o approach: so-called "eastern" culture, to some extent, looks at the macro in order to understand the micro (relatively speaking); so-called "western" culture looks at things in a reductionist way, trying to understand things at their "smallest" in order to then understand the whole; meaning, that, both are "holistic", just coming at it differently; I find it interesting how people are so quick to point out the "limitations" of science, and talk about how the Chinese really understood the "internal" workings of things so much better: well, the Chinese didn't know about cellular function, DNA, atomic theory, sub-atomic particles, etc.; certainly, their perspective might have inferred it, but if anything, current "science" has looked at the "internal" much more deeply than any one else has done, ever; strange then, that this "mysterious energy" manages to evade objective detection, but exists very abundantly from a subjective perspective, usually amongst people who do not posses the knowledge to correlate what they feel with current understanding of physiology...

"qi" was what was used when the technological limitations got in the way of specific observation at a level smaller than what was observable with the human senses at the time; it described a gestalt effect with the main purpose of having predictive / prognostic value in medicine, but also as a means of talking about the interrelated nature of all things, something that has been a commonly discussed idea throughout the history of mankind, but every different culture, in lots of different ways; so nothing unique there - it's all in context of how we as humans experience the universe within which we "exist"

[RonH]

Then it does not exist.

With this thinking, ideas don't exist. Science has no place in the subject of qi. It has no place in the subject of meaning, philosophy. The best it can describe is the mechanism of a thing, but not the reason. Explain how science was required for logic, when the scientific method itself uses logic.


Then what is it? Manipulated electricity in the body? Willpower? Psychological mindset? Circulation? All of these can be explained through science.

No, no, no, no and no. My sentences in the post you quoted already explained that. You have just made me needlessly restate them (although in an abbreviated form) because you didn't want to pay attention.

Since none of those things are qi, it doesn't matter one ****, if those things can be explained through science. It's good to see you are incapable of average thought.

[quote]The ridiculous thing about your statement is that there IS a complete scientific link to our ability to create and express ourselves.

But, not the reason why creativity is expressed. All science is doing is explaining a mechanism. And since there is a variety to the mechanism, science is not explaining WHY (see, I can capitalize words, too) someone would choose one way to express something, while someone else chooses something else.

Stop acting like you're in second grade and use your brain.


YES, there ARE things we do not yet understand about the human brain, but there is CONSISTENT PROGRESS being made to understand these things.

I'll tell you what. On this point, when you read up on NOMA, then we can return to this point. But, I'm gonna bet you don't know it without looking it up first.


Actually music, painting, and writing are all complete technical sciences. Then when you add in the human component they become expressive. The ability to express ourselves are ALSO Sciences related to psychology, our understanding of the human brain, and how our five senses shape our world for us.

Psychology is refered to as a soft science, one of the humanities. You don't even understand what soft science means. I'd say go back to school, but you're continuing to prove you never went in the first place or you didn't finish.


If you don't understand melody or rhythm you can't exactly produce any kind of music, now can you?

Bull$hit. Only the dumbest motherfu@ker is gonna claim science is required to understand melody or rhythm. Beethoven didn't use the **** scientific method to write his music.

Once again, you are proving to not be capable of things elementary school kids can do. I'll get my 10 year old niece to tutor you.


If you don't understand the language you're writing in, or the technical aspects of writing, you can't properly express yourself in writing, either.

Spoken languages have existed. So have pictoral languages. Here's a thought, watch the discovery channel. Eventually, amongst all the cgi dinos and monkeys, they talk about early people. That way, you can have giant pictures and sound effects like the other big boys.

You have proven once again that you are one of the largest dumba$$ on this board. You never heard of cave drawing or an oral history of a people. God, your school must have been $hitty teaching history.


Nor can you properly express yourself in painting or drawing, unless you understand the technical aspects of that, either. Otherwise you're just drawing stick figures and ink blots.

You never took art in school, did you? Tell me how a first grader is gonna use the bleedin' scientific method to fingerpaint.

A drawing is a drawing, regardless of how fu@ked up you want to say it is. A bad drawing is still a drawing.

You haven't provided **** to show science is needed to make art. You could randomly throw trash together and someone will find it to be art.


Is it a valid artistic expression to draw, paint, or play music with no technical abilities? Absolutely. But the technical understanding of these things allows us to express ourselves to the fullest of our abilities.

You are arrogant. Where are you getting this 'fullest expression' from? Based on what? How are you gonna measure what someone's fullest expression capabilities are? Da Vinci could do more life like drawings of people, Picaso made them all looked fu@ked up during his cubism period. Are you gonna sit there and tell me that during his cubism phase, Picaso wasn't expressing himself to the fullest of his abilities?


That is NOT to say you can't teach yourself these things, or create your own ways, but even those ways are a result of a learning process, they become your technical abilities which you use to better express yourself.

There are ways I'm thinking of expressing myself right now and they've got zero to do with science or the scientific method.


And the expression itself can be explained scientifically, too. That doesn't make it worth any less, it simply means we're an incredibly developed people who understand the organic , incredibly complex computers that are brains really are.

More bull$hit. Assuming there is something without any proof is not science. It is not being scienfitic. You can't even get away with it by saying this is not a lab or this is just the discussion at the 'every day man's' level. This is why you don't see me claiming qi is science or scientific. The next time you debate science, don't do something stupid, like this.


You frickin' anti-science ass-hats really crack me up.

Yeah, we don't NEED science to explain to us why we can walk, talk, or learn.

But if we want to continually develop as a culture, if we want to continually develop and understand these concepts, then yes, we do NEED science.

I've wasted enough time on your stupidity. I'm not speaking to you on any subject again. I don't want to become infected by your shameful disregard for facts, logic and reason.

[taai gihk yahn]

Adrian - you may want to re-acquaint yourself with this parable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus)...

[Lee Chiang Po]

As silly as it might sound to some, Chi or qi really does exist. Not in the manner most try to reflect, but it does exist. It is an energy that flows from our core, around the naval, and outward to all the extremities, including the head, and back again. It follows roughly the flow of our blood, but not completely or exactly. More like it follows your nervous system. Modern western medicine is based in facts that can be scientifically proven, which says a lot for it. However, western science can not find itself even getting involved in traditional Chinese medicine. A good example is accupuncture. Accupuncture has not been well recieved by western medicine. I remember about 20 years ago now a team of cordiologists went to China to study a new heart surgery technique where the heart was not stopped during a valve replacement. The young western cardiologists were not so excited about the surgical procedure so much as they were excited by the method of anesthesia, which was accupuncture, and the patient, a woman, was fully conscious during the entire proceedure. But even with witnessing that accupuncture is still considered hockus pockus to most western doctors.
Accupuncture would not be possible if not for chi flow, and I think that is an honest effort were to be made, science would be astonished. However, chi is a nature thing that we can not truely control. We can nurture it in ways, but we can not envoke it or send it out of our being. It is just a part of you like your blood. Discussing it on this forum is not really going to prove or disprove anything, as there is going to be as many different opinions as there are responses to it.

[AdrianK]

With this thinking, ideas don't exist.

The generation of ideas by a human being is a scientifically verifiable process.



Science has no place in the subject of qi

Science has a place in all things. Science is simply a means to understand. If understanding has no place in the subject of Qi, then you've got a very serious issue, because understanding and science also has no place in Cults, Mcdojos, Palm Readers and the like.



It has no place in the subject of meaning, philosophy.

Actually it has a very secure place among meaning and philosophy. Its incredibly ridiculous to assume otherwise.



he best it can describe is the mechanism of a thing, but not the reason.

Your statement makes no sense. You don't even define what "Reason" you're talking about. Science defines millions of reasons.



Explain how science was required for logic, when the scientific method itself uses logic.

WOW! I can't even have a legitimate intellectual discussion with you. This statement showcased such an incredible display of ignorance I am literally not even going to read the rest of your response. I'm going to stop right now and just say this - I never said science was required for anything - In fact I said specifically "we don't NEED science to explain to us why we can...".

I'll make this really simple for you - Logic does not require science. However, any development and understanding of the logic we inherantly possess, is in itself, science.

Go back to school, and then you have my permission to re-read my post and respond.



lol taai gihk yahn, indeed. I just keep rolling that boulder up a hill, its because I'm especially bored tonight :)

[RonH]

As silly as it might sound to some, Chi or qi really does exist.

I only still interact with reductionists with conflicting views within themselves on this issue to find out just how far some of them will go and to know who to avoid talking to in the future.

[taai gihk yahn]

lol taai gihk yahn, indeed. I just keep rolling that boulder up a hill, its because I'm especially bored tonight :)

to paraphrase Camu, "One must imagine Adrian happy."

[taai gihk yahn]

I'll tell you what. On this point, when you read up on NOMA, then we can return to this point. But, I'm gonna bet you don't know it without looking it up first.
he should get over himself already, as if he is the only person in the world who has read Gould (he is also not the only person to misunderstand and misappropriate him, but that's to be expected; SJG would be ROTFLHAO if he read what this guy posts);

it's funny, people of this guys ilk: they decry science as being inadequate to the task of encompassing something like "qi", but are the first to run an appeal to scientific authority strategy when they find something that they think supports their belief system; same as those Kapra-lovers, who are look down their noses at the vast limitations of "science", but will jump all over quantum mechanics theory as "proof" of "qi" and the like (without, of course, having any actual clue as to what quantum mechanics theory is, what it proposes, how it states that things work on the quantum level, etc.)


I only still interact with reductionists with conflicting views within themselves on this issue to find out just how far some of them will go and to know who to avoid talking to in the future.
this guy is such a condescending pr1ck: and he is the who claims he dispenses "healing energy" throughout the world over the internet, LOL; this guy has no clue about what healing is in the slightest

[Baqualin]

"qi" is a metaphor, albeit one that encompasses a variety of phenomena;

the character for "qi" was originally a pictogram depicting vapor rising off of fermenting rise; as such, the concept was firmly grounded in observable phenomenon; in TCM it generally correlates with a variety of relatively objective physiological processes that are clearly described and understood using contemporary knowledge paradigms; it was / is utilized to describe those physiological functions that were at one point observable only at a macro level; in some cases it was a discreet function that we would recognize today, such as respiration; in other cases, it was the net function of what we would refer to as a physiological system, such as digestion; in other cases, it referred to what would at present be defined as relating to a psychological state, be it a primary organic (e.g. - schizophrenia) or environment based (e.e.g - PTSD); of course, "ancient" Chinese culture included ideas about spirits, demons, etc., as well as a variety of other fantastical stories, so"qi" got tied up into some of this stuff as well, such as Taoist Immortals riding around on purple clouds...

the idea of "rhythm" permeates the metaphor of "qi": that is, a fundamental concept is periodicity, which is part of what gives the construct a great deal of predictive and prognostic power in context of medicine: basically by observing various rhythms in the body, one can become adept at correlating changes in one rhythm with another

"qi" also is used to describe a variety of relatively subjective sensorial experiences, such as what one might experience during certain types of exercises that impact the sensorimotor system; these include meditation, qigong, taiji, etc.; like any other form of exercise, these practices impact the physiology in different ways; if one ones 5 miles, the physiology will change to reflect that sort of activity, and one will experience an internal state change (e.g. - "runner's high"); likewise, if one practices "100 Days Opening", one will also have a set of "internal" experiences that reflect the nature of that particular practice; specifically, one will experience changes in one's autonomic nervous system that will cause various sensations internally, such as heat, feelings of lightness or heaviness, euphoria, calmness, etc.;

the idea of looking for "qi" as a discreet entity, as some sort of energy akin to heat, gravity, electricity, magnetism, potential / kinetic energy etc. is a fallacy; that's because the processes that "qi" describes all contain these energies to a varying extent: if we talk about the function of the human body, any time you describe any physiological process, you involves all of these forces; "qi" is a the unifying descriptor; that includes emotional / psychological function as well;

saying that "qi" cannot be described by / doesn't need "science" is an extremely narrow-minded perspective; the bod is the body; the universe is the universe; different people / cultures have described it in different ways, but we are all looking at the same thing; the difference is one o approach: so-called "eastern" culture, to some extent, looks at the macro in order to understand the micro (relatively speaking); so-called "western" culture looks at things in a reductionist way, trying to understand things at their "smallest" in order to then understand the whole; meaning, that, both are "holistic", just coming at it differently; I find it interesting how people are so quick to point out the "limitations" of science, and talk about how the Chinese really understood the "internal" workings of things so much better: well, the Chinese didn't know about cellular function, DNA, atomic theory, sub-atomic particles, etc.; certainly, their perspective might have inferred it, but if anything, current "science" has looked at the "internal" much more deeply than any one else has done, ever; strange then, that this "mysterious energy" manages to evade objective detection, but exists very abundantly from a subjective perspective, usually amongst people who do not posses the knowledge to correlate what they feel with current understanding of physiology...

"qi" was what was used when the technological limitations got in the way of specific observation at a level smaller than what was observable with the human senses at the time; it described a gestalt effect with the main purpose of having predictive / prognostic value in medicine, but also as a means of talking about the interrelated nature of all things, something that has been a commonly discussed idea throughout the history of mankind, but every different culture, in lots of different ways; so nothing unique there - it's all in context of how we as humans experience the universe within which we "exist"

Very well said....if they can't understand this they will never get it. I'm impressed.:cool:
BQ

[Baqualin]

As silly as it might sound to some, Chi or qi really does exist. Not in the manner most try to reflect, but it does exist. It is an energy that flows from our core, around the naval, and outward to all the extremities, including the head, and back again. It follows roughly the flow of our blood, but not completely or exactly. More like it follows your nervous system. Modern western medicine is based in facts that can be scientifically proven, which says a lot for it. However, western science can not find itself even getting involved in traditional Chinese medicine. A good example is accupuncture. Accupuncture has not been well recieved by western medicine. I remember about 20 years ago now a team of cordiologists went to China to study a new heart surgery technique where the heart was not stopped during a valve replacement. The young western cardiologists were not so excited about the surgical procedure so much as they were excited by the method of anesthesia, which was accupuncture, and the patient, a woman, was fully conscious during the entire proceedure. But even with witnessing that accupuncture is still considered hockus pockus to most western doctors.
Accupuncture would not be possible if not for chi flow, and I think that is an honest effort were to be made, science would be astonished. However, chi is a nature thing that we can not truely control. We can nurture it in ways, but we can not envoke it or send it out of our being. It is just a part of you like your blood. Discussing it on this forum is not really going to prove or disprove anything, as there is going to be as many different opinions as there are responses to it.

Also well said......I feel explanations for Chi will eventually (if ever) come from Quantum physics.....just my opinion for what thats worth.
BQ

[sideslider]

What is being said here is common from what I hear.

people want a western explanation for an eastern idea/practice.

kinda like comparing apples to oranges and also one of the reasons that westerners tend to look down on things like Qi and acupuncture.

where acupuncture has thousands of years of use and results to back it up a western viewer would say that all those years don't count becuase it wasn't evaluated unsing new things like a double blind studies.

There is a reason that china uses western and eastern medicine side by side in their hospitals today.

I have a family memeber who is finishing her western med school this summer and as part of her degree she was introduced eastern medicine in a weekend seminar. THis created a ton of confusion for her because you simply cannot grasp TCM in a few days, especially never being exposed to it.

So in this manner I don't think it is right for you to deny the existence of chi with out considerable research and experience.

[David Jamieson]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!

qi=breath. it is more than just the element oxygen. oxygen is one of the smallest amounts of element that we breath. Most of our breath intake is actually nitrogen.

Here nor there.

qi, is not just one thing. It is your elan vidal, your life force and it is many things working together to maintain your sentience.

without qi, you are a dead husk, so it is qi that is all the things that normally animate that husk that is your vessel of containment for your life force.

when it's(qi) gone, so are you. :)

[Bo_toxic]

I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!
I would think that the answer would be yes simple because in the spiritual sense of the term as you have no doubt heard it described even in general it would not be limited to just the oxygen. I thought it was a valid question by the way.

[Oso]

didn't read all this but someone up thread wanted to liken chi to electricity and someone else said that you could 'see' electricity

I just want to point out that electricity is basically invisible...you can't see the electrons moving with the naked eye but you can see the effect it has on things it passes through...the light from the bulb is NOT electricity

it may be that we just haven't advanced science enough to come up with a tool that enables us to 'see' qi