building Chi

[Hendrik]

IMHO, Alots and lots of speculation, seems that none knows what is qi or chi and continous endlessly to talk about it.


Can anyone answer a simple question on how to cultivate qi and evoke it?
Qi is a practice not a believe and also sensation doesnt equal to Qi.

[Raipizo]

Well yes it is a belief of course, many do not believe in chi, most think it is a trick. I would believe chi takes some time to be able to cultivate and use.

[Corwyn]

Ignore posts, such as Corwyn's. He's assuming a lot about a subject he doesn't know. As much as he'd like to through words around like cognitive dissonance, I can throw others around to. It's called nonoverlapping magisteria. Science has no place in many areas of knowledge, like meaning, philosophy, the initial creation of language and many others. I would like to see Corwyn explain how science leads to these areas. I don't believe I ever read a post of his that goes into these areas.

Mantak Chia is always a good read for such a thing.

Typical woo tactic of changing the subject.

QI nutters CLAIM that chi is a FORCE they can channel, control, and as in this post increase/cultivate that has the ability to -depending on how long the nutter has been off meds - can kill people without touching them, make you fly or to preventing viruses and bacteria from getting you sick. Regardless of how whacked out on this scale the qi proponent is the CLAIM is that through magik they can violate the laws of physics WHICH IS VERY MUCH THE REALM OF SCIENCE.
just google some of the fruitcakes on youtube

My first thought was to post a link to the most common logical fallacies and then we could play a game where people could see which ones they could identify
out of your babble, but after the first 12 I spotted, - well fishes and barrels started dancing through my head.

But this gem in the vain of - give a man a long enough rope
"the initial creation of language and many others. I would like to see Corwyn explain how science leads to these areas"

NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT come up with a SIMPLE coherent explaination of what the WOO you claim to have power over is and can do, you know NOTHING about science either

So for the benefit of others
Scientists Identify a Language Gene
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...guagegene.html

"Also in progress is a collaborative project to study the evolution of the human FOXP2 gene by comparing it with versions in chimps and other primates. Monaco speculates that differences between the FOXP2 gene in humans and chimps may reveal a genetic basis for differing abilities to communicate."

Please stick to things you have a chance at understanding
I suggest tiddlywinks, maybe teletubies if you concentrate REALLY hard

[Zenshiite]

A language gene doesn't necessarily explain how languages came to be dude.

Secondly, you're taking the worst examples of many modern claims regarding chi which are largely based on myths, legends and wuxia fantasy... but have little to do with actual chi gung, nei gung, or the nei jia chuan.

You're setting up strawmen.

Building chi, without the more esoteric/mystical cosmological language involved, purely from a functional stand point is this... eat a balanced healthy diet, exercise, and do deep breathing exercises to make sure you get plenty of oxygen. That will give the body plenty of vital energy, which is precisely what "chi" is in this case.

As a cosmological doctrine, chi really isn't that different from the above... it's merely the vital life force of the universe.

[RonH]

So for the benefit of others
Scientists Identify a Language Gene
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...guagegene.html

So, you proof that language is based on science is the possibilty that people are hardwired to make sounds?

This is very pathetic. I also noticed that there was no mention of a gene for creating philosophy or pieces of art. Your stance is bad. Deal with it.

[taai gihk yahn]

My first thought was to post a link to the most common logical fallacies and then we could play a game where people could see which ones they could identify out of your babble, but after the first 12 I spotted, - well fishes and barrels started dancing through my head.

more of the same nutter-babble going on here as well;

[Corwyn]

example of what believing in total rubish instead of using ones faculties gets you.

YEA YEA you may not do this - YET - but you make it possible for the delusional to do so

WANRING GRAPHIC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDKWM...layer_embedded

[Corwyn]

So, you proof that language is based on science is the possibilty that people are hardwired to make sounds?

This is very pathetic. I also noticed that there was no mention of a gene for creating philosophy or pieces of art. Your stance is bad. Deal with it.

Reading comprehention 101 It's a good thing You should get some!

WITHOUT FOXP2 gene you could shove all the philosphy up your beind you want.

You can not develop langauge. I leave you to your delusions. Hope you don't end up like the broad in the vid.

[Dale Dugas]

nice big words coming from some unknown internet warrior.

bet you would never talk like that to Shifu Ron or myself if you were face to face with us.

dear lord, you are one rude young man.

[RonH]

Reading comprehention 101 It's a good thing You should get some!

WITHOUT FOXP2 gene you could shove all the philosphy up your beind you want.

You can not develop langauge. I leave you to your delusions. Hope you don't end up like the broad in the vid.

ROFLMAO

With this is kind of butterfly effect thinking, I could claim a bear $hitting in the woods lead to Albert Einstien's birth and his proposition of the special relativity theory. You're looking for a physics explanation for a nonphysics (hard science) subject. You've never heard of nonoverlapping magisteria, have you?

Edit:

Oh, forgot to mention because your proposition was too fu@king funny. The article only talks about a gene involved in speech and communicating. Not thinking. Here's a quote:

' "The defect was like a signpost, precisely highlighting the gene responsible for the speech disorder," said Monaco. '

This is speech and communication, not the ability to think. You loose. Again.

[air]

Well I have been doing tai chi and chi gung for several years.

I only do about 14 different chi gung exercises. I hate to say this because its better to always work with a teacher, but checking out some youtube videos on chi gung and doing it along side can be helpful.

I read a good book by : Jwing-Ming, Yang
"Qigong for Health and Martial Arts"

That gives you a good basic concept of chi gung

[No_Know]

Corwyn, perhaps you know. It seems to be accepted that there is wind. We accept proof of wind by things moving by an otherwise un-seeable force or energy.

What is the visible portion of wind?

What is the wind? Movement of air (air being invisible but measurable)? But what makes the movement? Temperature differences and activity at sub atomic levels? If you say movement at whatever level, then what is beginnings of that movement?

The wind is measurable but you measure the wind. Wind is a label but a label of what? What moves the air? What is the force? What is temperature beyond labels.


The ocean has waves but what makes the waves? What substance is the force that makes the waves? Vibration? You can say when it happens or how it is caused but what substance is it?

Science doesn't seem like a vehicle for scoffing. Perhaps for being correct, but not jeering.

I think you refer to demonstrations of chi/Qi and you see these demonstrations as fakeries. However, while you might have proof of how to cheat at these demonstrations you would need to know how to cheat at All the demonstrations and seen all of them to know that those cheats were used. If you cannot witness each demonstration then you cannot soundly state that All are fakes. Qi is said to exist beyond demonstrations. Without an accounting of every person who might possess qi it would then be unverifiable as to whether qi does Not exist. You may say it seems unreasonable but could Not scientifically say it absolutely has not existed nor exists.

When you have all knowledge of all things and people and places at all times, then you may more say what Does Not exist, perhaps.

No_Know

[Corwyn]

Corwyn, perhaps you know. It seems to be accepted that there is wind. We accept proof of wind by things moving by an otherwise un-seeable force or energy.

What is the visible portion of wind?

What is the wind? Movement of air (air being invisible but measurable)? But what makes the movement? Temperature differences and activity at sub atomic levels? If you say movement at whatever level, then what is beginnings of that movement?

The wind is measurable but you measure the wind. Wind is a label but a label of what? What moves the air? What is the force? What is temperature beyond labels.


The ocean has waves but what makes the waves? What substance is the force that makes the waves? Vibration? You can say when it happens or how it is caused but what substance is it?

Science doesn't seem like a vehicle for scoffing. Perhaps for being correct, but not jeering.

I think you refer to demonstrations of chi/Qi and you see these demonstrations as fakeries. However, while you might have proof of how to cheat at these demonstrations you would need to know how to cheat at All the demonstrations and seen all of them to know that those cheats were used. If you cannot witness each demonstration then you cannot soundly state that All are fakes. Qi is said to exist beyond demonstrations. Without an accounting of every person who might possess qi it would then be unverifiable as to whether qi does Not exist. You may say it seems unreasonable but could Not scientifically say it absolutely has not existed nor exists.

When you have all knowledge of all things and people and places at all times, then you may more say what Does Not exist, perhaps.

No_Know

Love this,. Can I use this post for WOO 101 cause you should be the poster child!!

So what you are saying here is that IF YOU don't know what the wind is then no one else can. (clue maybe you should visit local library or your local science museum instead of spending your time chasing fantasies)

That if you don't know EVERYTHING you can't question the goofy nutball beliefs of wackos who believe that they have the source to an energy that can kill people by remotely touching them

That's classic. ignorance

But just to prove how stupid your argument is, let turn it on it's face!

Are YOU claiming that YOU know everything!

IF NOT then HOW is it that YOU know that qi is rea or how is it that you you can tell that I am wrong? After all you don't know what dark matter is made of, so if you don't know this HOW can you know I am wrong?????

By the way, this is a TEXT book example of a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Perhaps basic science and basic logical reasoning would be good thing to spend some time on. But I kind of doubt it.

[No_Know]

So what you are saying here is that IF YOU don't know what the wind is then no one else can. (clue maybe you should visit local library or your local science museum instead of spending your time chasing fantasies)

Indications of you being a Science person I was Asking you something to the effect what are the forces that make the wind. Others than me might know. If you are one who knows what are the forces that make the wind, then tell.

That if you don't know EVERYTHING you can't question the goofy nutball beliefs of wackos who believe that they have the source to an energy that can kill people by remotely touching them

If one does not know that a thing is true, then that one might question that thing being true.

There is questioning and there is dismissing. One who does not know, might question. One who knows can dismiss. One who believes it is not true but uses mocking instead of evidence is not backed by Science, in that line of argument.

Are YOU claiming that YOU know everything!

The exclamation mark suggests not an actual question so-much as a springboard for this next quote.

IF NOT then HOW is it that YOU know that qi is rea or how is it that you you can tell that I am wrong? After all you don't know what dark matter is made of, so if you don't know this HOW can you know I am wrong?????

In this you claim I have made claim of you being wrong. Show me this outside of citing you.

You claim I do not know what dark matter is. How would you know that I do not know? While it might be likely that I do not know what dark matter is, what evidence was there before you asked your question that your statement was sound?

Yes, I would have to literally know everything to know you are wrong. I cannot know that I do not know everything. Because, perhaps, only in knowing Everything could I know I didn't know something. One might think.

I asked for information and I reasoned. You have not seemed to support that you are right. You seem to merely Say that you are right.

I have not necessarily said that you are wrong.

I have perhaps reasoned that it is unlikely that your claim of Qi not being real is not necessarily sound.

I No_Know