Why is science having such a hard time finding chi?

[11:33]

Jakara,

 

What about the 2000 year old theory of chi is not accurate in your assessment? I tried to express to you that from my experience I don't see any sign that the 2000 year old theory is false. In what specific points do you see a divergence from what is real and what is inaccurate.

 

Also, what is your experience hands on with chi?

[steve]

Nicely put Jakara, I think we've both weighed in on this point a few times in the past...

 

 

Pontification on ....

 

It's always interesting to see the discussion on this forum regarding the question of scientists investigating Qi.

Clearly, people seem to have an interest in seeing scientific evidence of Qi and yet, when none is forthcoming, there is an immediate tendency to question the scientists methods, intent, integrity, or blame it all on some great pharmaceutical conspiracy. If scientists are so horrible, why do we care if we can measure Qi scientifically anyway? I enjoy the irony.

 

The scientific method is sound and extremely effective and valuable. Most scientists have more of an open mind than they are given credit for and tend to welcome new findings and ideas. That's what makes their work exciting and worthwhile. Sure there are some unethical people out there in the scientific world, thank God there aren't any in the spiritual circles... Rather than question their integrity or postulate some giant pharmaceutical conspiracy, why not accept the lack of scientific evidence of Qi at face value and use that knowledge to further our understanding of it?

 

Perhaps the reason that we haven't proven the existence of Qi is that it doesn't "exist" in the usual sense of the word. People assume that Qi is some sort of stuff or some energy that must be measurable. Why make such an assumption?

 

I take the absence of scientific proof of the existence of Qi as a clue to its nature rather than trying to force the data to fit my expectations. When more data is available, I'll adjust my own ideas accordingly. As it stands, I don't really experience Qi as extrinsic matter or energy, I look at Qi more as intrinsic to the experience of living. Perhaps it is an interaction between human awareness and human existence at some level. Through my own practice of Taijiquan, Qigong, Neigong, and Daoist meditation, I personally experience it as just another mode of sensory awareness of physical manifestation (in addition to sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) which makes sense with it being a characteristic of life.

 

It is no less real or meaningful because it is not yet measurable by objective scientific methods. Perhaps it is of a quality that will never be measurable. That doesn't mean that there are vast conspiracies or unethical scientists trying to undermine alternative ideas and therapies. It just means that we may need to refine our ideas about it. There is room for incorporating the Western scientific method, which is an extremely powerful tool, and Eastern experiential methods, which are equally powerful from different perspectives, without attacking the validity or integrity of either. Discounting either due to bias is foolhardy. Melding the two into a gratuitous pseudo-science is equally meaningless and degrades both, IMO.

 

The experimental (scientific) method has proven itself to be effective and reproducible beyond any reasonable question. The experiential methods speak for themselves to those of us that practice them. Paradigms are nothing more than perspectives. All have their strengths and weaknesses. All exclude certain aspects of reality while focusing on others. None is perfect and none is worthless. Rather than choosing one paradigm versus the other, why not take advantage of the benefits offered by all? Ultimately, this will give a more accurate picture than either alone can provide.

 

Pontification off...

 

 

Happy Father's Day everyone!

Edited June 21, 2009 by xuesheng

[Jakara]

Hi 11:33,

 

In my opinion (by all means disagree), the ancients established a theory of chi based on the feelings they experienced when doing things like chi-kung, and observations they made with healing experiments. They then extended their theory to the whole cosmos. I think that theory is not accurate. I don't think chi is an undiscovered force in contradiction to fundamental physics. I think that if Chi exists, then its well within current biology and physics. I think that its probably a combination of many factors that are well known individually, but when combined produce a relatively unique, and as of yet, undocumented effect.

 

My experience with chi is as follows: Over 10 years chinese martial arts and dynamic chi kung, 4 years of meditation and static chi kung. I can "feel chi" throughout my body and direct it to any other part of my body. When I meditate my dan tian burns very hot and envelops my whole body, to the point where I can no longer wear clothes (classy I know). The effects for me definitely exist, that doesn't mean chi exists, I could be crazy.

 

What are your thoughts and experiences? Has reading through this string of posts been of any benefit?

 

 

 

 

A good post and a voice of reason. Thanks XueSheng, you're my new hero. Please elevate your name to LaoShi accordingly

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jakara

[11:33]

Jakara,

 

Before I respond, how does your idea of what chi is explain chi transmission? Like out of the hands, or fingers?

[Josh Young]

the problem is which chi?

 

It is a word with many meanings, to demonstrate the existence of one of those meanings does not infer the existence of others.

 

The idea that there is any one theory of chi is laughable.

 

2000 years is not that long either, and moreover to assume that the period of time that something was believed has anything to do with truth is to be mislead. People have maintained poor concepts for longer than 2000 years. When I was a boy my mother told me: if a billion people believe a bad idea, it is still a bad idea. This goes for time as well.

 

Moreover the very idea of being able to know something... what a joke. Belief is all there is. There is no fact, only the perception of what we call fact. We must endeavor to quite misleading ourselves into thinking we have knowledge when all we have is a type of faith in our experiences.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Josh Young

[Jakara]

11:33,

 

I get the feeling I'm being set up here, but I'll take the bait anyway to see where you are going with this.

 

First off, nobody has a confirmed, documented case of detecting chi directly with an instrument in controlled conditions. That itself puts into question the transmission of chi. But lets assume that someone can transmit chi for the sake of arguement, and that the detectors just can't pick it up, or that they are using the wrong type of detector.

 

If masters can transmit chi, then all I can do is speculate until proper controlled experiments were devised. If you want me to list possibilities, it could be infrared radiation, microwaves, a simple direct transmission of electrical current from one person to another or any combination of these. Remember a moving current will always produce radiation. It might not be any of these at all, I'm just throwing ideas around here.

[Owledge]

Why is science having such a hard time finding chi? I mean, I can feel it! So why can't they find it? It's so weird to me.

 

Anyone know?

 

Rhetorical question or not yet informed about the way our society works?

[11:33]

11:33,

 

I get the feeling I'm being set up here, but I'll take the bait anyway to see where you are going with this.

 

First off, nobody has a confirmed, documented case of detecting chi directly with an instrument in controlled conditions. That itself puts into question the transmission of chi. But lets assume that someone can transmit chi for the sake of arguement, and that the detectors just can't pick it up, or that they are using the wrong type of detector.

 

If masters can transmit chi, then all I can do is speculate until proper controlled experiments were devised. If you want me to list possibilities, it could be infrared radiation, microwaves, a simple direct transmission of electrical current from one person to another or any combination of these. Remember a moving current will always produce radiation. It might not be any of these at all, I'm just throwing ideas around here.

No setup. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. In my experience the theory of chi matches my experience of chi. I have had energy transmitted to me. You can feel it hit you like waves of water. Not just feel it, but FEEL it powerfully.

 

What do you think of the studies posted above on Yan Xin?

[Jakara]

No setup. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. In my experience the theory of chi matches my experience of chi. I have had energy transmitted to me. You can feel it hit you like waves of water. Not just feel it, but FEEL it powerfully.

 

What do you think of the studies posted above on Yan Xin?

 

If you can feel chi then that is a good enough reason to practice chi kung in my opinion. Maybe one day we will be able to explain the mechanics of it.

 

Since you asked, I think the studies done on Yan Xin are completely bogus. I read the article and downloaded one of his research papers and read the first 10 pages before I couldn't take any more. It was about measuring a chi transmission using a Lithium Floride detector. I happen to have done some unrelated research using similar detectors to the ones that he was using. The studies weren't done in a controlled environment amongst other things, but that reason alone is enough to invalidate the research.

[Ya Mu]

11:33,

 

I get the feeling I'm being set up here, but I'll take the bait anyway to see where you are going with this.

 

First off, nobody has a confirmed, documented case of detecting chi directly with an instrument in controlled conditions. That itself puts into question the transmission of chi. But lets assume that someone can transmit chi for the sake of arguement, and that the detectors just can't pick it up, or that they are using the wrong type of detector.

 

If masters can transmit chi, then all I can do is speculate until proper controlled experiments were devised. If you want me to list possibilities, it could be infrared radiation, microwaves, a simple direct transmission of electrical current from one person to another or any combination of these. Remember a moving current will always produce radiation. It might not be any of these at all, I'm just throwing ideas around here.

 

You have an interesting point of view. To the best of my knowledge it is very true when you say that qi itself has never been measured. But in fact many components have. But again, these are just components. It is my belief that scientific instrumentation has not been developed yet with the full-spectrum sensitivity to actually measure qi. But I think that at some point it will.

 

I do question your unwavering faith in the scientific method. Surely you are aware of all the drugs that have passed the scientific tests of safety to only find out that they hurt people. There are probably many examples but I don't really care about researching them for anyone. Those involved in the applications of science have brought us from computers as big as a room to one smaller than your hand, but do they actually work? Well, sometimes but most computers seem to not work 100% of the time. If you think otherwise try building a few pc's and installing windoze on them On different days, depending on solar flares or full moons they seem to have a life of their own. And in 75 years you science application guys have not done a thing to really change the infernal combustion engine. Why is that? Why do we still have cars that only get 20 mpg max? Or for that matter, why do mass production cars only utilize gas and not other forms of energy? I choose to blame science as it really hasn't progressed in a measurable manner. So science can't be measured either.

 

Bottom line, you can apply this "it hasn't been scientifically confirmed yet" to the measurement of qi, and I would have to agree with you to a certain extent. But you can't really convince me that western medicine has been scientifically confirmed either what with all the drug recalls and western medicine failures. Yet if I am sick I will probably try western medicine if medical qigong or herbal medicine fails. But I for one will certainly try the untested (whoops, that's wrong, it has been tested for a lot longer than western medicine) and unmeasured medical qigong or herbal medicine first.

 

Try really looking and I think you will find plenty of studies that have measured components of qi. I have seen measured magnetic standing waves from qi projection. I have seen the measured brain wave changes induced by qi projection. But one is only a component and the other is only a result of.

[Martial Development]

Since you asked, I think the studies done on Yan Xin are completely bogus. I read the article and downloaded one of his research papers and read the first 10 pages before I couldn't take any more. It was about measuring a chi transmission using a Lithium Floride detector. I happen to have done some unrelated research using similar detectors to the ones that he was using. The studies weren't done in a controlled environment amongst other things, but that reason alone is enough to invalidate the research.

 

Please be specific about which paper you read and what problems you observed in the experimental design.

[Jakara]

Hello,

 

Please appreciate that although I am a scientist, I do not represent the scientific community as a whole, so whilst I'm happy to answer the science parts of questions, remember I am one guy answering here.

 

Ok so computing, well, yes they are sometimes unreliable, but thats not so much the physics of the components as the sketchy programming of the operating system, Windows is renouned for being unreliable. Try some linux variations or BSD perhaps.

 

The internal combustion engine has improved in countries willing to spend on the R&D. Unfortunately its all about supply and demand. I take it you are from the USA? There is no large demand there for better efficiency engines yet, people there are happy to drive their gas guzzling machines. In Europe where the CO2 laws have been stricter for quite some time and the petrol (gas) prices are about 4x that of the USA, the latest cars can get around 100mpg on a petrol (gas) engine. Regular diesel engines here get around 60mpg, and thats old technology. I think you will start seeing more efficient engines over there soon though because of the Obama administration being a bit greener than the last.

 

I'm a physicist not a medical researcher but as far as I know medical trials follow a loosely based law on what should work based on previous evidence. Huge amounts of money goes into R&D for new drugs and most of them never make it to the shelf. Statistical trials are performed to a drug that may work and are accepted if say something like 90/100 patients show improvement. Human volunteers are paid to take these drugs for these trials. They do this because the mechanics/science of the drugs are not yet fully understood, but drugs companies want to make money and people want to be cured quickly so they roll them out as long as the side effects are within acceptable limits as defined by your government. This process is not entirely scientific, its based on a statistical majority, which is where the flaws arise.

 

Herbal medicine works well in many cases, asperin for example is found in willow tree bark, which is how they knew to look there. People used to chew the bark when they had a head ache! :-) Extracting and concentrating the active ingrediant in a herbal medicine is one technique that medical reserarchers use to develop new drugs.

 

I'm sure if I scoured the end of the Earth I could find some papers describing experiments with chi, but none are in the mainstream literature for a reason. None of them seem to do experiments in a controlled envirnoment. That is, there could be 50 variables causing an observed effect and this needs to be reduced to just the one variable; is the signal I'm seeing from the guy sending chi or not?

 

 

 

 

MD,

 

Here is a link to the paper I read http://www.scientificexploration.org/journ...se_16_3_yan.pdf

 

I find taking measurements of emitted chi in a lecture room full of people to be unacceptable in terms of a controlled enviornment. Feel free to disagree.

 

If he wanted to prove it, he should have the chi emitter perform the experiment directly opposite a detector in an isolated environment and measure the output in an on/off fashion so that there is no shadow of a doubt that the signal is coming from the guy emitting the chi.

[Ya Mu]

Hello,

 

Please appreciate that although I am a scientist, I do not represent the scientific community as a whole, so whilst I'm happy to answer the science parts of questions, remember I am one guy answering here.

 

Ok so computing, well, yes they are sometimes unreliable, but thats not so much the physics of the components as the sketchy programming of the operating system, Windows is renouned for being unreliable. Try some linux variations or BSD perhaps.

 

The internal combustion engine has improved in countries willing to spend on the R&D. Unfortunately its all about supply and demand. I take it you are from the USA? There is no large demand there for better efficiency engines yet, people there are happy to drive their gas guzzling machines. In Europe where the CO2 laws have been stricter for quite some time and the petrol (gas) prices are about 4x that of the USA, the latest cars can get around 100mpg on a petrol (gas) engine. Regular diesel engines here get around 60mpg, and thats old technology. I think you will start seeing more efficient engines over there soon though because of the Obama administration being a bit greener than the last.

 

I'm a physicist not a medical researcher but as far as I know medical trials follow a loosely based law on what should work based on previous evidence. Huge amounts of money goes into R&D for new drugs and most of them never make it to the shelf. Statistical trials are performed to a drug that may work and are accepted if say something like 90/100 patients show improvement. Human volunteers are paid to take these drugs for these trials. They do this because the mechanics/science of the drugs are not yet fully understood, but drugs companies want to make money and people want to be cured quickly so they roll them out as long as the side effects are within acceptable limits as defined by your government. This process is not entirely scientific, its based on a statistical majority, which is where the flaws arise.

 

Herbal medicine works well in many cases, asperin for example is found in willow tree bark, which is how they knew to look there. People used to chew the bark when they had a head ache! :-) Extracting and concentrating the active ingrediant in a herbal medicine is one technique that medical reserarchers use to develop new drugs.

 

I'm sure if I scoured the end of the Earth I could find some papers describing experiments with chi, but none are in the mainstream literature for a reason. None of them seem to do experiments in a controlled envirnoment. That is, there could be 50 variables causing an observed effect and this needs to be reduced to just the one variable; is the signal I'm seeing from the guy sending chi or not?

MD,

 

Here is a link to the paper I read http://www.scientificexploration.org/journ...se_16_3_yan.pdf

 

I find taking measurements of emitted chi in a lecture room full of people to be unacceptable in terms of a controlled enviornment. Feel free to disagree.

 

If he wanted to prove it, he should have the chi emitter perform the experiment directly opposite a detector in an isolated environment and measure the output in an on/off fashion so that there is no shadow of a doubt that the signal is coming from the guy emitting the chi.

 

I was somewhat jesting with my response. Thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful reply.

 

I do think scientific development has met a some type of energetic roadblock and I gave the internal combustion engine as an example. We in the USA are kept in the dark about 60 MPG vehicles, but even then, why don't we yet have something else? During the time it took a computer to go from as big as a house to as small as your thumbnail the internal combustion engine still rules very inefficiently.

 

The computer system errrors are mostly operating system but not all failures or intermittent sporatic behavior is due to the OS. I have a system in front of me that I built last week. The first 30 times it booted with no problem, now it boots sometimes and other times it will not (doesn't get to operating system of which I have Ubuntu). Probably a gate latching somewhere in the motherboard. But such is the way of things.

 

They do this because the mechanics/science of the drugs are not yet fully understood...

Exactly - Just like Qi projection! But the drugs are accepted more in the general population.

 

I do disagree that measurements taken in a room full of people is not valid. The measurements we took were over the period of a full day. Every single time I projected qi the standing waves showed a definite correlation

with the qi projection. So this was many different times of correlation throughout the day. And these correlations were observed by a scientist and a MD. But I would agree that this particular experiment was not really scientific and I don't try to make a big deal of it, after all, what the heck did it mean, other than Qi has components that we don't freakin understand. But I think it could have been made scientific with controls set up. I have stated many times that, if someone else provides the funds and equipment, I would be glad to participate in any scientific investigations. I have been doing Qi projection for close to 30 years and I am quick to say that this is an art and science of which we know just a small amount.

 

I have to go as I have a class to teach today in Qi projection for healing others. These students (chiropractors, nurses, MD's, massage therapists and others) will leave knowing powerful methods of energy manipulation that work for their clients/patients with an extremely high result rate. Even if we can't totally measure it!

[Jakara]

Hi YM,

 

I understand what you mean, why are we using technology to power cars that is nearly a centrury old? Well, its all about the money :-) Oil was cheap and plentiful, out planet wasn't known to be doomed and the combustion engine worked well. Companies are making money from it and it does the job well so no need to change it. There is a need now though, as we know that we need greener technology to combat the Earth's demise. As such, money has been spent on R&D. Electric motors have been around for Donkey's years but the battery technology to make them a viable option hasn't. Until now. Research into electric cars is now mainstream, check out the "Tesla Roadster" as one example, which can do 250 miles between charges, do 0-60mph in < 4 seconds and has an effective efficiency of > 120mpg! It will set you back a good $100,000 though ;-) because it isn't in mainstream production yet, cheaper production methods aren't available so prices are still high.

 

In the next 5 to 10 years, expect to see a significant increase in the percentage of electric powered cars on the road. Remember that the electricity comes from multiple sources, and the generation is more efficienct than that of a petrol (gas) engine, making electric vehicles a viable option.

 

I did not realise you were one of those conducting the chi experiment, or I may have been less blunt and more tactful. My apologies. I do still think the controls were not good enough for that particular experiment, but as you said, an experiment with improved controls would be very interesting. I'm not at all saying that no chi was projected, I was just saying that the scientific method was not accurate enough in that experiment to confirm it. I would also be glad to provide my services as a physicist, though I have no privately owned equipment, and I definitely don't own any funds :-) I hope someday soon we can confirm its existence scientifically.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Jakara

[enouch]

If you can feel chi then that is a good enough reason to practice chi kung in my opinion. Maybe one day we will be able to explain the mechanics of it.

 

Since you asked, I think the studies done on Yan Xin are completely bogus. I read the article and downloaded one of his research papers and read the first 10 pages before I couldn't take any more. It was about measuring a chi transmission using a Lithium Floride detector. I happen to have done some unrelated research using similar detectors to the ones that he was using. The studies weren't done in a controlled environment amongst other things, but that reason alone is enough to invalidate the research.

 

 

The scientific papers on these qigong experiments have been rigorously reviewed by highly accomplished academics, including Professor Qian Xuesen (Tsien Hsue-sen), former Chairman and current Honorary Chairman of Chinese National Association of Scientists, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology, formerly Goddard Professor, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; Professor Zhao Zhongyao, an eminent expert on nuclear physics in China, member, Academia Sinica, an early academic advisor to Dr. C.N. Yang who later won a Nobel Price in physics (being a member of Academia Sinica is roughly equivalent to being a fellow of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences); Professor Bei Shizhang, biophysics expert, world renowned biophysics teacher, member, Academia Sinica; Professor Feng Xinfang, microbiologist, member, Academia Sinica; and Professor Hu Haichang, thermophysicist, member, Academia Sinica. After they became aware of, participated in, or reviewed the scientific papers on the qigong experiments I conducted in collaboration with a number of experts and professors from prestigious Chinese universities, such as Tsinghua University and Beijing University, they all acknowledged that qigong is highly scientific in nature.

I should also add Yan's work was supervised by a nobel prize winner-something you don't find in a cracker jack box. Also Professor HANS-PETER DUERR, colleague and successor of WERNER HEIESENBURG[the man who discovered a certain uncertainty principle, was also a student of Albert..well you know who!]as Director of institute of Theorectical Physics in Germany proclaimed the Yan Xin research results''to be within my window of acceptance''.

 

 

The above five points are summarized from the perspective of scientific research by a number of scientists based on newly discovered phenomena. Further experiments have demonstrated that external qi possesses multiple attributes. For example, I collaborated with professors at Tsinghua University on chemistry experiments. We studied the bromination reaction of n-hexane as affected by long-distance qi emissions using a "double blind method." Typically the bromination reaction only happens the instant a strong ultraviolet light is introduced. This changes the normally dark reddish-brown mixed solution of n-hexane and bromine into a clear solution. However, under conditions of darkness, long distance, and the "double blind method," external qi turned the reddish-brown solution of n-hexane and bromine colorless within fifteen minutes. By measuring the molecular characteristics of the solution, we found that the molecular structure and density of the solution were changed. Moreover, qi could change the color of the upper two-thirds of the solution in a test tube, while leaving the color of the lower one-third unchanged. These results indicate that qi possesses special attributes.

[Jakara]

I can't comment on any of the experiments I'm not qualified in, that would include the chemistry based ones. All I'm saying is that the paper I read showed methods that I don't think were acceptable for that particular experiment. If a handful of others think they are acceptable, thats up to them.

[enouch]

I can't comment on any of the experiments I'm not qualified in, that would include the chemistry based ones. All I'm saying is that the paper I read showed methods that I don't think were acceptable for that particular experiment. If a handful of others think they are acceptable, thats up to them.

 

 

Fair enough! This is why world views are so fascinating! It usually comes down to who has the bigger stick or who can conquer who and then raise them with a particular set of values.Who determines what is acceptable,reasonable,worthy of study ,ectera.In a sense, China was blessed that until the 1970s the western world largely ignored her-pretended she didn't exsist.That way she could matriculate in isolation without being forced to assimalate pre-set values about nature and reality.Some believe the clash between the west and middle east is really a clash of values.Reminds me of why so many westerners are unaware[not mentioned in educational system, grade school] that muslims ruled over half of Europe...it isn't conducive to our world view.As a result many of us feel no kinship to the islamic world.

[goldisheavy]

First off, nobody has a confirmed, documented case of detecting chi directly with an instrument in controlled conditions. That itself puts into question the transmission of chi.

 

The same thing can and must be said about other things we take for granted:

 

- dreams

- love

- thoughts

 

What have you.

 

And yet, no one questions the existence of those, right? That's bias right there. We accept ephemeral experiences if they are the right kind, the socially acceptable kind. And we don't accept them, even if they are very very similar, if they are not the kind we know and love.

 

But lets assume that someone can transmit chi for the sake of arguement, and that the detectors just can't pick it up, or that they are using the wrong type of detector.

 

If masters can transmit chi, then all I can do is speculate until proper controlled experiments were devised.

 

See, the premise of the science is that the universe is objective. Without this premise the scientific method makes no sense at all. The scientific method only makes sense if we can assume that the universe is independent of mind, first, and second, that it is self-consistent over time. If making observations changes the universe, then what are you observing? If the universe is not guaranteed to be self-consistent over time, then, again, what are you observing and testing? How do you know that test A and test B test the same thing? What if, as Buddhists say, there are no things? What if objectivity is just an illusory cognition of the primordial mind? In that case, scientific method might be useless with regard to testing Chi and/or providing some kind of insights on the ultimate level of understanding.

 

This is why serious scientists pretty much reject out of hand the idea of Chi, because it breaks Science in a philosophical sense. Chi as an idea makes sense in a non-physicalist view of natural phenomena. In a physicalist worldview Chi either makes no sense at all, or it has a very limited purpose and play, just one force among many, a castrated version of its former (as defined originally by the Chinese shamans/mystics) self.

Edited June 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[steve]

The same thing can and must be said about other things we take for granted:

 

- dreams

- love

- thoughts

 

What have you.

 

Well said Gold. I'm with you there 100%. Those things are all experiential reality yet not measurable with the scientific methods currently available.

 

See, the premise of the science is that the universe is objective. Without this premise the scientific method makes no sense at all. The scientific method only makes sense if we can assume that the universe is independent of mind, first, and second, that it is self-consistent over time. If making observations changes the universe, then what are you observing? If the universe is not guaranteed to be self-consistent over time, then, again, what are you observing and testing? How do you know that test A and test B test the same thing? What if, as Buddhists say, there are no things? What if objectivity is just an illusory cognition of the primordial mind? In that case, scientific method might be useless with regard to testing Chi and/or providing some kind of insights on the ultimate level of understanding.

Here I have to challenge you.

Actually, this hasn't been the case for about eighty years now, Gold. Heisenberg proved the interdependence between observer and observed in 1927. The Uncertainty Principle marked a fundamental acceptance of the subjectivity of the scientific method and allowed the Quantum Theory and subsequent advances like Superstring Theory and so forth to develop. The whole objectivity thing is just a side effect of macro system observations. When you get down to the small stuff it completely falls apart and is worthless.

 

The observation has been that systems still exhibit certain reproducible and predictable results under specific controlled conditions so the scientific method remains a powerful predictive tool as long as the best approximation is chosen. The mechanical model is a good approximation at the macro level and the quantum model is a better approximation at the micro level. One major problem in science to this day is - why do they differ and how to reconcile the two? M theory, Superstring theory, and others are trying to bridge this gap but none really have it figured out yet. No question this is a bit of an artifical situation but so is every other intellectual examination and approximation of reality.

 

A really interesting treatment of the questions you raise can be found in a book called

The Self Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World by Amit Goswami.

A general treatment of the Buddhist/Advaita Vedanta picture of the universe (I know, I know - they're not the same) reconciled with the perspective of a Quantum physicist. Excellent read.

Here's his website for anyone interested - http://www.amitgoswami.org/

[Ramon25]

by the way guys i think its great that we can all come together in peace and agree - disagree. I find myself looking foward to coming on here everyday and seeing what we can all hash out. Well love to all you guys

Edited June 23, 2009 by Ramon25

[agharta]

The whole objectivity thing is just a side effect of macro system observations. When you get down to the small stuff it completely falls apart and is worthless.

 

 

 

Interesting. Perhaps giant stars see humans as "quantum" and consider our behavior "observer-dependent". LOL

 

 

I'm only half-joking.

 

I've wondered a few times if maybe quantum theory and relativity are both correct, if it's really just a matter of scale and perspective. Of course, I don't know my relativity and quantum mechanics well enough to say, and I am probably wrong. LOL

[enouch]

The same thing can and must be said about other things we take for granted:

 

- dreams

- love

- thoughts

 

What have you.

 

And yet, no one questions the existence of those, right? That's bias right there. We accept ephemeral experiences if they are the right kind, the socially acceptable kind. And we don't accept them, even if they are very very similar, if they are not the kind we know and love.

See, the premise of the science is that the universe is objective. Without this premise the scientific method makes no sense at all. The scientific method only makes sense if we can assume that the universe is independent of mind, first, and second, that it is self-consistent over time. If making observations changes the universe, then what are you observing? If the universe is not guaranteed to be self-consistent over time, then, again, what are you observing and testing? How do you know that test A and test B test the same thing? What if, as Buddhists say, there are no things? What if objectivity is just an illusory cognition of the primordial mind? In that case, scientific method might be useless with regard to testing Chi and/or providing some kind of insights on the ultimate level of understanding.

 

This is why serious scientists pretty much reject out of hand the idea of Chi, because it breaks Science in a philosophical sense. Chi as an idea makes sense in a non-physicalist view of natural phenomena. In a physicalist worldview Chi either makes no sense at all, or it has a very limited purpose and play, just one force among many, a castrated version of its former (as defined originally by the Chinese shamans/mystics) self.

 

 

Well said, nothing interprets itself...it's all filtered through human consciousness.Making it inherently sujective by its very nature.Jakarta has already agreed on an implicit level that the chigung process is real by the results he freely admits too.Scientist may acknowledge the uncertainty principle but they also ignore it as well or at least the implications of it.Matter at the macro level is predictable but not at the micro level? Yet it's all consistent?It's all about scale they say! Scale may continue to ellude our grasp since it's impossible for a finite understaning[man] to fully comprehend the infinite.Moreover, if you believe in evolution the human[females too, right cat] is the universe becoming conscious of itself..so how can it ever be objective?

 

If the universe[or science] is totally consistent what about spontaneous remissions in fatal cases?How does science explain the placebo effect?The role of belief that's set against every drug yet it's suppose to be imaginary? Give me a break[Neil Carter] the continued use of it implies a connection between mind and matter.Indeed, that mind can influence matter.How about life, where does it start? A cell,a full human?In crimal justice classes there's a dillema dealing with this issue.In America, if a man punches a ''partially'' pregnant woman in the stomach he can go to jail for manslaughter yet that same woman can have an abortion because it isn't a life.But if it isn't a life then how can it be manslaughter? 1.We haven't totally defined life.2.Every person has a right to choose.Values [subjectivity]play a role in everything! Even the worldview of science!By the way what is medical death it use to be heart failure then we invented machines for that, now it is brain death.Here's a mantra:Space is infinite without ending,all within it just beginning.

[Ramon25]

Well said, nothing interprets itself...it's all filtered through human consciousness.Making it inherently sujective by its very nature.Jakarta has already agreed on an implicit level that the chigung process is real by the results he freely admits too.Scientist may acknowledge the uncertainty principle but they also ignore it as well or at least the implications of it.Matter at the macro level is predictable but not at the micro level? Yet it's all consistent?It's all about scale they say! Scale may continue to ellude our grasp since it's impossible for a finite understaning[man] to fully comprehend the infinite.Moreover, if you believe in evolution the human[females too, right cat] is the universe becoming conscious of itself..so how can it ever be objective?

 

If the universe[or science] is totally consistent what about spontaneous remissions in fatal cases?How does science explain the placebo effect?The role of belief that's set against every drug yet it's suppose to be imaginary? Give me a break[Neil Carter] the continued use of it implies a connection between mind and matter.Indeed, that mind can influence matter.How about life, where does it start? A cell,a full human?In crimal justice classes there's a dillema dealing with this issue.In America, if a man punches a ''partially'' pregnant woman in the stomach he can go to jail for manslaughter yet that same woman can have an abortion because it isn't a life.But if it isn't a life then how can it be manslaughter? 1.We haven't totally defined life.2.Every person has a right to choose.Values [subjectivity]play a role in everything! Even the worldview of science!By the way what is medical death it use to be heart failure then we invented machines for that, now it is brain death.Here's a mantra:Space is infinite without ending,all within it just beginning.

 

Fucking well said! You put into words what I have been trying to say..

[nac]

In eastern countries it has been found several times over. You mean why hasnt western science trully acknowledged what mant independent researchers our finding well take that up with the drug company's/

I don't know. I heard TCM experts in mainland China only use it on medically hopeless cases, since most people there believe in it so wholeheartedly.

 

Somewhat like this, actually: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr95/aloysius.htm (unrelated)

Edited June 23, 2009 by nac

[mat black]

Chi can most likely only be be known or should I say understood through experience. So something as objective as science is seemingly unable to find it or know it.

 

Not withstanding science's amazing capacity for measurements and analysis, I wonder, without an experiencer, where would the chi be, or who would know of it's existence in the first place?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but somethings I feel cannot always be objectified, qi being one of them perhaps.

 

Reverend Hung Sure touches on the essential role of conciousness that needs to be accepted in future scientific investigations

 

http://www.dharmaradio.org/dharmatalks/mp3..._04_18_2009.mp3

Edited June 23, 2009 by mat black