wandelaar

I may well be searching for something (a simple DIY experiment proving faqi) that can't be done. But a session as in the video wouldn't solve the problem. The first thing I thought of when viewing the video was: what is in the desk? This might be solved by asking permission to look inside, but I'm sure that I would come up with more doubts when at home. It's like forestofemptiness said:

Much in the list is already familiar to me from my interest in parapsychology. Apparently there's a large overlap between anomalistic psychology and parapsychology. But with a view to academic acceptance it's a smart move of anomalistic psychology to focus on the belief in paranormal (and kindred) phenomena instead of the existence (or nonexistence) of paranormal phenomena as parapsychology is doing. Nobody doubts that beliefs in the paranormal are held by a large part of the population. So at least the existence of the subject matter of anomalistic psychology isn't in doubt. I think I will do best by starting with the introductory book by French and Stone.

Indeed. That's why I keep searching for a DIY experiment to at least prove the possibility and existence of the phenomenon to my own satisfaction. The problem with someone else doing it is that you have to rule out fraud, which is much more difficult that most think. Otherwise I would be quite happy with that, without trying to do it myself.

@Shadow_self What is a good book about anomalistic psychology? I have read lots of books about parapsychology, but none about anomalistic psychology.

Recently Benjamin Hoff published a new translation of the Tao Te Ching. See: https://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Tao-Ching-Philosophical-Masterwork/dp/1419755501 How trustworthy and original is this one?

I don't see how this relates to my post. I never claimed illusionists to be paranormally gifted. I only suggested a physical experiment you could do. If influencing an electroscope would be easy for you and those of your group then it might also be interesting for others like myself to see if they can train themselves to do it. An electroscope is a very sensitive and relatively cheap instrument, so it could in principle be used in DIY experiments. However if you or people from your group can't influence an electroscope than it's useless for me to even try. That's why I asked.

@steve Thank you very much! I'm also happy to see that the heavy political turmoil that lead to the split up has subsided here and the same easy going attitude as there was in the beginning of the Original Dao forum can now be found here. @Shadow_self It looks like after all we don't disagree as much as it would seem at the start. I had my own experiences with academia as I studied physics at the university but dropped out after only two years. Furthermore I had my experiences on a science forum on the internet where the words of an authority or text book carried more weight than any contrary argument (however well reasoned) that a member of the forum might make. Lastly also when at the University I read the disquieting book Betrayers of the Truth by Nicholas Wade and William Broad. So I am fully aware of the failing of science as it really is. However I also studied lots of alternative theories as they are presented on the internet by independent thinkers and researchers and found the overwhelming majority of those to be utter and complete nonsens. So I see no alternative than to make do with science as it really is by separating the wheat from the chaff as best as I can. Only rarely do I find something of scientific interest outside of the official circles of science.

Science isn't treated as a belief, the pinnacle of organizational authority and truth, and the means to sustainable profit. At least not by those who know what they are talking about. As soon as it becomes that it stops being science. What you are rightly criticizing is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can be the result of all sorts of things: stupidity, dogmatism, greed, the belief in authority, social conformism, fear of rejection, financial dependency on interested parties, etc. And all those things do indeed happen, so in practice science is a mixture of real science and pseudoscience. The same is true for spirituality. A lot of the latter isn't the real deal and nevertheless sells like crazy. So apparently it isn't that easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. That also holds for both science and spirituality. I am not putting one or the other on a pedestal.

Calling something a disease is a moral choice, not a scientific one. A disease is simply an unwanted biological phenomenon, and what is considered unwanted is not a factual scientific matter. That's why we see the definitions of diseases change as a result of societal and political developments. It's plain silly to present this as an example of science gone wrong.

Science isn't perfect because it's a human endeavor, and the same goes for the spiritual marketplace and esoteric Taoism. We've seen enough of the derangement's possible in the latter lately. So it's not at all clear that getting some solid scientific knowledge about chi would be a bad thing compared to letting the seekers find out the hard way who the occasional real masters are and who the frauds and quacks. That is: if the seekers even find a real master before giving up. Much better in my opinion would be to have some idea beforehand about what is likely to be real and what not based on research instead of belief and hearsay.

Yes I know there is a problem with the advancement of science generally: Can humanity be trusted with stil more knowledge given how things are going right now. But the future is hard to tell. So I don't know - it's an "The old man lost his horse"-situation. Remains the fact that I like to know if there is some truth behind the wonder stories of Taoist sages and masters. Most convincing to me would be to experience something of that kind on a miniature scale myself. With modern equipment it should be possible to amplify minute effects so that they become measurable. I don't plan to go any further as I don't consider acquiring "super-powers" as being conductive to a life well lived. As to the experiments by others claiming to demonstrate chi one should know the details and be familiar with the relevant tricks of conjurers and illusionist to rule out fraud and self deception. I don't have that expertise.

Oh oh oh - why is TT always using me to do his dirty work?!

@kakapo After a good nights rest I'm back. Years back I already pointed out that medical doctors and scientists can be easily fooled by a skilled stage magician. There has been a little improvement in the discussion now in the sense that the possibility (or even the likelihood) of fraud is recognized. But you absolutely have to add some critical minded stage magicians to the team if you want to rule out fraud to the best of your ability. Better still would be to search for an experimental method that can register even minute forms of physical chi projection so that anybody willing to do a little training can test it at home. All supposing chi projection to exist of course. I wonder if working with an electroscope would help. Have you guys tried using such an apparatus?

Enough for now.

This is not correct. Spacetime and thus a vacuum has a geometrical structure that will impact on the behavior of the brick, and reversely the brick will influence the geometrical structure of spacetime and thus also the vacuum where the brick is in. So a vacuum according to your own definition should be called TT-material. The problem remains that it is conceivable that experimental science wil eventually reach a stage where chi can be measured. So calling chi TT-immaterial might be premature. Information is also possessed bij CD's, computers, books, etc.

In the absolute sense I'm rather a process instead of a thing, so I could be said not the exist. Nevertheless I even seem to be TT-material as my posts are clearly visible to everyone taking the trouble to look at them on The Dao Bums. ;-)

Well this is changing the argument, but lets call something TT-material if and only if it can be eventually perceived by our senses by everybody (maybe through a detecting device) to distinguish it from the normal meaning of material and see what we get. Now do you claim that things and processes that are not TT-material cannot possibly influence TT-material things and processes? And what do you mean by eventually? Does that include unforeseen future developments in experimental science?

Wikipedia articles are the work of volunteers. If there are not enough volunteers who consider faqi important enough for an article then there won't be an article. Nothing more can be concluded. But to be sure I just now checked whether there is an article about me on the Wikipedia, and there isn't. So this proves to my own satisfaction that indeed not everything that exists can be found on the Wikipedia.

The link doesn't work: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

That's correct. Light can perfectly move through a vacuum. Besides sound is precisely something in between because it needs a material medium to move through without itself being a thing. So it's material but it's not a thing and thus it's no material thing. In the case of light it's more complicated because light sometimes behaves as if it consists of particles and sometimes as if it consists of waves. So its something in between in a different sense.

Supposing electrical faqi to exist I wonder whether an explanation as a form of biofeedback might be possible. Some creatures such as the electric eel can create powerful electric shocks. Maybe the human body can somehow be trained to do the same on a lesser scale. That's why I don't completely rule out so called electrical faqi on the basis of western science. Furthermore science evolves and what seems highly unlikely now may seem possible some time later.

@Taoist Texts You would do wel to study some good books on logic and on fallacies of reasoning, and add some substantial knowledge of science (besides sinology) to that. Now you are only making a fool of yourself, although some Bums might be impressed by your knowledge of ancient texts and falsely imagine your proclamations in other fields to be equally valuable. But those are not and in these other fields all you accomplish is provoking silly debates that lead nowhere. Which you apparently relish.

I find it rather confusing that the meaning of 'fake faqi' now seems to have shifted from pure trickery to real faqi by inappropriate methods. To me fake faqi means using methods that only suggests the projection of qi to spectators who don't know what tricks (such as a concealed static electricity generator) are being used.

Right! A glas can be broken by a specific sound for instance. Now is a sound a material thing or an immaterial thing? It's something in between - a material process but not a thing. So faqi isn't logically impossible, it's just unlikely on the basis of western science. Which makes it all the more interesting if it actually exists. To use legit logic TT should say "qi is a material thing or it is not a material thing". If you do that than the something in between falls under the category of "qi is not a material thing". And than TT's "logic" breaks down.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. ;-) Also nuclear reactors are a huge danger in a world where rogue states use them to build nuclear bombs or to backmail perceived enemies by (threatening) attacking their reactors in case of war. It's my opinion that humanity can't be trusted with nuclear energy and the less we have of it the better it is. But I don't want to debate such controversial political stuff here. It's off topic besides.