wandelaar

There's nothing ironic about that. Skeptics often have a background in science and/or conjuring. That is: they are interested in the way the world works and in what is and what isn't possible (according to current scientific understanding). There is no reason to doubt the possibility of spiritual/psychological/emotional cultivation, but there is reason to doubt the existence of faqi and the like. That's why skeptics are particularly interested in ostensible cases of faqi. True (that is non-dogmatic) skeptics are perfectly prepared to change their opinion on faqi once convincing evidence is found. I want to thank Rudi for his comments. But as a whole I'm still unconvinced either way.

Please! I was about to compliment ourselves yesterday on the civil way the discussion evolved. But not anymore. The most positive way to interpret the latest findings is that Rudi doesn't recognize a fundamental difference between using an electrical machine to charge oneself up and doing it all only by using nei gong. This opens up the option for him to both use a machine and to do nei gong in demonstrations and not seeing this as some form of fraud. I fear (but don't yet know for sure) that this is what we are about to find out is happening. The only way to rule it out is a well-controlled experiment. Mind you that the charging up by means of a machine might even have happened before the demonstration. So the test has to be well thought out, which I doubt Rudi would be willing to undergo given his comments earlier on.

@Partez I read that you want to buy a static electricity device for experimentation. Now equally signed charges repel each other so it makes sense that one can drive extra charge to one's hand and fingertips by the typical movements with the other hand that we see Chi Masters make in the video's. Could you check if that works?

Could you post a link when that happens?

Does chi also have similar physical effects as electricity?

That's why I'm not absolutely sure that the human body cannot be trained to generate high voltages. My medical knowledge is insufficient to definitely rule it out, particularly when de aspiring Chi Master is willing to undergo an extended training. But I'm interested to hear what the skeptical experts have to say about it.

@Partez You could be right, thinking is my core business. But then what about the condition that one must be a resident of Australia.

Found this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060 https://www.skeptics.com.au/about/activities/challenge/ One of the conditions is this:

The point is that the claim has to be impossible according to current physics, merely being unlikely isn't enough. The working of the human body isn't yet completely understood, so I 'm not so sure a skeptical organization would be willing to investigate a claim regarding electric chi and consider it as something paranormal when the test happens to be successful. But you could ask them beforehand...

OK - three questions: 1. Is it possible for an advanced Chi Master to roll the ball from the top of a Norton dome by means of telekinesis while the dome plus ball are situated in some far away country? 2. Could you do it? 3. Would you like to give it a try?

I don't know if the Randi challenge is still in place, but I would suggest that the claim would be about telekinesis not about bio-electricity. Some animals can generate huge voltages so I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that humans can train their bodies to do something like it. Moving an inanimate object at a distance without some known form of physical contact is quite another matter, and much easier to test. Those kinds of things are also claimed by some practitioners. If Rudi could do that and succeed to do it under controlled circumstances than that would be revolutionary. If I remember well years ago I proposed a test here on The Dao Bums for people with supposed paranormal powers to influence a ball positioned on Norton's dome. Theoretically this should take no energy at all. See: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/dome_cam/dome_cam.html Would be interesting if Rudi tried to telekinetically roll the ball (anyone of the two) within the space of say a week. It wouldn't be absolute proof, but it would certainly give the scientific world something to think about if he succeeded and the scientists found out that a member of The Dao Bums was trying to accomplish such a feat just at the time the ball started rolling....

Is he a member of The Dao Bums?

Thanks! A large part of the article is shown here: https://books.google.nl/books?id=tcx4PDI5OOYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false And some articles by R.M. Martin can be freely downloaded from his website: https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/Papers/ I will take a look later.

Psychokinesis can't be explained as a result of suggestion. So as far as I'm concerned that would be something extraordinary demanding reconsideration of the known laws of physics. And that might be where Chi comes in...

Yes - this might be very interesting.

Martin's essay? Could you provide a link?

Indeed - you cannot use such a machine in your shoes when you are barefoot. But I'm not so sure that the machine (or some other gadget) wouldn't work when you wear it somewhere else on your body. Ideally one should investigate the electrical field around the person who does those kind of things. If a concealed gadget is used than one would probably find it, and if not than some interesting information would be gathered about the physical form of the electrical chi phenomenon. Have such investigations already been done? I vaguely remember some pictures but I'm not sure.

For controversial things in which both positions ("it exists" and "it doesn't exist") are defensible that is indeed what it comes down to: do you want to keep a relatively clean slate with only well-founded knowledge to build on, or do you like to spice it up with some exotic ingredients to make life more exiting. Funny that the video with Dodie Magis is called: "magnetism" or "mesmerism". That is precisely where in the West hypnotism historically derived from. So again chi demonstrations and hypnotism might be the same thing as far as the real part goes.

@Pak_Satrio Largely agree with your approach, except for one thing. I don't believe people generally (myself included) are capable of seeing through the more advanced tricks of stage magicians and illusionists. If that were so than magic and illusionist shows would have become obsolete long ago. Neither do people generally sufficiently know what is or isn't possible according to currently accepted scientific theories. So seeing for yourself (in most cases) isn't enough. Unless you also have the required expertise to avoid self deception and to recognize fraud. Concerning externalized Chi I'm neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. But for the time-being I apply Occam's razor until more convincing evidence becomes available. Nobody doubts that the energies of one's body can be beefed up. What is problematic is the supposition that handling one's beefed up body energy enables one to defy the known laws of physics. Of course when this is indeed possible than the known laws of physics are to blame and need to be corrected. But such a conclusion should not be drawn lightly.

@Nintendao Have you ever experienced a good illusionist or stage magician? And did you know how he or she did it? Seeing something "with one's own eyes" simply isn't enough. But I have had this kind of discussions a million times, and all I achieved is being ignored or people getting mad at me... But maybe you have the relevant expertise to recognize fraud, tricks and self deception, and than you're the exception.

Yes - hypnotists don't (usually) claim magical powers of telekinesis and the like. The problem with "demonstrations" of the latter is that there are ways to fraudulently achieve the same, and it would take serious precautions to be able to rule those out as an explanation, with experienced stage magicians present to watch for any tricks that might be used. Having "medical doctors and scientists present" alone isn't enough.

I read that as that you don't care about claim's that you're not interested in even if they were true. And that the problem of taking a stand as to the likelihood of such claims consequently is unlikely to present itself.

Ah - so if claims are checked by others whom you find credible sources than that's also OK. Fair enough. Still there will always be loads of claims that you haven't checked yourself and others whom you trust haven't checked either. The question remains what to do about those?

So you would avoid commenting on claims you haven't personally checked?

Ideally that is how it should go. But . . . the internet abounds with claims, you could spent your entire life checking and even then would only have succeeded in checking a minute part of all that is being claimed. How do you deal with that?