Brian

Yes. We refer to it as "stopping the world"

We are starting to get some clues about this type of weirdness with our research into entanglement.

I'm perfectly fine with pseudo-scientific analogies as long as they are framed in the proper context. Heck! I'm OK with "centrifugal force" and "atomic models." FWIW, "quantum" really means the smallest possible quantity of "something" and it originates with the idea that light isn't a smooth and continuous flow of non-discrete "something" but is little packets of "something" which each contain a very specific amount of energy. This one little realization completely blew up what most scientists hubristically thought in the mid-1800s was a nearly complete understanding of matter & energy -- just a few little details to nail down and... KABOOM!!! Now "quantum" is more commonly thought of as that weird and seemingly impossible realm of experimental & theoretical physics, particularly involving incomprehensibly small stuff and/or unimaginably energetic stuff which doesn't really have any bearing on "the real world" -- except it has become increasingly clear that it is "the real world" (except it isn't "real" in the common sense, either) AND it has everything to do with "how things work" in "the real world." In this context, it is perfectly OK with me to talk about the sort of "energetic" stuff we tend to talk about here as "quantum" something-or-other...

Had John Chang gone with them to the university the next day as had been planned, perhaps there would have been objective evidence. Instead, we have a very good video providing anecdotal evidence. This in no way suggests John Chang is a fraud or that the people observing him were incompetent or anything of the nature. I have said all along that I see no reason not to take the video at face value. That value, however, doesn't rise to the level of "objective evidence" regardless of who was present.

In less than thirty minutes you read more than 1,300 posts? Quite impressive. Seems that perhaps your reading comprehension suffers as a result, though.

For the purpose of comparison, here is what "objective evidence" might look like: https://www.qigonginstitute.org/docs/Electrodermal_Effects_of_Qi.pdf Notice the description of methodology, the collection and analysis of data, etc.

JC has shocked you with his chi? Awesome! Why didn't you say so sooner?

As the saying goes, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you." Obviously, that is your prerogative. Best wishes! Remind us again, since you brought it up... What is your scientific or medical training?

I would encourage you to spend some time in that environment. Here's a link at the federal level but opportunities exist at state and local levels, too. Your Sheriff probably welcomes volunteers in the county jail. https://www.bop.gov/jobs/volunteer.jsp My father's side of the family was heavily represented in law enforcement professions. I've got a brother who started as a cop and put himself through law school and is now an assistant district attorney. I've got a sister who is a deputy sheriff -- she worked as a jailer and then became a trainer for prison guards on self-defense and use of force. My wife, on the other hand, worked many years as a mental health social worker and spent lots of time working in the county jail. Personally, I spent 48 hours in a county jail during part of my misspent youth and my relationship with the guards then was entirely respectful in both directions. My father had a story about one time when he was in an army hospital and the guy in the bed next to him gave the nurses a really hard time. My dad noticed that the nurses would tap the tip of that patient's hypodermic needles on the bedframe before giving him injections so that it would hurt. Some might say our interactions with the world around us are largely products of our own choices.

I quoted Webster, too, in its entirety (rather than just picking those portions which I though supported my claim). I then went a step further and provided a definition of the phrase you are using rather than a single word in the phrase. That phrase is a very specific one, you see -- it has very specific meaning and you chose it (well, MPG did, I don't know who you are) precisely because of that specific meaning. Now you want to (and expect others to) ignore the specific meaning of that particular phrase by insisting on acceptance of a partial definition of one of the constituent words in that very significant phrase. You stop claiming this is "objective evidence" and I'll stop pointing out that it is no such thing. Conversely, you can provide evidence (see what I did there?) to support the claim that this is "objective evidence."

Curiously, you only posted part of that definition, which in turn was only related to part of the phrase in question. In the interest of completeness, here is the dictionary entry: That said, here is a succinct definition of the actual phrase in question, "objective evidence", from Black's Law Dictionary: So I ask, again, where is the quantifiable information? What data was recorded? What actual measurements were taken? I have posted example after example, for years now, of actual scientific and clinical research showing data and analysis to help clarify this simple request.

Best wishes to you as well, ilovecoffee.

This seems to be a fascinating and significant detail. One the one hand, they only seek likeminded people who accept as "objective evidence" an entertainment video in which no data was collected and no actual "science" was applied (but during which "scientists and medical doctors present in that evidence to rule out fraud" -- a carefully crafted and meaningless phrase (replacing the earlier claims that it was "scientific evidence" intended to impart an air of validation but actually skirting the fact that no scientific research was conducted because John Chang refused to continue, hence my repeated references to wanting to see the data) and they categorically reject and spurn anyone who questions the validity of that video in the context of "objective evidence." On the other hand, they insist that no one should seek to join their group out of belief in the testimony of others (which is precisely what that video is) and instead should practice according to their instructions and see for themselves. On the other other hand, they insist that no other system has similar "objective evidence" (despite actual "objective evidence" to the contrary) and that the personal experiences of others who don't practice their instructions as part of their group are merely self-delusional. On the other other other hand, the "objective" demonstrations in the video (making an LED glow, driving a chopstick into a tabletop, etc.) are impressive but there seems to be a link missing between how these abilities translate to their stated goal of liberation during this lifetime from the wheel of life. Quite a curious logical tangle. This observation in no way disparages John Chang or MoPai itself, mind you, and is only an outsider's commentary on the mental gymnastics of this particular group.

A reasonable question, although my understanding of the concept doesn't reflect upon yours and yours is the relevant one in your personal determination here, if you follow me. In a nutshell, I don't get to key some jerk's car for taking my parking place and he doesn't get to punch my wife in the face for cutting him off in the checkout line at the grocery store. As I see it, revenge is an act intended to "even of the score," to claim vindication or retaliation for a perceived wrong by balancing it with a counter-"wrong" in a "two wrongs make a right" sort of way. My personal belief is that I don't have that right; it is not my place to mete out retribution in some violent or damaging fashion which I may deem appropriate "punishment" in a post facto delivery for some ill previously committed. I may, however, act to intercede to prevent damage or injury from happening in the first place, or I may choose to act in a non-disciplinary manner to assist in allowing the processes of justice to play out, particularly if I was a witness to such damage or injury. That, I think, begs the question of "what do I mean by 'justice?'" Justice is the "blind" application of rule of law in accordance with communally agreed-upon principles, regulations and mores, administered by disinterested agents selected by the community for such a role. Absent "rule of law," we would fall back on vigilantism in which the individual becomes judge, jury and executioner. As a voluntary member of a civil society, however, I delegate that role to others with the expectation that justice will be served. This make sense?

That's the way it was explained to the forum back before we only got these "Secret Squirrel" enlistment campaigns. And don't call me Shirley...

MorePieGuy made the goal very clear before he chose to leave this forum. Life is so incredibly horrible that a person's only focus in life should be breaking the cycle and ensuring he or she will not return. The best way (only way? only way with objective evidence?) is MoPai. The fact that only the first two steps are available is not a hindrance, nor is the necessity of 10-hour sessions (MPG said he didn't (doesn't?) actually practice because he didn't (doesn't?) have time and is preparing to do all him practicing after he retires (or something) because a miracle may occur -- if someone diligently practices (or diligently plans on practicing in the future, I guess?), something will change such that the higher-level trainings will become available to that individual. It is better to practice the introduction to MoPai (or to plan on practicing the introduction, I guess?) than to practice other systems because MoPai has video evidence (recorded in the presence of scientists and medical doctors to prevent fraud) that John Chang can (could?) light fires and illuminate LED lights and do other interesting stuff and this clearly demonstrates that MoPai leads to immortality or the end of the cycle of reincarnation (or something...) Pretty awesome, isn't it? Best wishes!

Fair enough. Next question -- how do you decide what is an appropriate response? As a follow-up, are you OK with others doing likewise?

And after you looked it up, has your understanding changed?

Don't post a dictionary definition -- describe what you mean when you say, "It is possible to make a good ethical case for revenge in some cases, making it ethical conduct, so then it's from the light side, isn't it?" What do you consider to be "revenge?"

Define "revenge" in your own words.

I thought the same thing!

Yes. "Taoism" is a model. Models are valuable because they abstract and simplify. Models are necessarily incomplete, however, so more and more models get created in an attempt at "fitting" to some particular set of attributes which seem important at a particular moment. More and more models, some overlapping but each also different from every other model in some significant aspect. Some people at certain times will find a model which seems to fit perfectly. They are correct but they are also placing themselves in a box, usually without consciously doing so. A nice cozy box may be quite comfortable, you see. Is that personal?

Or less...

Yep, read it! You dropped the breadcrumbs and I followed to a string of wonderful resources. This aligns with my personal awareness/understanding.

An interesting detail (from a scientific perspective rather than a healer's) is that at least one group of researchers found no significant change in field in the immediate vicinity of the healer but did find such change in the vicinity of the healer's "target."