Jakara

I've heard that sometimes during you sleep you feel like you are falling and your body jolts to wake you up. The explanation that I heard for this is evolutionary, stemming from our time as primates that slept in trees, being jolted awake would save your life if you slept in a tree and felt like you were falling. The instict is to be jolted awake and grip tight, presumably to the branch you are sleeping on. Just a theory of course though.

I just wanted to add that Daochild is correct in stating that you can only feel some sensations when you place your attention on it. The brain can invent feelings that aren't there. Evidence for this is supplied by those with "phantom limbs" who have lost limbs but can still "feel" them as being present. Another interesting phenomena is that humans can predict exatcly where their hands are in space even if their eyes are closed. If you close your eyes and wave your hands about somewhere then you will know exactly where they are without looking. You can feel where they are. Last is a phenomena known as "Sensory adaptation". The brain has so much information sent to it from all over the body that it chooses to ignore or suppress the majority of sensations that it is familiar with and only concentrate on what it deems as more important ones. For example, when you are sitting in your chair on your computer or walking along the street your brain largely ignores the feeling of your ass to the chair or how your feet feel in your shoes. Processing that information at a concsious level all the time would take away valuable brain power from the task you are currently performing. The brain does funny things to our senses, and whilst that doesn't mean everyone is imagining chi feelings, it has to be conceded as a posibility.

Its no matter, not really worth arguing about in the long run, just a difference in opinion. I get touchy when I'm being unfairly called biased in relation to scientific evidence. Calling a scientist intentionally biased in their work is like calling a politician crooked or a cop dirty. It is of course ok to state what is wrong with their theories/experiments if you have a valid logical reason. I think science is the ultimate tool is proving things objectivly and extends into this area of discussion. If anyone thinks science does not extend into this area then that is their opinion which they are entitled to state, just as I am to mine. The paranoid/religious wasn't directed at you speficially but an observation based on talking to many people that they are the most likely types to object to scientific evidence. I enjoy logical criticism and well thought out answers, even if they aren't based on science. I'm less keen on anyone using the same flawed piece of logic, like using quantum mechanics, again and again to justify their point when its not valid to do so. Here is a quote from wikipedia on quantum mysticism just for reference, which goes into more detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism: "It should be noted that the laws of quantum physics allow by calculation the prediction of observables, which can be tested in repeated experiments to a very high precision. This is a property shared with all other physical theories, but not with mystical beliefs." Anyway, I've answered the original question and given reasoning to my answers which was ultimately the reason I posted. All the best my friend.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe, including scientists. There is no evidence to support the belief that the quantum world supports any kind of mysticism, or that it applies to macroscopic level phenomena. Those scientists are engaging in philosophy, they are not claiming their beliefs to be scientific or they would have proof.

Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant please provide an example of how they disagree with "my stand" on quantam physics.

You are taking what I wrote out of context to use to your advantage, so I'll elaborate what I meant further. Things that have been proven as scientific fact cannot be disputed. Theories can be disputed, experiments can be disputed, but if it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt as a fact then by definition it can't be disputed. Many things have been proven as such facts, many are still theories. We know that many theories have holes in them, thats why they are called theories and not facts. The holes in the theories are filled in over time as we learn more, they aren't excuses for people to fill it in with their bullshit. I didn't disagree with the experiment from personal bias, its because it wasn't in a controlled environment. If the experiment was so perfect, why have only a handful of people said it was acceptable? Let me guess, because they are the only open minded ones and the rest of us are too biased to see the truth? Its a romantic notion that the underdog is striving to persuade others that they have something that will change the face of science forever.... if only we'd listen! Oh wait, we listened, it was hog-wash. Fail. I never said the Yan xin report was a joke, I said it was bogus because the experiment was flawed, I meant no offence, just that the experiment should be done under a decent set of conditions. If you are so sure that it works then why leave the potential for errors when you could set up a more reliable experiment? Maybe the paper was just written poorly, perhaps the results are fine. I hope they are, I want to prove chi as much as the next guy, but I want to do it properly. I obviously can't comment on fields out of my experience. I have no colleagues in the chemsitry department to ask, I'm a physicist, not a chemist. I'd have about as much chance of understanding chemistry papers as you do. I'm not forcing my view on to anyone, take it or leave it. Its not my job to come here and point out the obvious mistakes, but I do it in hopes that even one guy doesn't end up taking a bite out of the bullshit sandwich that keeps getting served. At the end of the day you are going to believe whatever you want to regardless of what has been proven/disproven. I no longer have the energy or time to constantly defend logical arguements against irrational beliefs. You are attacking everything I am saying from all angles in hopes of finding flaws rather than offer logical reasoning or your own explanations for this phenomena. Write what you like, hopefully whoever is reading will have enough sense to make up their own minds. Please provide an example. Thanks.

What I mean is, if you open up a brain, you can't see dreams or love inside. But you can see the parts of the brain that are working to fabricate those things for us. So those things exist for the person because our brain makes them exist for us. But they don't exist as physcial measurable objects, and they are not valid for anyone other than the person experiencing them.

Phew, OK. I need to take a deep breath before answering some of these. So, the existence of dreams, love, thoughts etc. They are not proven by science as independent phenomena, that is although science accepts that people fall in love, think lots and have dreams, they do not exist outside of the realms of human consciousness. Therefore these can be said to be fabrications of the human mind. They mean a lot to the person experiencing them, but they don't mean anything to someone who isn't, unless that person has experienced something similar, but then they can only draw on their own subjective experiences as a comparisson - you can't explain colour to a blind man. The Buddha confirms this by saying thoughts and the like are all part of ego and inherently non-existent. It was only a matter of time before quantum mysticism popped up. Let me give an example of how ridiculous it is to state quantum mechanics as a reason for the existence of chi. Humans are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made of molecules, molecules are made from atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons etc. etc. Now, is it a reasonable assumption to say that if I study a single electron (quantum of charge) in enough detail that eventually I'll be able to decipher and predict the behaviour of human beings? No, of course not, human beings are complex animals. They exhibit behaviours that are more than the sum of the individual parts that they are made of. It is the same with quantum mechanics. This theory is ONLY valid for the smallest possible fundamental building blocks of matter. When observing anything larger, the same rules do not apply, the system becomes more complex and doesn't obey the same laws. The subjectivity on quantum measurement only applies at the quantum level, not at any other level. Quantum tunelling for example predicts that particles are able to borrow energy and pass through solid matter. This phenomena is well documented and accounts for certain processes in our sun. Individual particles in the Sun, not the sun as a whole. If I were to run at full speed at a brick wall there is a minute chance that I will pass through according to quantum theory. That chance though is so small that it would never happen in billions of billions of lifetimes of the universe of me repeatedly running into the wall. It is a shade above impossible, it will never happen, but it is a non-zero chance nevertheless. Therefore to use this non-zero chance to explain macroscopic level phenomena like chi, is completely erroneous. It has no realistic basis for it whatsoever. There seems to be a consensus amognst the religious and the paranoid that science is some sort of slap-dash half-assed method that only fits a little but its accepted anyway. Its not true. Scince predicts things like the processes in our sun and other stars to the complex computer chips that power your PC, all to an extremely high precision. Science works and it cannot be disputed because its experimentally proven to work and a mathematical framework proves that it works. Part of science is also to define the limitations of the theory that has been proposed too. Those limitations are not excuses to inject pseudo science babble and religious dogma. We know which theories have which limitations. And remember a scientific theory is not the same as a proven scientific fact. Thats why its called a theory, its a work in progress. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean we should fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit we feel like. By all means make predictions and imagine what might be there, you never know your predictions could be true, but don't pretend that because science doesn't currently have the answer that it justifies or proves those predictions. I should also remind that the dualistic world is the one that we live in. There may also be a non-dualistic world, but that would exclude all phenomena, everything, including qi, and therefore also cannot be used to justify its existence either. I am also enjoying this discussion more now, though it is tough being the only defence.

I would definitely go to a clinic as suggested. If you don't normally associate yourself with western pharmeceuticals then of course you don't have to take them. Surgery though is quite generic in terms of where it comes from and western surgery is very good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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