Why is science having such a hard time finding chi?

[nac]

Why is science having such a hard time finding chi? I mean, I can feel it! So why can't they find it?

Well, western science can plainly see the imaginative centers of the brain lighting up in qigong practitioners...

[Jakara]

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.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Jakara

[nac]

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.

Sorry, I don't understand. All this and more can be observed in the behavior of the brain.

[Jakara]

Sorry, I don't understand. All this and more can be observed in the behavior of the brain.

 

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.

[enouch]

[Ramon25]

Well jakara there seems to be some highly accomplished and respected professors of physics and quantam physics that tend to disagree with your stand on quantam physics. Were talking about people even nominated for nobel peace prizes. So I will go with there interpretation.

[Jakara]

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.

 

 

Well jakara there seems to be some highly accomplished and respected professors of physics and quantam physics that tend to disagree with your stand on quantam physics. Were talking about people even nominated for nobel peace prizes. So I will go with there interpretation.

 

Please provide an example. Thanks.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Jakara

[Ramon25]

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.

 

David bohm

Amit Goswami

fred alfred wolf

ervin laszlo

Barbara Brennan

Lynne Mctaggart

Bruce H. Lipton Ph.D.

gregg braden

 

Some are not physicist but each are highly accomplished in realted fields or medicine.

[Jakara]

 

David bohm

Amit Goswami

fred alfred wolf

ervin laszlo

Barbara Brennan

Lynne Mctaggart

Bruce H. Lipton Ph.D.

gregg braden

 

Some are not physicist but each are highly accomplished in realted fields or medicine.

 

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

[Ramon25]

They believe that consciousness is everything and that is the true ground of being. They believe that the universe is holographic. They also think that quantum phenomena can apply to more than the sub atomic world. Like spontaneous healing, Energy healing, fire walking ect ect. That the mind creates reality. That all things are one. People can affect material reality and that things are largely subjective altough those are my words, they all explain it in their own way. Pretty much saying that the quantam observations apply to all of existence. Also yeah we are made of organs sytems which are made of cells which are mades of molecules ect ect but at the end as far as we know thats made out of the quantam world.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Ramon25

[Jakara]

They believe that consciousness is everything and that is the true ground of being. They believe that the universe is holographic. They also think that quantum phenomena can apply to more than the sub atomic world. Like spontaneous healing, Energy healing, fire walking ect ect. That the mind creates reality. That all things are one. People can affect material reality and that things are largely subjective altough those are my words, they all explain it in their own way. Pretty much saying that the quantam observations apply to all of existence. Also yeah we are made of organs sytems which are made of cells which are mades of molecules ect ect but at the end as far as we know thats made out of the quantam world.

 

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.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Jakara

[enouch]

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.

 

'' Thou art snared with the words out of thy mouth'' King Solomon

 

I'm sorry if I offended you.My only goal was to show how personal biases[world views] determine what we are willing to entertain.It's the reason there is a selection process during jury duty.You wrote''

At the end of the day you are going to believe whatever you want to[is this an admission?] regardless of what has been proven/disproven'' Not so I'm constantly questioning my core values,the values of my society,if I'm living up to my ideals?,do they still serve me? or should I surrender them?I maintain that what one needs in life is a flexible mind that responds to the reality of life as it unfolds.Regarding proven metaphysical phenomena [Wimm Hoff,Prahlad Jani] I try not to believe or disbelieve...merely accept what is.Actually this can create more stress in a person's conceptual universe since you're forced to make room for disparate viewpoints-tolerance.

 

I will remind you that you started the name calling''paranoid/religious''so it's a bit ...questionable now playing the victim.Why are only a handful of highly prized scientist accepting of the research? Maybe because they've been exposed to it, a lot haven't.In America, we barely care about what's going on in Europe.I could make a joke about them being in collusion.Yeah , that's it! The scientists from Japan are in league with the scientists from Europe and the scientists from America are in league with the scientists in China.But that would not br fair to them.At any rate, I was willing to abandon the discussion after I posted selected materials but you said you were enjoying the communication.I still consider you a valuable taobum and I wish you and your family health and prosperity.Your BFF for life Enouch!

[Trunk]

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.

 

uh, Kirlian photography?

 

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

And yet...if dare mention this to most scientists, even to quantum physicists, they'll laugh you out of the room. If you say that matter is made by consciousness, they will laugh very hard indeed. I think that Heisenberg has put a major dent in the physicalist self-assurance, but he hasn't demolished physicalism, which is alive and well today.

 

May I suggest you look at this:

 

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html

 

The problem is that what we are trying to discuss here is not discussed in the scientific community. Scientists don't gather to discuss their metaphysical beliefs, because:

 

1. They perceive it to be irrelevant to science that they are doing.

 

2. They think that their view is the only right one, and only insane people will disagree, so it's taken for granted that what they believe is what's real, thus there is no need to get together and discuss it. After all, we don't get together to discuss the color of the sky. We all agree it's blue, right? This is the same thing.

 

And yet those metaphysical beliefs affect profoundly what sorts of experiments the scientists will be willing to make, and what's perhaps even more important, what sort of funding they will receive. Don't forget, the scientific community has to kowtow to the low-brow politician. Scientists themselves have big trouble understanding the implications of the uncertainty principle, and you expect politicians to get it? And yet that's where a lot of the money comes from. Another chunk of money comes from the private sector which only gives a damn about money and profit, and those guys are also too dense to understand the implications of Heisenberg.

 

A strongly related finding comes from pure maths:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27...teness_theorems

 

However, outside of a small elite, most people still act as if the world is physical.

 

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.

 

This still demonstrates a commitment to an objectivist view. It may be more subtle now. Now what is objective is no longer "gross matter", but the "laws of the universe". So the object that objectivists cling to has become more refined and subtle now. The focus of physicalism has shifted, but is not gone.

 

In another thread I gave an explanation related to this.

 

If you state that dependencies work like this:

 

"Because of that, this".

 

You are imputing substantiality into that statement, because you're saying that the dependency is solid, reliable, works every time, etc.

 

The true understanding of interdependent origination requires one to contemplate endless contextuality of information.

 

So then it becomes:

 

1. If this then "because of that, this" holds. Otherwise it does not hold.

 

2. If this then (If this then "because of that, this" holds. Otherwise it does not hold.) holds. Otherwise it does not hold.

 

...

 

And so on. And there is no "last step". Information is contextualized endlessly/beginninglessly. Thus, there is no stable "if this, that" dependency! Because to assert a stable dependency you have to impute substantiality onto it.

 

Since scientists think that these dependencies exist in a stable and reliable manner, they are still a species of a physicalist.

 

Some rare few scientists are beginning to ask this question: "What if what we are studying are not the laws of the Universe, but just the laws of our locale and nothing more?" THOSE guys are the few guys that are waking up! Only those! Everything else in the scientific community is still fast asleep.

Edited June 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Jakara]

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.

[goldisheavy]

"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."

 

That's a very good quote. This is why mystics should understand science on science's terms and vice versa. There is no need to ride the coat tails of anything/anyone. No need to try to bolsters the respectability of anything.

 

Mysticism is a path toward a more lively, more dynamic experience, with fewer predictables.

 

QM is a cool toy and requires a certain state of mind to maintain. In particular I have the correct state of mind right now to observe QM. But should I want to, I can put an end to it, and make it disappear. I can create an appearance of a universe where there are no laws of QM. Of course to those who are reading this, you can't understand it, because you think I am a part of your world. Then you think, "How is it a part of the world is making statements about the whole of the world?" You can't imagine that I am you and that you are all that exists. You probably think I have independent identity, but actually everything I am depends on everything you are, and all the stars depend on your mind too. So if you want to know at the deepest level what I am, you have to know what you are first.

 

QM allows us to have these computers. They are cool and fun toys. Don't you think so? I think so. But our mind can make more and better toys. There is no need to cling to QM for anyone, especially for people who want to consider themselves spiritual.

Edited June 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[DaoChild]

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?

 

And what do you feel? Warmth, circulation, a magnetic pull? Can't all those easily be attributed to the increase in circulation (from breathing) caused by Qigong practices?

Edited June 24, 2009 by DaoChild

[11:33]

And what do you feel? Warmth, circulation, a magnetic pull? Can't all those easily be attributed to the increase in circulation (from breathing) caused by Qigong practices?

 

Besides what you mentioned i can feel a lot of energy at the baihui and can feel energy flowing along my meridian somewhat like water. I can direct my energy to different parts of my body at will. I have felt at times particular meridians more strongly, usually when it is being cleared.

[Ramon25]

And what do you feel? Warmth, circulation, a magnetic pull? Can't all those easily be attributed to the increase in circulation (from breathing) caused by Qigong practices?

 

No thats not how circulation feels and if anything (if not chi) its your nervous system. We know that mediatation and chi gung (and all things related) Has very real effects on the nerves and can actually cause permanet change to the nervous system. I also think that science and mystism can have mutual joining as soon as the human mind evolves from its current archetype and science realizes its limitations and its stregnth. To say that they cant or are unrelated is litarally insane. Thats all this is, an archetype of materialsm. I you analyze it there is always an archetype rulling our world. the chinese sages had it right. becuase they saw the UNION OF BOTH aspects of perception. They formed a whole.

[exorcist_1699]

Besides having some serious disorder of qi in their bodies, most people do not sense the existence of it in daily life .In fact, it is by using their mind in some deliberate ways that enable them to initialize qi in their bodies; On the other hand, without the existence of a Qigong master emitting qi at the spot, no experiment related to qi can be done . And, what in the experiments they detected were the outcome , killing some kinds of virus, for example , not the direct existence of qi.

 

Furthermore , the existence and characteristics of qi in herbs and minerals can only be detected after their absorption into our body through drinking medicine or sticking plaster on the surface of our bodies: for example

chrysanthemum's qi character is said to be light and floating , while most minerals are said to be having sinking character.

 

So, we can say, without the attention of our mind and the existence of human body, qi is unlikely to be objectively detected .

 

In fact, based on the traditional Taoist theory, never can we separate qi from Shen and measure it , they are always linked . The better understanding of the characteristics of qi is achieved only by a deeper and higher reach of Shen, that is , through deeper drilling into nothingness . And , nothingness does have layers....and to the utmost of it , nothingness awakens similar to what the universe did , it becomes self-conscious (天心來復) , then starts to create something / being ... every of our meditation is in fact a re-doing of the process of how the universe was creating itself .

Edited June 24, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[DaoChild]

Besides what you mentioned i can feel a lot of energy at the baihui and can feel energy flowing along my meridian somewhat like water. I can direct my energy to different parts of my body at will. I have felt at times particular meridians more strongly, usually when it is being cleared.

 

And how do you know that's energy? If I focus on the Baihui I can feel a noticeable presence there. Is that caused by 'energy' or by where I am giving my attention?

 

Is that just focusing on the part of the body, or energy?

 

No thats not how circulation feels and if anything (if not chi) its your nervous system.

 

That's not how circulation feels? What does circulation feel like then?

 

And what do you mean, "It's my nervous system" ?

[Ramon25]

Nerves. you dont feel ANYTHING without nerves. So you focus on area, the nerves there get activated even without movement. And where you give your attention your energy goes. chi follows yi. So whats your point?Do you think what you feel in you bai hui is increased circulation? Or that very gentle movemnts are going to make you circulation that much stronger as to feel it so powerfully flowing through a circuit? Come on man. Where are you going with this?

[11:33]

Dao Child,

 

How do you explain chi being transmitted out of the hands?

[Ramon25]

Besides having some serious disorder of qi in their bodies, most people do not sense the existence of it in daily life .In fact, it is by using their mind in some deliberate ways that enable them to initialize qi in their bodies; On the other hand, without the existence of a Qigong master emitting qi at the spot, no experiment related to qi can be done . And, what in the experiments they detected were the outcome , killing some kinds of virus, for example , not the direct existence of qi.

 

Furthermore , the existence and characteristics of qi in herbs and minerals can only be detected after their absorption into our body through drinking medicine or sticking plaster on the surface of our bodies: for example

chrysanthemum's qi character is said to be light and floating , while most minerals are said to be having sinking character.

 

So, we can say, without the attention of our mind and the existence of human body, qi is unlikely to be objectively detected .

 

In fact, based on the traditional Taoist theory, never can we separate qi from Shen and measure it , they are always linked . The better understanding of the characteristics of qi is achieved only by a deeper and higher reach of Shen, that is , through deeper drilling into nothingness . And , nothingness does have layers....and to the utmost of it , nothingness awakens similar to what the universe did , it becomes self-conscious (天心來復) , then starts to create something / being ... every of our meditation is in fact a re-doing of the process of how the universe was creating itself .

 

What the hell we have been duped! The taoist master's were studying qauntam physics 4000 years ago! No for real it may be that chi is unmeasurable as it may lie so deep or at the surface of this realm that who knows. Altough! I have seen study's REGARDLESS of where from or how done that find increased (something) at the acupressure points. Not just in one person but in many using the same equipment. So maybe it can be measured. fuck it guys lets go read some biology and then lets go practice some qi gung so we can forget what was in the biology book!

[DaoChild]

Nerves. you dont feel ANYTHING without nerves. So you focus on area, the nerves there get activated even without movement. And where you give your attention your energy goes. chi follows yi. So whats your point?Do you think what you feel in you bai hui is increased circulation? Or that very gentle movemnts are going to make you circulation that much stronger as to feel it so powerfully flowing through a circuit? Come on man. Where are you going with this?

 

No, what I feel in my bai hui is not increased circulation. For example, I'm sitting at my computer. If I focus on my stomach, I can feel it. That's just imagination I would say. If I focus on my pointer finger, I can feel sensations in it. That's just imagination, even though I physically feel it. Where your attention goes your mind goes too.. not necessarily only this "Qi follows Yi" although that is written in ancient texts.

 

For example, you have a stomach ache. If you focus on the stomach ache, and not on letting it pass, or trying some other activity, it likely will seem worse or go away. Just like your mommy telling you to "not focus on it".

 

Very gentle movements make your circulation feel stronger? Of course! Here is an example in my own life: I have very poor circulation. I am in excellent physical health from lifting weights and working out, but still usually have cold hands (even in summer). If I sit quietly, just letting my breath become natural, my hands will get quite warm. This is focusing on just natural, consistent breathing.

 

To me, relaxed breathing is the major factor causing the warmth and circulation, not Qi.

 

 

Note: I practice Qigong, and I feel the "Qi", but I think metaphysical concepts are somewhat inaccurate.

 

Dao Child,

 

How do you explain chi being transmitted out of the hands?

 

11:33, truthfully I don't know. I've never experienced it, except for healing myself -- therefore consider it the placebo effect and I am currently a "non-believer".

 

Of course, I wouldn't keep on practicing it if I didn't think it had potential. I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of it.

 

fuck it guys lets go read some biology and then lets go practice some qi gung so we can forget what was in the biology book!

 

Well I think you bring up a pretty valid point.

 

Here's my theory -- ancient peoples (who had a much harder time surviving than we currently do) did not waste time with things that didn't help them survive. There simply isn't enough time to do it.

 

Thus, I'm inclined to believe that if people practiced Qigong for 2,500 or 5,000 years it should do something. Otherwise, that's a lot of years of suckers being duped.

 

Off I go to explore..