Why is science having such a hard time finding chi?

[11:33]

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?

[Ramon25]

In eastern countries it has been found several times over. You mean why hasnt western science trully acknowledged what mant independent researchers our finding well take that up with the drug company's/

[11:33]

In eastern countries it has been found several times over. You mean why hasnt western science trully acknowledged what mant independent researchers our finding well take that up with the drug company's/

 

From what I understand of Chinese research is that much if not all of it has been performed using junky protocols. If the experiment isn't setup properly it is as good as useless. In which peer-reviewed journals can I find these experiments?

[Ramon25]

From what I understand of Chinese research is that much if not all of it has been performed using junky protocols. If the experiment isn't setup properly it is as good as useless. In which peer-reviewed journals can I find these experiments?

 

Well I know they are not the "best" protocols but they are obviosly seeing something. They actaully do measure chi withj equipment you know. They alos find it to be more powerful at the acupoints and such. That has been done ALOT. So personally when it comes to this subject I could care less about peer review. They are seeing something and by best guess It's chi. In this book http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Electr...6143&sr=8-1

The author published peer reviewed work that showed what we would understand as meridians and acupoints. Good book. Again ask drug company's whats up?

[enouch]

[enouch]

[Iskote]

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?

 

Well, for one thing, science isn't doing anything. 'Science' is just a way of studying our world.

It is scientists who would be doing the research and experiments and what not, not science.

Anyway, assuming you are talking about Western scientists, what makes you think

that many Western scientists are looking? I suspect relatively few are actually looking, but I could be wrong.

 

I think also that many Western scientists would not know what chi (or qi or ki or whatever) is, or many

might just assume it is just a superstitious concept, or that is really just a way to describe certain types of physiological phenomena, so what's there to study? Also, many Western scientists work for commercial organizations, so there would likely have to be some angle where companies could see a potential

for profit before investing money into such research.

 

Besides the money issue, it is not an easy matter to overcome cultural biases.

Also, there may not be a lot a truly accomplished qigong masters here in the West who are willing

to subject themselves to the time demands of the rigorous scientific testing that would be required.

Despite all that, I think there is at least some research going on in the West regarding qigong therapy,

and even more research into acupuncture. Such things take quite a bit of time, as many studies have to

be done, and then refined, and done many times again, and be able to be replicated by others, and also

withstand peer review, etc. There is also the widely held concept that 'extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence', so the reality is that it would take much stronger scientific evidence to convince

many in the West that qi really exists than it would to establish scientific proof for more mundane things.

This relates to the cultural bias thing. In China, where the concept of qi is much more widely accepted, it

may not require as strong scientific evidence as would be likely required in the West to be able to start

convincing other scientists that the scientific results are significant.

Another factor is that whatever qi is, it may not lend itself well to study with current methods and instruments

used in scientific study today. The methods used in quantum physics may prove more useful in

this respect, who knows?

 

Best wishes from Iskote...

Edited June 20, 2009 by Iskote

[goldisheavy]

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?

 

I know. The reason for this is because while the scientific method itself is largely agnostic to your metaphysical beliefs, in reality most scientists hold to certain metaphysical beliefs and are very far from agnostic, but have certainly taken a side (biased) on metaphysical issues.

 

These beliefs that they hold are in conflict with the beliefs of those who believe in chi. To a scientist, something like chi is not even worth investigating, since to them the idea of chi is bogus on its face. They don't even want to make one experiment with it, since they object to it on philosophical basis. That's not to say that those scientists are philosophers! No way. They are actually morons when it comes to philosophy. I've been reading http://www.edge.org/, and it collates many many many scientists' opinions, and I've come to believe that most scientists are airheaded morons when it comes to deeper issues in cognition and awareness. They are just good in certain types of thinking, very narrow types of thinking and their skill is not really applicable outside their domain more or less. They lack the wisdom to step outside their own box and most of them are intensely committed to their views, however flawed they might be. One might argue that this kind of ignorance is necessary to drive science, because if the scientists felt more impartial toward various views they may not engage in science so dramatically.

 

In particular the scientists are extremely unlikely to investigate anything that might violate their belief in physicalist nature of phenomena.

 

I hear people claim that this bias is now changing, but I am not holding my breath. On the other hand, I realize that anything can happen. However considering the intense pain and difficulty that new ways of thinking had experienced when they tried to penetrate the scientific community, I am skeptical. Scientists are extremely closed minded people. Their openness only works within the allowed set of beliefs and assumptions. When you violate that holy set, they get as closed minded as the most fundie Wahhabist Muslim and there is no further discussion possible.

Edited June 20, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Ramon25]

I know. The reason for this is because while the scientific method itself is largely agnostic to your metaphysical beliefs, in reality most scientists hold to certain metaphysical beliefs and are very far from agnostic, but have certainly taken a side (biased) on metaphysical issues.

 

These beliefs that they hold are in conflict with the beliefs of those who believe in chi. To a scientist, something like chi is not even worth investigating, since to them the idea of chi is bogus on its face. They don't even want to make one experiment with it, since they object to it on philosophical basis. That's not to say that those scientists are philosophers! No way. They are actually morons when it comes to philosophy. I've been reading http://www.edge.org/, and it collates many many many scientists' opinions, and I've come to believe that most scientists are airheaded morons when it comes to deeper issues in cognition and awareness. They are just good in certain types of thinking, very narrow types of thinking and their skill is not really applicable outside their domain more or less. They lack the wisdom to step outside their own box and most of them are intensely committed to their views, however flawed they might be. One might argue that this kind of ignorance is necessary to drive science, because if the scientists felt more impartial toward various views they may not engage in science so dramatically.

 

In particular the scientists are extremely unlikely to investigate anything that might violate their belief in physicalist nature of phenomena.

 

I hear people claim that this bias is now changing, but I am not holding my breath. On the other hand, I realize that anything can happen. However considering the intense pain and difficulty that new ways of thinking had experienced when they tried to penetrate the scientific community, I am skeptical. Scientists are extremely closed minded people. Their openness only works within the allowed set of beliefs and assumptions. When you violate that holy set, they get as closed minded as the most fundie Wahhabist Muslim and there is no further discussion possible.

 

I could not have said it better myself goldisheavy! Enouch thank you so much for the info it is greatly appreciated!

Love to both of you

[Iskote]

Despite all that, I think there is at least some research going on in the West regarding qigong therapy,

and even more research into acupuncture.

 

Just wanted to add that although there may be various obstacles for the scientific study of qi in

the West, sometimes practicality can accomplish something that might otherwise be a tough go.

The Chinese have been using qigong therapy in clinics for years and no doubt have likely

been making efforts in recent years to more properly scientifically document their clinical studies and

results. Medical care is very expensive. As open dialog increases more and more between the West and China,

it seems quite likely to me that more and more interest is going to develop in the West regarding

qigong therapy, since from the practical standpoint, if Western doctors can be convinced that various illnesses can be treated effectively using qigong therapy by witnessing the effectiveness of this with their own eyes, and

also by reviewing the Chinese studies and clinical data, etc., they are much more likely to start trying these

methods themselves and start conducting their own studies. If it gives good results and

is much cheaper and easier to implement, Western doctors and governments will likely start taking notice.

Money talks. If it is going to reduce medical costs and overcrowding in hospitals, etc., it will start

getting people's attention. This is already starting to occur in the West. The medical benefits of qigong are

already starting to be known and studied in the West, from what I can gather. Interest seems to be picking up.

IMO, once various Western medical studies begin to corroborate the Chinese studies, assuming they do, it is

quite likely that more scientists will start to gain more interest to try to understand better what is going on.

So, my point is, the situation may not really be as grim as it might seem..

 

Best wishes from Iskote...

Edited June 20, 2009 by Iskote

[11:33]

Cool article about Yan Xin. If we could get more good references to scientific studies on qigong then this could be a very cool reference thread.

[Jakara]

Despite what you read in the tabloids and watch in hollywood movies, most scientists are neutral about their work. They use scientific technique to investigate something and thats it. Unless they are dishonest. Here is a fundamental truth for you:

 

Scientists can't fund themselves!

 

Meaning that whoever is employing the scientist is the one who has the biased opinion, and also who decides what the scientist they employ is going to research. Who in the west would fund a scientist to investigate chi? There's no anatomical evidence for its existence, we have detailed maps of the human body and no chi has been found. Theres no monetary gain in investgating something that thus far doesn't exist, and yes, companys do just want the money, thats how they work.

 

In any research you need a director who tells the scientists what they are looking for, the scientists will then research other people's work to see if anything has already been done that they can verify and design new experiments accordingly. Peer reviewed science is a must to prove it is accurate. It must be a repeatable experiment to verify the results. Otherwise you go back to the times where every other guy has some miraculous medicine that can cure anything - no proof, but you can trust him, right?

 

Why not design some experiments yourself to verify chi? There are many scientists on this forum who can help consult in terms of equipment, viability etc. Where would you start? By looking up what has already been done in peer reviewed scientific journals...

[enouch]

Despite what you read in the tabloids and watch in hollywood movies, most scientists are neutral about their work. They use scientific technique to investigate something and thats it. Unless they are dishonest. Here is a fundamental truth for you:

 

Scientists can't fund themselves!

 

Meaning that whoever is employing the scientist is the one who has the biased opinion, and also who decides what the scientist they employ is going to research. Who in the west would fund a scientist to investigate chi? There's no anatomical evidence for its existence, we have detailed maps of the human body and no chi has been found. Theres no monetary gain in investgating something that thus far doesn't exist, and yes, companys do just want the money, thats how they work.

 

In any research you need a director who tells the scientists what they are looking for, the scientists will then research other people's work to see if anything has already been done that they can verify and design new experiments accordingly. Peer reviewed science is a must to prove it is accurate. It must be a repeatable experiment to verify the results. Otherwise you go back to the times where every other guy has some miraculous medicine that can cure anything - no proof, but you can trust him, right?

 

Why not design some experiments yourself to verify chi? There are many scientists on this forum who can help consult in terms of equipment, viability etc. Where would you start? By looking up what has already been done in peer reviewed scientific journals...

 

 

Scientist themselves are subject to worldviews and the implicit beliefs embedded into those worldviews.Even if a western scientist could prove the exsistence of chi many scientist would simply poo poo it anyway based on their education.In the west we have a strong bias against anything intangible[vitalism],invisible.For example until recently scientist believed involuntary responses could not be controlled.Then when researchers placed yogis in lab. conditions and they proved their assertions...some attacked the researchers,or their methods[seee Beyond Biofeedback] some how they had to be duped! Though some finally accepted the reality.Dr. Elmer green tells a fascinating story of swami Rama causing a needle to spin[move] from nine feet away.A scientist overheard Rama talking about moving objects with the mind and the scientist said oh that's[goes against his axioms] bullshit! So they set up a date, under conditions specified by the scientist[Rama bound,covered mouth,distance,multible eyewitnesses,ectera] and Rama was successful.The scientist still refused to accept what had occured, Rama was amazed by his disbelief.A more openminded scientist explained to Rama most people have set paradigms and they can't venture outside of their neiborhoods.

At any rate suffient evidence is out there for those seeking genuine marvels that transcend science.Prahlad Jani,the man who reportedly hasn't eaten anything in over 60 years.Jani sujected himself to a rigorous medical study overseen by 400 doctors.He also doesn't pass stool or urine..how is this possible? The non-decomposing budd.monk,how can a body not degenerate for over sixty something years? No, not a mummy or environmental state he was caught in.How about Mo pai guy's favorite Wim Hoff according to medical science[textbooks] he shouldn't be able to run sixteen miles at the artic north in shorts and barefoot!There are others.One interesting thing though-power doesn't always ask, it demands! Scientist are forced to except Wimm because he performs in the light of day.They'd probally call it an abnormal mechanism at work in his body-which means they don't know!

[Fu_dog]

Another consideration: The philosophy of Western science differs from the philosophy or Eastern science.

 

Western science places a high priority of measuring/metering/quantifying. In other words, a thing is "proven" to exist by observing the thing itself. If they can't see it, then this creates problems for Western science. The usual conclusion is if the thing can't be observed, then it doesn't exist. You can see where there are challenges to proving chi.

 

Eastern science does not place the same priority on observing/measuring/quantifying the thing. Instead, there is a great emphasis on cause and effect. If the cause and effect relationship can be replicated over and over, then per Eastern science the thing (i.e., the cause) exists. So, using the Eastern philosophy of science, it is has been relatively easy to "prove chi exists". When chi is applied, tangible results happen. For example, Chi practice promotes healing. Consistently. A cause and effect relationship exists. For this reason, Chi is typically used as therapy in many Eastern hospitals.

 

Not to thread jack, however, Western science's dependency on measurement and/or observation devices is a limiting factor, which can lead to erroneous conclusions. Things don't exist if they can't be observed or measured. Western scientists often can't take a step back and see that as measurement/observation devices become better over time, more phenomena are "proven" that those same scientists previously said were non-existent. Chi falls into that category today. Perhaps in the future when better observation devices are developed, then chi may be able to be "proven" true by Western science, and the existence of chi will have widespread acceptance in the scientific community.

 

To some of the earlier posts, perhaps Western science is getting close, though among Western scientists there is not a widespread acceptance of chi as a real thing. As far as I know, it is not part of the cirriculum in Western medical schools.

 

To my thinking, the philosophy of Western science has a flaw, and that flaw is at the heart of the original poster's question.

[Jakara]

There are some points that are being over looked here. Observing a phenomena and then building a general rule around it does not prove that the rule is correct. For example, people used to think that everything contained fire and thats why things can burn. It fitted the knowledge at the time and the model could be used to predict other events. But its not correct. After further investigation we now know why things can burn.

 

Its not a bias or philisophy, its common sense. You can't just say something exists and therefore its fact until you can prove it wrong. You have to propose a theory and show that all the data fits that theory to be able to prove it right before its accepted as correct. Chi is an ancient concept like many other meta-physical explanations that were produced at the time because there weren't any better theories available at the time. The data does not fit the theory, we can see into the human body and can't measure any chi. Yet things like electricity (which can't be seen) is proven to exist.

 

There are many things that humans can do that haven't been documented and are therefore against the scientific "norm", and thats fine. But to say that these things happen becuase of something that is completely unprovable is false. We don't know why some people can do certain things, but that doesn't automatically prove their own made up explanations for it. There is no dispute that chi kung is amazing and makes people healthier, but that doesn't prove chi exists, it could be any number of factors causing the effect, it needs to be fully investigated without bias either way.

 

The problem is, I can prove to you time and time again through experiment that certain things exist. I can then construct a theory about it and apply that theory to other things and the data also fits. Then I can produce a mathematical framework for its existence. Electricity is example of this, even though we can't see it. Nobody has yet to prove that chi exists though. There are no standard, controlled experiments for confirming it, there is no proven theoretical framework, and there is no physcal evidence for it at all other than a few guys getting hot and healthier when they do excercise. Chi, as a separate force, is an assumption, a meta physical, out dated and made up rule based on the best explanations at the time to try and explain something that nobody had an answer for. It could exist within current theories though, like bio-electricity, and just be a chinese term for something that we already know about, but just haven't investigated all that well.

[Ramon25]

There are some points that are being over looked here. Observing a phenomena and then building a general rule around it does not prove that the rule is correct. For example, people used to think that everything contained fire and thats why things can burn. It fitted the knowledge at the time and the model could be used to predict other events. But its not correct. After further investigation we now know why things can burn.

 

Its not a bias or philisophy, its common sense. You can't just say something exists and therefore its fact until you can prove it wrong. You have to propose a theory and show that all the data fits that theory to be able to prove it right before its accepted as correct. Chi is an ancient concept like many other meta-physical explanations that were produced at the time because there weren't any better theories available at the time. The data does not fit the theory, we can see into the human body and can't measure any chi. Yet things like electricity (which can't be seen) is proven to exist.

 

There are many things that humans can do that haven't been documented and are therefore against the scientific "norm", and thats fine. But to say that these things happen becuase of something that is completely unprovable is false. We don't know why some people can do certain things, but that doesn't automatically prove their own made up explanations for it. There is no dispute that chi kung is amazing and makes people healthier, but that doesn't prove chi exists, it could be any number of factors causing the effect, it needs to be fully investigated without bias either way.

 

The problem is, I can prove to you time and time again through experiment that certain things exist. I can then construct a theory about it and apply that theory to other things and the data also fits. Then I can produce a mathematical framework for its existence. Electricity is example of this, even though we can't see it. Nobody has yet to prove that chi exists though. There are no standard, controlled experiments for confirming it, there is no proven theoretical framework, and there is no physcal evidence for it at all other than a few guys getting hot and healthier when they do excercise. Chi, as a separate force, is an assumption, a meta physical, out dated and made up rule based on the best explanations at the time to try and explain something that nobody had an answer for. It could exist within current theories though, like bio-electricity, and just be a chinese term for something that we already know about, but just haven't investigated all that well.

 

 

 

 

You are pretty bias towards beleiving that chi is an outdated incorrect object. And just because we cannot "currently" measure something does not mean it does not exist. Also just because chi has not gotten REAL attention therefore has not recieved a solid framework in the WEST does also not mean that is has not been measured. You have to much faith in the scientific method and in your own assumptions you are preachinh scientism. The observation of fire is correct. If it burns it contains fire as a potential, the possability exist within it. No need to reduce everything down to oblivion. Also did you not read the above references on the experiments done by 700 scientist on chi and something has been found? What world are you living in?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Ramon25

[11:33]

and there is no physcal evidence for it at all other than a few guys getting hot and healthier when they do exercise.

 

There are people who have more physical evidence for qi than this. For example, I feel all day like I am getting my head massaged or shampooed. This is because my baihui is open. That isn't something that can be explained by the above sensations of feeling healthier and hotter. There are other sensations that also don't fit the standard model, like feeling flowing water through me along different channels. I can feel it, so it isn't just some "idea" like it seems you are suggesting.

 

It may be that it is something we in the Western model don't understand yet, but its definitely beyond an idea.

[enouch]

[Fu_dog]

Jakara - I appreciate your logical argument. That said, logic itself is flawed, as logic is restricted by input variables. Start with the wrong input variables, and you will reach a wrong conclusion. In early computer lingo, the expression was "garbage in/garbage out". Now, I would like *anyone* to tell me their input variables, i.e., their starting point to begin a logical conclusion is perfect. It won't be, can't be. All observation is partial, and incomplete in some way. This is most eloquently said in the beginning of the Tao de Ching: "The spoken Tao is not the Tao." No matter how you explain Tao, it is incomplete. So given that our very best observation is partial and incomplete, then logic breaks down as a means of argument towards a conclusion. Logic can't explain spirit, can't explain chi, can't explain love, can't explain Tao.

 

The fact is, the Eastern philosophy of science does not necessarily get caught up in a burden of proof as much as looking at cause and effect and understanding that this can be applied. With this philosophy, they were able to take discovery further than the West in many areas. As some evidence, look at the history of invention coming out of China. It's amazing.

 

But, on to another point. Almost all science, even Western science, is analogy. Not fact. Even what our science says is real is not the true thing. So, "things contain fire" is an apt analogy. It works. That said, today we use more eloquent analogies. 100 years from now, the analogies will become still more eloquent, making today's scientific belief laughable. Look at Newton's laws. The were very logical, with mathematical models for prediction. In essence, what Newton really did was come up with analogies for gravity, mass and acceleration. Einstein comes along and shatters every one of Newton's laws, proving them all incorrect.

 

If you study a little of Einstein's theory of relativity, you'll find that "common sense" falls by the wayside and fails miserably, because common sense can in no way explain the phenomena discovered by Einstein (example, time slows to zero as things are accelerated towards the speed of light, mass increases as things are accelerated, length increases as things are accelerated, etc.). Common sense could never explain that things we believe are real will change relative to position and acceleration.

 

I will write no more about this, because if people have bought into Western science, then that's OK. It works and can be argued "logically" add day long. I really don't get caught up in what other people believe, because it usually works for them. For me, I can't accept the limitations of logic and Western science.

 

To the original question again, "Why is science having such a hard time explaining chi?", that's really easy to see. The problem is not with chi, but with Western science. Chi is an analogy. The analogy works, and we can use it to heal, to gain energy, wisdom and improve the quality of life. Does it have to be proven? To me, it doesn't.

 

Peace.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Fu_dog

[Martial Development]

...Its not a bias or philisophy, its common sense...

 

Any scientist who relies on common sense is unfit for service.

 

I've never said this before, and I may never say it again, but here goes...goldisheavy was right. There is no problem with "Western science" per se, but there is a problem with the people doing it.

[Jakara]

Its all very well getting into the arguement that "Nothing can be proven 100%" etc. And there is truth to that in terms of the dualistic world not being the ultimate. The tao for example can't be argued against, there is no logic against it. That doesn't automatically mean its true, but at least we can't say its false. Using that arguement is erroneous in this case though since if you are saying that ultimately nothing is really there etc. then that would also include chi too.

 

We work with what we have got, logic and scientific method are proven time and time again to work. Every piece of technology you've ever used, including your computer and the internet, is based on it, it works and you've bought into it already - unless you think your computer is powered by magic? Most of us would also be dead by now if it wasn't for western medicine and anti-biotics. The plague wiped out half of Europe's population back in the day when there were no such medicines available.

 

Its nice and easy to take cheap pot-shots at scientists, often people who are working hard trying to make the world a better place. Just because a theory that you want to be correct isn't quite how the universe really is. Science is the persistance of truth, regardless of what that truth may be. Its human desire and fear that steer the applications to create some of the monstrosities that have come about in the last century. You know how many people were burned alive for believing in what could be proven true with science but what some ancient books said otherwise? But hey, its fashionable to say science is wrong, so sit in your chair and take your pot-shots, us scientists will continue to prove the truth like we always have. It seems you want to go back to the age when people just believe whatever someone tells them without proof. That is ignorance, and as the Buddha said, ignorance is the root of all suffering.

 

I can appreciate that if something is performed and you get a result again and again, then its worth investigating. Chi-kung is amazing, it really does work, the results are undeniable! But that doesn't mean that the ancient theories that go along with it are correct. It warrants further investigation. China was one of the the most advanced countries in the world at one time due to their science. They then turned "inwards" and dropped behind the rest of the developing world. Europe was in the dark ages under religious rule until the crusades brought back books in arabic about science (translations from the greek mathmaticians 1000 years old!!!), after that it turned the tides and we got great minds like Newton etc.

 

The whole theory of things containing fire wasn't used as a metaphor or an analogy, they thought things really did have actual physical fire inside them. It wasn't correct in any way shape or form. Before science people really did think the world was made in seven days and that was a fact because some book/guy said so. But its not true, we know it isn't true now.

 

Newton's laws are correct and still apply today for the majority of cases on our everyday scale to within a given level of accuracy. They required refinement for extra massive objects (relativity) and for extra small objects (quantum mechanics). I studied relativity, lorentz contraction and time dilation as past of my first degree, there's nothing there that contradicts science or logic. It only extended upon an already proven theory. These were proven mathematically, then confirmed with experiments, which are still going on today.

 

Why is science having a hard time finding chi? Because it clearly doesn't exist in the format proposed by the ancients. They found an interesting phenomenon but applied an inaccurate theory and extended it too generally. The phenomena exists, and proper study will eventually provide the mechanics of what is really happening, and when it does, it won't be the romantic new force that some people seem to be fantasizing about. It won't be any less exciting though.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jakara

[Ramon25]

way too much mind jakara. Way to much and again you are wrong. It is not clear that qi the way the ancients proposed it does not exist. We have studied the material body NOT the invisible forces that play a role. For all we know the physical manifestation we can measure and see are being controlled by and invisible force we cannot. So in that case.... Also technology is one thing being able to make a computer does not mean that the same process apllies to all things man cannot create anything remotley similar to the that of nature so its not the same. you are so enwrapped in materialsm you cant see past what was actaully said about the fire. It is an analogy and yes the the laws of the universe (in human mind) are simply relative explanations of individual forces that can be reshaped by others minds and vuala the lwas magically change, so it all comes down to cause and effect. We understood what you meant about the fire actaully thought of as physical but please understand what we meant and try to see beyond knowledge.

all the best

Edited June 21, 2009 by Ramon25

[Jakara]

We have studied biolelectric phenomena, we know how the human nervous system is mapped out and can measure the currents throughout. What do you think an EEG is? Everything I've said is backup up by proof, logic or reason. Perhaps you should get an education before you call someone else wrong without explanation. This is a discussion of science and chi, therefore the discussion warrants a lot of science. If you want to space out and wallow in ignorance thats up to you. See beyond knowledge? Apparantly you are stuck in the 60's on LSD. But a great tool for debate though, anything you say can then be proven by "yeah just see beyond knowledge, then its true".

 

What about the blue gene super computer that has successfully emulated half a mouse brain, amongst other things? It has mapped the neurons of small animal brains and can emulate the whole brain accurately. The human brain is a much too powerful supercomputer to emulate - yet. Psychology can easily map out people's behaviours using logic. Your brain and your humanity are more logical and less mystical than you care to accept.

 

I can appreciate analogies, but you are taking something that was never an analogy and making it in to one to suit your arguement. Many ancient texts were written as fact, until they were proven wrong, but hey, that was just a metaphor from the start, right? They certainly weren't intended as metaphors. But as soon as its proven wrong and there are a whole lot of red faces all around, then its "oh, but it was a metaphor!". Good one.

 

For the record I believe fully in chi, perhaps not in the same way you do. I'd rather have the truth in whatever form it comes in than cling to an out dated theory because its romantic and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Ramon25]

For real the if you believe fully in chi the what the difference between accepting it how is is given or excpeting a new scientific terminology? If it does the same thing than to need a more practical explanation is kind of, well pointless. Its just truth repackaged so that your MIND can feel comfortable and safe. Hence why I told you to much mind. Also you can call it what you want hippie or whatever but a taoist honors both aspects of existence hence your loyalty to "logic and reason' is not taoist at all. Taoist respect and recognize the illogical, INTUITIVE and subjective aswell. So maybe you should analyze your values. Also just because this is about sciece and chi does not mean that those hear who have reservations about todays science can not speak it out against it. You just dont get it do you? MUCH about science today is temporary and can change overnight as OUR UNDERSTANDING of it changes. The subjective. I know I know you will probably throw out some example of how can the heart having 4 chambers change and the brain is divided by the corpus callosum, that wont change. But that is not my point. The super computer creating the the rat brain, well that was self defeating because that is a rat brain, that was an imitation of nature. Also my last question to you did you not read about the article that was posted above referencing work by hundreds of scientist from east and west and they found something? If you did how are you not wrong? But thats it I dont want to argue anymore this has become tiresome and pointless I wish you luck on your journey and hope you the best.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Ramon25

[Jakara]

I agree that one way or the other the phenomena exists and therefore it is irrelevant to the practitioner of chi kung what the true mechanics of it are. As long as it works, who cares? I don't have any problem with anyone saying anything about this topic, but as a scientist I do have a problem with people blaming scientists for not finding something that isn't the same as a 2000 year old theory says it should be. Im not saying chi doesn't exist, I'm saying that the theory needs adjusting, just as you pointed out that some scientific theories are adjusted over time. As you said, its our understanding that changes, not the phenomena, and our understanding of chi needs refining.

 

I'll read over those articles in more detail, I only skimmed them as they seem to be a standard, "there's something there, but we don't know what" type of thing. Which doesn't prove anything either way.

 

I do agree that this has become tiresome, I just wanted to give an answer to the question from a scientific background, by all means disagree with it. Someone has to give a balanced opinion for the other side, I didn't expect a religious forum to agree with scientific answers. Take care my friend.