Scientific Approach to Practice

[dwai]

There is no need to know but it won't hurt to talk about it for those who are interested. It would be more appreciative and meaningful if one knows why and how it works.

 

Those who don't know find it mysterious. Once they know, it is not mysterious anymore ;-)

 

The how and why is also there...you just have to accept a different (than science) framework for it. Eg, the premise of Qi...if you don't accept it, it is all black magic. If you do, it is simple...it is Qi...you can feel it, manipulate it, grow it, shrink it, make it affect others. What other confirmation/validation do you need?

[ChiDragon]

Has it really? Science cannot even have one unified theory to explain all objective phenomena. Same set of rules aren't valid once you change the scale of reference...

 

I think Science is just another framework to interpret phenomena. That it is the norm doesn't make it the best. And I am an Engineer by background, making my living in the world of Science...so I do know quite a bit about this subject.

 

It is nice to have an Engineer by background to communicate with. By the definition, a "theory" that is something has been proven it is scientifically true. Unless otherwise it was invalidated by later studies. A theory must be dealt with one at a time. We cannot put a blanket of one and applied to all.

 

PS....

Since this thread is more toward a scientific discussion, shall we keep our arguments within logical reasoning with some known scientific facts and stay away from any fallacies and the basis of some "I was told as is" beliefs.

Edited March 22, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Birch]

EM is a force-manifestation, not a frequency - radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x rays, gamma rays...all EM, all different frequencies. (ascending, in this example.) EM is the most prominent force we deal with, the only stronger force is the Strong Force that holds quarks & atomic nuclei together, but its not "prominent" since it drops off in strength at about .^-14 meters. The weak force is a sort of 'force of pressure' that allows for things like a quark to flip its charge which can lead to things like a proton turning into a neutron (since they only have one flip of 3 quark's difference between the two) but the range is even smaller ^-17 meters - so usually the strong force will manifest first but in special cases things like neutrinos only act via the weak force, but still the interaction is very narrow - but think, with a constant stream of neutrinos flowing unimpeded through you, what if the energies were coherent enough for the lagrangians to line up and more weak interactions take place? hmm And of course, gravity.

 

 

Science is science. So long as you're being scientific and following The Method. Modern science is excellent, but one cannot be so arrogant as to dismiss ancient wisdoms - TCM came about without the aid of "modern science" and was the result of long, concerted, honest observations. So when you design an apparatus to detect a certain frequency and pattern (60Hz AC power can be one consideration,) and you do not detect it, can you honestly say that no frequencies, patterns, potentials are being detected?

Thanks for the definitions Mr JB:-) That shows how much I suck at physics:-)

 

I had weird idea not so long ago that definitions of the same knowledge class shouldn't be used when describing definitions of other knowledge classes. I saw them as existing on different planes.

[dwai]

It is nice to have an Engineer by background to communicate with. By the definition, a "theory" that is something has been proven it is scientifically true. Unless otherwise it was invalidated by later studies. A theory must be dealt with one at a time. We cannot put a blanket of one and applied to all.

 

PS....

Since this thread is more toward a scientific discussion, shall we keep our arguments within logical reasoning with some known scientific facts and stay away from any fallacies and the basis of some "I was told as is" beliefs.

 

Actually a theory is just a structured application of the intellect to explain an observed phenomenon (its mechanics, etc). It is not something that has been validated scientifically...the proof of a theory has to be done mathematically (modeled) and further still (if possible) practically.

 

As a result, there might be various theories for an observed phenomenon and for most parts they all must be assumed to be sound, until they cannot be expressed via a mathematical model (or reproduced in practice).

 

For instance, classical newtonian physics is a set of theories that try and explain observed phenomena and there are first mathematical models based on it. However, when we move into the field of sub-atomic particles, classical newtonian physics doesn't work (in that the observed phenomena breakdown/defy the rules set forth in the theory), so there newtonian physics is invalidated (or better still considered incomplete/inadequate).

 

We will continue to see this in course of the evolution of science as science too is a framework and is context driven/sensitive. When there's an attempt to apply it (whatever that might be) out side the context, it will fall apart. That doesn't invalidate it, it just makes it invalid outside the context of it's boundaries.

 

The biggest challenge with reconciling things like Qi and its associated phenomena with "Science" is that it science starts with matter and then assigns consciousness as a property of matter. However, in this case, it is more likely that Consciousness is what one needs to start with and assign matter (and a particular state of matter) as a property of consciousness. It is almost as if we are talking about "anti-Science" in such a case...

Edited March 22, 2012 by dwai

[ChiDragon]

Any kind of wave has a frequency.

 

EM Frequency

[ChiDragon]

The biggest challenge with reconciling things like Qi and its associated phenomena with "Science" is that it science starts with matter and then assigns consciousness as a property of matter. However, in this case, it is more likely that Consciousness is what one needs to start with and assign matter (and a particular state of matter) as a property of consciousness. It is almost as if we are talking about "anti-Science" in such a case...

 

The problem with Chi is somebody says it is "energy". Then people will assume that is what it is and start looking for energy. Some old man in a park in China says Chi is a magnetic force. Ever since, then people started to repeat what he says. Now, everyone believes that Chi is energy or electromagnetic field or force.

Edited March 22, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Birch]

Any kind of wave has a frequency.

 

EM Frequency

 

Isn't that what JB said about EM as well?

I definitely suck at physics (for now) but how would you consider 'information' in terms of 'frequency' Mr Chi D?

[ChiDragon]

A frequency of a wave which has an amplitude and a time period. Normally, it was referred as a wavelength.

 

 

EM is a force-manifestation, not a frequency

That was a little bit ambiguous. If it was stated as "all the waves have frequencies, instead of saying that they are not frequencies" which would have had been made more sense.

[Birch]

Ok, now I'm even more confused!

[RyanO]

Has it really? Science cannot even have one unified theory to explain all objective phenomena. Same set of rules aren't valid once you change the scale of reference...

 

I think Science is just another framework to interpret phenomena. That it is the norm doesn't make it the best. And I am an Engineer by background, making my living in the world of Science...so I do know quite a bit about this subject.

 

Well I am not a scientist nor am I an engineer.

 

But I think the most important feature of science is its universality. It provides a language that someone from any culture can access. I know of no other 'framework' that does this. We live in a global culture now, and clinging to dogmatic ideologies and labels only serves to divide us and create an in group/out group mentality that causes conflict.

 

Can you give an example of a superior or even equal framework that is also universally true and not limited to a culture's preconceived notions?

 

That science hasn't discovered a unified theory doesn't devalue it, it's just a testament to how difficult such a thing is and how important it is to not jump to conclusions on such important matters.

 

I am not saying that science has all the answers, but I think it is the best tool we have to understand and communicate objective truths.

Edited March 22, 2012 by RyanO

[Birch]

"Universality"?

 

Check this out http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520259607

[findley]

I seek enlightenment through understanding, and I think science is the epitomy of this development in our contemporary socio-cultural dynamic. (If anyone knows their hegel, ...or nietzsche... then perhaps you can understand this point of view regarding this kind of evolution.)

 

I am surprised by the quality of answers. Some of you are happy to cling to ignorance. ...but others are open to scientific understanding, though at the same time acknowledging its limitations. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Science is limited, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. I believe that as society continues to develop, we will move past this 'scientific age' unto an era of greater understanding-- that won't be qualified by the scientific method anymore.

 

we're making that transition now.

 

 

Also, just because I begin to classify qigong in terms of EM-field development, doesn't mean that I have all the answers. For example, we do not even know what magnetism really is !! (ie what is the 'force carrier' that makes magnetic interaction possible?)

 

I think as we move closer to a 'grand unified theory' in physics, we will simultaneously be getting closer to the answers we need in our 'spiritual' development through qigong. K actually asked if EM was an isolated force-- I don't think it is, actually. The weak force, for example, has been discovered to be sort of dervied from the EM force-- and so now they call it the 'electroweak' force. I believe that all phenomena will eventually be discovered as being derivative of a singular force dynamic-- which of course is grand unified theory. if you're interested take a look at my metaphysic below, which is an attempt to establish just such a theory:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/23026-anybody-care-to-comment-on-my-metaphysic/page__gopid__329135&

 

 

 

but anyways, as general understanding continues to develop, we will eventually come to definitive answers abotu what is really going on in our 'spiritual' practice. With understanding comes progress.

 

Though if you deliberately choose ignorance, I suppose that is something Lao Tzu would suggest you do.

[findley]

Steve,

 

yes, I believe you are right-- ultimately our reality stems forward from a paradox. I call it the 'paradox of Being and Nothingness' , myself... and have some interesting work the discusses the nature of the beginning of the universe, which can ultimately only be described in terms of a 'paradox of being and nothingness'.

[Apech]

I think the problem with science and Qi is that science, however empirical it is, has a paradigm of reality which automatically rejects certain ways of seeing the world. It presupposes a kind of dead mechanism for everything. The inclusion of sentience/consciousness as anything other than an epi-phenomenon is a no-no form the start.

[Birch]

"science, however empirical it is, has a paradigm of reality"

 

Hum, I didn't think it was supposed to have one (a paradigm of reality). I thought what it did (or was supposed to do) was explore paradigms (through hypotheses) and change them accordingly.

 

Ah well, another ideal falls by the wayside. I suppose I'll just go listen to a Morrissey album now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcvhWrEhHZw

 

Ok, sorry

 

Edited March 23, 2012 by -K-

[dwai]

Well I am not a scientist nor am I an engineer.

 

But I think the most important feature of science is its universality. It provides a language that someone from any culture can access. I know of no other 'framework' that does this. We live in a global culture now, and clinging to dogmatic ideologies and labels only serves to divide us and create an in group/out group mentality that causes conflict.

 

Can you give an example of a superior or even equal framework that is also universally true and not limited to a culture's preconceived notions?

 

That science hasn't discovered a unified theory doesn't devalue it, it's just a testament to how difficult such a thing is and how important it is to not jump to conclusions on such important matters.

 

I am not saying that science has all the answers, but I think it is the best tool we have to understand and communicate objective truths.

I just showed you that science is not universally true. There is nothing in this phenomenal world that is "universally true"...

Science is just like anything else a collection of theories which postulate how certain phenomena operate. So even within science there are paradoxes and contradictions.

 

The problem is that most folks consider newtonian physics "science"...theres more to science than that...

 

My experience with something like qi have led me to beleive that matter is a function of consciousness and therefore matter can be manipulated by the mind. Simply put qi is an energy that is actuated by the mind ( intent) and can be expressed externally (to the body) as a wave.

 

It is not magic...it is simply outside the realm of science as we know it today...

 

See the problem is that qi is subjective...as in felt internally. Its effects can be observed and perhaps measured sometimes...so the waves being generated are nt qi...the term for it is jin. So one should approach firt to understand jin...

Edited March 23, 2012 by dwai

[dwai]

I seek enlightenment through understanding, and I think science is the epitomy of this development in our contemporary socio-cultural dynamic. (If anyone knows their hegel, ...or nietzsche... then perhaps you can understand this point of view regarding this kind of evolution.)

 

I am surprised by the quality of answers. Some of you are happy to cling to ignorance. ...but others are open to scientific understanding, though at the same time acknowledging its limitations. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Science is limited, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. I believe that as society continues to develop, we will move past this 'scientific age' unto an era of greater understanding-- that won't be qualified by the scientific method anymore.

 

we're making that transition now.

 

 

Also, just because I begin to classify qigong in terms of EM-field development, doesn't mean that I have all the answers. For example, we do not even know what magnetism really is !! (ie what is the 'force carrier' that makes magnetic interaction possible?)

 

I think as we move closer to a 'grand unified theory' in physics, we will simultaneously be getting closer to the answers we need in our 'spiritual' development through qigong. K actually asked if EM was an isolated force-- I don't think it is, actually. The weak force, for example, has been discovered to be sort of dervied from the EM force-- and so now they call it the 'electroweak' force. I believe that all phenomena will eventually be discovered as being derivative of a singular force dynamic-- which of course is grand unified theory. if you're interested take a look at my metaphysic below, which is an attempt to establish just such a theory:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/23026-anybody-care-to-comment-on-my-metaphysic/page__gopid__329135&

 

 

 

but anyways, as general understanding continues to develop, we will eventually come to definitive answers abotu what is really going on in our 'spiritual' practice. With understanding comes progress.

 

Though if you deliberately choose ignorance, I suppose that is something Lao Tzu would suggest you do.

Hegel was a racist buffoon...:-p

But on a serious note, i doubt science as its done today can ever get to the GUT of it (pun intended).

Since you are familiar with quantum physics,how would you explain the observer effect? It think we are going about this bass-ackwrard. We need to develop a metaphysic based on consciousness..oh but wait! There already are....eg vedanta, daoism...et al

[findley]

dwai, the observer effect...?

...so how does consciousness influence electrons to behave like particles instead of waves? Can you explain it..?

 

Besides, why don't you go into a deeper explanation why you think matter extends from mind? That's an interesting posutlation, I think I have heard it before somewhere. Maybe you can clarify the theory a little bit better?

 

You seem to know everything already, perhaps you should start clarifying things for people like me.

[Birch]

Well, if dwai is going to do it just for you :-)

Although I suspect what I've understood is called 'the hard question' in science is probably not limited to proving any one individual wrong.

[epyon]

interpretation is a funny thing, anyway u explain it its the same thing

 

in my humble opinion i think you should steer away from labels, modern human science so far is very limited in understanding how anything really works, however at the same time i have the same itch to try and explain things scientifically as well, and i would agree that electromagnetics play a key role in this reality and energy and how things manifest, the physicist known as michio kaku has a sweet way of explaining the electromagnetic field of the electron and how nothing ever really touches anything else

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZr1qmsQ0U

 

something very mystical about the electron, especially if you have ever did research on the double split experiment or the wave collapse function

 

 

but in all honesty it just comes down to interpretation and perception, which is what belief is all about, quantum physics goes into this alot as well

Edited March 23, 2012 by epyon

[epyon]

 

From practice, I think your hypothesis is an interesting one. What IMO might be missing from it is the "information" content of qi. But maybe EM waves are like carrier waves or something?

 

 

i like how you mentioned that, recently i have been thinking about how the senses we have are just information receptors that tell our brain what to perceive, which i believe is limitless, were just tuned to a certain frequency of perception, we only see a certain light spectrum, hear a certain freq range , think a certain freq range, its all just "information." so there is information and the observer observing the information

[exorcist_1699]

There is no need to use any scientific ideas or methods to investigate Tao or Taoist alchemy, it doesn't help but conversely bar you from advancing .

 

The best approach is the yin/yang theory plus the jing-qi-shen frameawork having been used for over 2,000 years in the Taoist legacy. It sounds arbitrary and arrogant, but I will try to show you why it is not..

 

Some bias must be smashed and some issues must be seriously considered so that you can understand me; I can't cover them all here , but would like to raise some for your consideration :

 

1) The bias that modern people, equipped with their common sense and scientific knowledge, think and understand better and deeper about things happen in their bodies and this universe maynot be so true as you think . The Taoist texts repeatedly say that the more cilivzed we are , the more we become distant from Tao. Why " Nourish a Mind by paying attention to nowhere" sounds so difficult to us ? Is it too abstract ? Or, because our minds and senses are too entangled by things so modern, so scientific?

 

2) The study of "Being" and its varied expressions in this world is the strength of the Western mind, but how about qi and " emptiness" , those things so alienated to the Western favor ? It seems, rathan than observing, disassembling , controlling things, the strength of the Chinese and Indian mind is in studying things void of any forms, levels and characteristics ...

 

3) Taoist alchemy repeatedly affirms that the everlasting life ( both physical and spiritual) is possible ,and , people who have a deep understanding of the jing-qi-shen theory unlikely doubt its truth. Yet if we follow the prevailing way of reasoning (cooling the body under very low temperature, manipulating DNA..etc.), hardly can we make any real breakthrough in this realm . To me as a Taoist, how stupid and superficial it is of this approach can be found in movie like " Forever Young" ; maybe what happens in the movie " Cocoon" is closer to the Taoist idea.

 

 

4)Taoism views human body as some kind of small cosmos which reflects and corresponds to a much bigger cosmos outside; there is a big Taiji outside, similarly in every human body , there is a 'smaller' taiji . ( In Buddhism, a similar idea is found : The relation between the Moon that shines in the sky and those millions of " moons " in lakes, pools, springs...on ground )

 

And, breeding a "golden dan" (金丹) in our body is just a repeated , local process of creating a micro-cosmos in us ,which , is clearly a traditional view of Taoism originated from thousand years ago ( see Taoist writings: "丹經極論 ", " 唱道真言"..)So, don't belittle it as any sports , exercise or practice...it is an enterprise trying to solve the secret of us and the universe.

 

 

_

Edited March 23, 2012 by exorcist_1699

[Apech]

"science, however empirical it is, has a paradigm of reality"

 

Hum, I didn't think it was supposed to have one (a paradigm of reality). I thought what it did (or was supposed to do) was explore paradigms (through hypotheses) and change them accordingly.

 

Ah well, another ideal falls by the wayside. I suppose I'll just go listen to a Morrissey album now.

 

...

 

Yes ... supposed to and has are two different things IMO.

 

Everyday is like Sunday ... not sure if this is relevant but you did mention Mozza.

[joeblast]

A frequency of a wave which has an amplitude and a time period. Normally, it was referred as a wavelength.

 

That was a little bit ambiguous. If it was stated as "all the waves have frequencies, instead of saying that they are not frequencies" which would have had been made more sense.

You're getting your face a little too close to the page again There are fundamental differences in the resonances. Half spin (EM) is wildly different than 2 spin (grav) symmetry, for example - those things are fundamental aspects of the resonance-particle, things like frequency are dependent upon the manifestation.

 

 

I seek enlightenment through understanding, and I think science is the epitomy of this development in our contemporary socio-cultural dynamic. (If anyone knows their hegel, ...or nietzsche... then perhaps you can understand this point of view regarding this kind of evolution.)

 

I am surprised by the quality of answers. Some of you are happy to cling to ignorance. ...but others are open to scientific understanding, though at the same time acknowledging its limitations. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Science is limited, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. I believe that as society continues to develop, we will move past this 'scientific age' unto an era of greater understanding-- that won't be qualified by the scientific method anymore.

 

we're making that transition now.

 

 

Also, just because I begin to classify qigong in terms of EM-field development, doesn't mean that I have all the answers. For example, we do not even know what magnetism really is !! (ie what is the 'force carrier' that makes magnetic interaction possible?)

 

I think as we move closer to a 'grand unified theory' in physics, we will simultaneously be getting closer to the answers we need in our 'spiritual' development through qigong. K actually asked if EM was an isolated force-- I don't think it is, actually. The weak force, for example, has been discovered to be sort of dervied from the EM force-- and so now they call it the 'electroweak' force. I believe that all phenomena will eventually be discovered as being derivative of a singular force dynamic-- which of course is grand unified theory. if you're interested take a look at my metaphysic below, which is an attempt to establish just such a theory:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/23026-anybody-care-to-comment-on-my-metaphysic/page__gopid__329135&

 

 

 

but anyways, as general understanding continues to develop, we will eventually come to definitive answers abotu what is really going on in our 'spiritual' practice. With understanding comes progress.

 

Though if you deliberately choose ignorance, I suppose that is something Lao Tzu would suggest you do.

Saying we dont know what magnetism is would be like saying we have no idea what makes a gyroscope stand up when spun Yup, they're all indistinguishable when given enough energy - but, you have to accept that "science" still doesnt know wtf Qi is. There's more in heaven and earth than dreamt of in that philosophy, not that what its dreamt up so far doesnt have its own level of rigor in its own particular...idiom, sir?

 

 

I think the problem with science and Qi is that science, however empirical it is, has a paradigm of reality which automatically rejects certain ways of seeing the world. It presupposes a kind of dead mechanism for everything. The inclusion of sentience/consciousness as anything other than an epi-phenomenon is a no-no form the start.

As opposed to other things that were discovered like blind cats bumping into dead rats, then taking a while to figure out hey, this is a rat

 

 

Hegel was a racist buffoon...:-p

But on a serious note, i doubt science as its done today can ever get to the GUT of it (pun intended).

Since you are familiar with quantum physics,how would you explain the observer effect? It think we are going about this bass-ackwrard. We need to develop a metaphysic based on consciousness..oh but wait! There already are....eg vedanta, daoism...et al

Yes, consciousness isnt even dreamt of in any of it. Maybe someday we'll figure out what all those other dimensions are for in string theory

 

dwai, the observer effect...?

...so how does consciousness influence electrons to behave like particles instead of waves? Can you explain it..?

 

Besides, why don't you go into a deeper explanation why you think matter extends from mind? That's an interesting posutlation, I think I have heard it before somewhere. Maybe you can clarify the theory a little bit better?

 

You seem to know everything already, perhaps you should start clarifying things for people like me.

consciousness doesnt influence electrons to behave like particles or waves, they act according to their nature as it portends to their manifestation, perhaps calabiyau might entwine

[RyanO]

I just showed you that science is not universally true. There is nothing in this phenomenal world that is "universally true"...

Science is just like anything else a collection of theories which postulate how certain phenomena operate. So even within science there are paradoxes and contradictions.

 

The problem is that most folks consider newtonian physics "science"...theres more to science than that...

 

My experience with something like qi have led me to beleive that matter is a function of consciousness and therefore matter can be manipulated by the mind. Simply put qi is an energy that is actuated by the mind ( intent) and can be expressed externally (to the body) as a wave.

 

It is not magic...it is simply outside the realm of science as we know it today...

 

See the problem is that qi is subjective...as in felt internally. Its effects can be observed and perhaps measured sometimes...so the waves being generated are nt qi...the term for it is jin. So one should approach firt to understand jin...

 

I totally agree with you that science as it is today is incomplete and often is stuck in its mechanistic materialist history.

 

So part of this is a language problem, because I certainly don't mean mechanistic materialist science as a philosophy. By science I simply mean an open-minded, ongoing, critical thinking, investigative worldview.

 

This open-mindedness and ability to change itself is where I see the benefit of science. Religion as it is for most people is most certainly not this way and as a result creates unnecessary division. That science seems stuck in a newtonian worldview is either the fault of the perceiver or an example of how slow and difficult it is, which doesn't make it any less important.

Edited March 23, 2012 by RyanO