Chi and energy.

I'm currently unable to view the links, but I am familiar with such videos showing monks, martial arts masters, etc, doing pretty amazing things with so-called "chi."

I have no doubt that human beings are able to perform outstanding feats via training, concentration and whatnot. The old saying that people use only 10% of their brain? I think it's more accurate to say that people use only a fraction of their mind-body potential. Anyone who has ever experienced "being in the zone" will understand this. One's performance with anything--mental, physical-- when in the zone does appear "superhuman," if you will, when compared to the semi-conscious clunking around state in which we normally live out lives.

That said, the problem I have with chi is this: my impression is that people see chi as a particular form of energy, something above and beyond the normal, measurable energy our bodies put out (eg, heat, bioelectric field). Ie, "chi" is a term identifying some kind of particular energetic "substance." IMO, this is a wrong interpretation.

Let's keep in mind the basic definition of "energy": the capacity to do work (regardless of "substance"😉. I think it is more accurate to interpret chi as what happens when a person is able to focus the various forces our body can generate (ie, electrical, mechanical, etc) into a single, coordinated effort. Eg: drying a towel? I don't see this as the result of some kind of esoteric energy substance, but rather the mind and body working in unison to affect the body's machinery which generates heat. That is, via concentration--or better, meditation--one's mind can access those aspects of physiology which us ordinary, untrained folks can't.

I hope this makes sense (I rambled more than I intended). Basically, chi is not so much an esoteric power field as it is ordinary biological functioning brought to optimum/maximum intensity via psychological direction.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Maybe we have a different defintion of evidence. I dont' expect people to be convinced by this video, I was just hoping people might be interestedd enough to contact researchers. When you are talking about 'evidence' I intepret that as something that will strongly convince you that chi is real. My intenion was that it might be something that might get you interested in doing research.

I think its actually "research" that we disagree on

I'd personally LOVE to research Chi. anyone who thinks they have it is welcome to come to the lab I work in, and we will run some controlled tests.

Research is about double blinded, controlled studies where personal bias is, attempted, to be eliminated. I don't have access to monks, so I can't personally do that research.

However, I also don't research, say, the lethal dose of tylenol. But, this information has been researched, and is available in a peer-reviewed journal, because the people doing the research did so with the highest levels of control and thus, those who publish research found it of a high enough quality to publish.

This is where our difference is, I think. If you want to say that it makes me more close minded than someone who doesn't require peer review, sure, I'll accept that, however, that does not mean I'm totally closed. I can tell you, probably very specifically, what would be required before I gave any credit to the idea of Chi. A peer reviewed publication would be the very least, independent replication would be stellar. Since this research, to the best of my searching, does not exist in peer reviewed form, it doesn't really convince me of anything, as stuff on TV is subject to freedom of speech.

for this same reason, I don't feel contacting the researchers is going to be of great use. Like, why would you go to the most financially and emotionally involved person? They might be able to give you a run down of what they are doing, but science is not about self-review. Obviously people think they are right.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You know what it may well be spam. I was just surfing and I thought about posting this link. You can discuss it if you want but ive got nothing that can I can prove to you that its real.

fair enough

mind, this is a little backed off from "you are close minded, you have no right to tell people they are hallucinating, I'm not trying to prove anything to you"

Originally posted by Mindship
Let's keep in mind the basic definition of "energy": the capacity to do work (regardless of "substance"😉. I think it is more accurate to interpret chi as what happens when a person is able to focus the various forces our body can generate (ie, electrical, mechanical, etc) into a single, coordinated effort. Eg: drying a towel? I don't see this as the result of some kind of esoteric energy substance, but rather the mind and body working in unison to affect the body's machinery which generates heat. That is, via concentration--or better, meditation--one's mind can access those aspects of physiology which us ordinary, untrained folks can't.

not to just beat the same old drum, but nobody is discounting that or even a mystical definition of chi.

for me at least, it is the lack of evidence for any of this. Its like saying "oh, that chi levitation trick may just be a body density function that the remaining 90% of our mind/body potential can accomplish" without ever testing whether the person is levitating in the first place.

Edit: I'm letting that 10% thing go..... for now!! 😠

Originally posted by inimalist
not to just beat the same old drum, but nobody is discounting that or even a mystical definition of chi.

Edit: I'm letting that 10% thing go..... for now!! 😠

Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. I was just saying that I, personally, would investigate chi as an "optimization of normal functioning" before assigning any mystical quality to it.

totally. Were I to see evidence of "chi", my first reaction would also be to look for materialistic explanation.

Originally posted by Mindship
>whew< But then, I already know you to be a gentleman and a scholar. 😉

lol, but don't tell anyone, ok?

i still want to be internet badass

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dooooooodon PAAAAAAA!!!!!

😐

wheelchair

Originally posted by inimalist
I think its actually "research" that we disagree on

I'd personally LOVE to research Chi. anyone who thinks they have it is welcome to come to the lab I work in, and we will run some controlled tests.

Research is about double blinded, controlled studies where personal bias is, attempted, to be eliminated. I don't have access to monks, so I can't personally do that research.

However, I also don't research, say, the lethal dose of tylenol. But, this information has been researched, and is available in a peer-reviewed journal, because the people doing the research did so with the highest levels of control and thus, those who publish research found it of a high enough quality to publish.

This is where our difference is, I think. If you want to say that it makes me more close minded than someone who doesn't require peer review, sure, I'll accept that, however, that does not mean I'm totally closed. I can tell you, probably very specifically, what would be required before I gave any credit to the idea of Chi. A peer reviewed publication would be the very least, independent replication would be stellar. Since this research, to the best of my searching, does not exist in peer reviewed form, it doesn't really convince me of anything, as stuff on TV is subject to freedom of speech.

for this same reason, I don't feel contacting the researchers is going to be of great use. Like, why would you go to the most financially and emotionally involved person? They might be able to give you a run down of what they are doing, but science is not about self-review. Obviously people think they are right. Really its just a question of take it or leave it.

To be quite honest with you I don't have a problem with what you consider research, I wasn't even expecting you to neccesarily go out and do any reasearch im just pissed because you didn't have to respond that harshly.

Originally posted by inimalist

mind, this is a little backed off from "you are close minded, you have no right to tell people they are hallucinating, I'm not trying to prove anything to you"

Really and truly I don't really care what you believe, to be quite honest I wasn't really bothered about the hadokken statements. What this is really all about is you biting my head off for that link.

Originally posted by Mindship

Let's keep in mind the basic definition of "energy": the capacity to do work (regardless of "substance"😉. I think it is more accurate to interpret chi as what happens when a person is able to focus the various forces our body can generate (ie, electrical, mechanical, etc) into a single, coordinated effort. Eg: drying a towel? I don't see this as the result of some kind of esoteric energy substance, but rather the mind and body working in unison to affect the body's machinery which generates heat. That is, via concentration--or better, meditation--one's mind can access those aspects of physiology which us ordinary, untrained folks can't.

I hope this makes sense (I rambled more than I intended). Basically, chi is not so much an esoteric power field as it is ordinary biological functioning brought to optimum/maximum intensity via psychological direction.

Yes it does actually and that crossed my mind. I'll think I'll just blow my top for you not beleieving in the video wholeheartdly.....oh know im not. 🙄

However though for me its going to be redundant in about 50 years wether chi is real or not. People won't need to research into the paranormal because science would have advanced so much that humans could be given particular abilities.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
However though for me its going to be redundant in about 50 years wether chi is real or not. People won't need to research into the paranormal because science would have advanced so much that humans could be given particular abilities.

😂

Excellent thread. in, you're my hero.

Also, this is pertinent and amusing:
http://www.xkcd.com/373/

Chi is a spiritual feeling, calling it energy is from a spiritual feeling -- trying to grasp why you feel it etc.

It's nothing more than a illusion, however, it can also be used, like spirituality to acheive greatness, but not always.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

The closest thing I can find is an fMRI study on meditation, which still has nothing on monk towel-racks, which I was directed to by an article in the Harvard Gazette, which if I'm to believe these towels were dried at all, were apparently dried over "several hours." Benson apparently visited these monks in the 1980s. To me the footage doesn't seem that dated ergo if the people in the History channel programme were actors it wouldn't surprise me.

Yes this is it. The first towel wa dried in an hour, the other three towels were dried in several hours.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

Yes, yes they could be actors.

I'm not quite sure how that relates to chi, or anything mystical. Running around would produce more heat than normal too. Or becoming aroused, even while in a sitting position. Or numerous other things. It's hardly a supernatural breakthrough to find that different states of existing produce different physical affects. It's just a chemical byproduct of the body's function(s)...the link provided above is no different. No to mention the human body already gives off considerable heat, enough to dry a towel in most circumstances.

So entering certain meditative states produces more body heat? Cool. I can happily accept that, though I'd like to see it corroborated by other double-blind studies before taking it as solid fact. Except, even then, I see it as observational science and chemical causality within the body, not anything mystical. The onus is upon the spiritualists to show why that isn't the simplest, and best, explanation.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not quite sure how that relates to chi, or anything mystical. Running around would produce more heat than normal too. Or becoming aroused, even while in a sitting position. Or numerous other things. It's hardly a supernatural breakthrough to find that different states of existing produce different physical affects. It's just a chemical byproduct of the body's function(s)...the link provided above is no different. No to mention the human body already gives off considerable heat, enough to dry a towel

So entering certain meditative states produces more body heat? Cool. I can happily accept that, though I'd like to see it corroborated by other double-blind studies before taking it as solid fact. Except, even then, I see it as observational science and chemical causality within the body, not anything mystical.

Thats fair enough, you have to bare in mind that IF this actually did happen that I do not think this is 100 percent proof of chi. I think however that its worth looking into further if this did actaully happen.

One argument is that it could be the mind increasing the temperature of the body but it could also be argued that its actually not possible for the body to reach those temperatures under those conditions, but yes I agree you would need further proof that its actually chi.

Even if you could prove that meditation produces energy I dont think that it should be considered to be mystical....really depends on perspective.