Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Not sure where to put this really but since chi is usually associated with spirituality I thought I would put this here. Ive spoken about this video before. It shows monks wrapping themselves in cold towels in very cold envinronments and drying the towels with their body heat. It doesn't shows it straight away you will have to wait for a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNVkPy-CEU&feature=related

I think this would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists. Its not simply about surviving the cold but its the fact that they actually managed to dry the towels, which implies they were actually able to generate energy. I am personally not suprised because I believe in chi, but if you are interested enough you could contact the people doing the research.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

or, if you are convinced by a History Television documentary.... Why doesn't said researcher apply for this:

http://skeptoid.com/challenge.php

I looked for stuff on PubMed by Herbert Benson, the researcher mentioned in the film, and it reveals much about relaxation techniques, but noting about chi, and, as far as I can tell, the sheet drying has not been published in a journal.

EDIT: the closest thing that comes to this, from Benson's published work, appears to be behavioural treatment for infertillity and the psychological aspects of disease

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha
one can never rule this out, especially given there are no replications. Researchers are not infallible.

unless their name is Jack Daniels...lol

kaaaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeee...HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Originally posted by AngryManatee
kaaaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeee...HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Dooooooodon PAAAAAAA!!!!!

HADOUKEN

we use t think when they did that on dbz they were gonna pass gas...lol

Originally posted by inimalist
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

or, if you are convinced by a History Television documentary.... Why doesn't said researcher apply for this:

http://skeptoid.com/challenge.php

Im not enitirely convinced but since ive experienced heat and other people have experienced heat when use chi im not suprised that people much better than me can dry towels. When I have time I will actually try and hunt this guy down and contact him.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://skeptoid.com/challenge.php

Why don't you ask him yourself.

Originally posted by inimalist
I looked for stuff on PubMed by Herbert Benson, the researcher mentioned in the film, and it reveals much about relaxation techniques, but noting about chi, and, as far as I can tell, the sheet drying has not been published in a journal.

EDIT: the closest thing that comes to this, from Benson's published work, appears to be behavioural treatment for infertillity and the psychological aspects of disease

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha
one can never rule this out, especially given there are no replications. Researchers are not infallible.

Or maybe you can try and contact him yourself or Boston Universcity.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im not enitirely convinced but since ive experienced heat and other people have experienced heat when use chi im not suprised that people much better than me can dry towels. When I have time I will actually try and hunt this guy down and contact him.

that evidence is, at best, anecdotal.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Why don't you ask him yourself.

oh wonderful, start a discussion and then pass off any responsibility for responding to criticism

Originally posted by inimalist
oh wonderful, start a discussion and then pass off any responsibility for responding to criticism

Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? Why the hell did you think I posted up the video in the first place?

I already told you even im not 100% convinced that its true but the point of posting the video is so that you can contact the people involved in the experiment, instead of me speculating what could be possible with chi.

What do you want me to say I can't dry towels in the freezing cold. I really don't know what your problem is.

Originally posted by inimalist
that evidence is, at best, anecdotal.


Like I said its a good place to start. IF thats actually what happened its worth investigating further. Humans arent supposed to survive in temperatures that low with freezing sheets let alone dry them. Just because they didn't fire lightning out of their fingertips doesn't mean we should rule it out completely.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? Why the hell did you think I posted up the video in the first place?

and a made for TV documentary played on the History Channel, to you, is really good evidence, even when the documentary doesn't show anything other than people wrapping themselves in what we are supposed to believe are cold wet blankets?

I'm sorry, would you rather me just lambast you for terrible evidence than ask you for more?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I already told you even im not 100% convinced that its true but the point of posting the video is so that you can contact the people involved in the experiment, instead of me speculating what could be possible with chi.

I did something that I feel is a little bit better than that. Instead of asking the person running the experiment, I looked for its publication, which, in peer-reviewed journals, appears to not exist. Its not hard for people doing research to find what they are looking for.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
What do you want me to say I can't dry towels in the freezing cold.

thats a good start

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I really don't know what your problem is.

right, because I don't agree with you, I have a problem.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Like I said its a good place to start. IF thats actually what happened its worth investigating further. Humans arent supposed to survive in temperatures that low with freezing sheets let alone dry them. Just because they didn't fire lightning out of their fingertips doesn't mean we should rule it out completely.

unfortunately, the only evidence that I have seen for that comes from a made for TV documentary

if that is the standard of evidence we are using, well, I'll go flag down a UFO to take bigfoot to the face on mars.

Originally posted by inimalist
and a made for TV documentary played on the History Channel, to you, is really good evidence, even when the documentary doesn't show anything other than people wrapping themselves in what we are supposed to believe are cold wet blankets?

I'm sorry, would you rather me just lambast you for terrible evidence than ask you for more?

Did you not see where I said I was not a 100% convinced? Did you not see where I said I intended to contact him and find out more information. Im not asking you to be convinced im asking you to keep an open mind and contact the people involved in the experiment. You are strawmanning.


Originally posted by inimalist

I did something that I feel is a little bit better than that. Instead of asking the person running the experiment, I looked for its publication, which, in peer-reviewed journals, appears to not exist. Its not hard for people doing research to find what they are looking for.


You can also contact Boston universcity and the man himself.


Originally posted by inimalist

right, because I don't agree with you, I have a problem.


You are strawmanning. Im not asking you to agree with me im asking you to keep an open mind and contact the people involved.

Im not the one with a problem here, don't put words into my mouth and don't accuse me of doing things im not trying to do.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Did you not see where I said I was not a 100% convinced? Did you not see where I said I intended to contact him and find out more information. Im not asking you to be convinced im asking you to keep an open mind and contact the people involved in the experiment. You are strawmanning.

You can also contact Boston universcity and the man himself.

You are strawmanning. Im not asking you to agree with me im asking you to keep an open mind and contact the people involved.

Im not the one with a problem here, don't put words into my mouth and don't accuse me of doing things im not trying to do.

telling me I don't have an open mind is also a straw man

I simply have a higher standard of evidence than you :shrug:

Originally posted by inimalist
telling me I don't have an open mind is also a straw man


Oh I see so were going to be a baby about it now?

Originally posted by inimalist

I simply have a higher standard of evidence than you :shrug:

Well considering that im not fully convinced by it anyway, then maybe not. I told you the reasons why im less sceptical about it and those are my personal experiences and those other people and you've got no right to tell those people they were halluicinating, but at the same time im not expecting you to take my experinces as evidence.

Basically you took what I was saying out of context and used it as an excuse to make fun out of peoples beliefs.

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, the only evidence that I have seen for that comes from a made for TV documentary

if that is the standard of evidence we are using, well, I'll go flag down a UFO to take bigfoot to the face on mars. If you let me come too I'll show you my Philosopher's Stone. We can go to Narnia on the way back.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you let me come too I'll show you my Philosopher's Stone. We can go to Narnia on the way back.

Or you can contact the people involved and find out for yourself which was the purpose of this thread.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you let me come too I'll show you my Philosopher's Stone. We can go to Narnia on the way back. I enjoy your literature based twist to the paranormal.

Thanks, you're a peach.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Or you can contact the people involved and find out for yourself which was the purpose of this thread. So the thread is just an advert then? You don't intend to actually defend anything?

Sorry, my horoscope told me that contacting anyone on the Eastern Seaboard would make the Illuminati send vampires and harpies to claw out my eyes.

I did find this article and video that will help your case.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So the thread is just an advert then?

Basically yes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

You don't intend to actually defend anything?

I can't dry towels with chi, whats to defend? At the end of the day you have the people involved in the experiments who you can contact if you are serious enough. I will.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Oh I see so were going to be a baby about it now?

lol, so you have evidence that I have a closed mind? Else, its a pretty obvious strawman. Not to mention that it is personally insulting, as I would consider myself fairly open to new things.

there is a phrase: "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well considering that im not fully convinced by it anyway, then maybe not. I told you the reasons why im less sceptical about it and those are my personal experiences and those other people and you've got no right to tell those people they were halluicinating, but at the same time im not expecting you to take my experinces as evidence.

I have every right to tell anyone what I please

and no, I don't take subjective experience as proof of anything. If you want, I can look up some lit that shows, pretty unequivocally, that self reports of this manner are essentially useless in science.

also, hallucination is a very loaded term, and it is an attempt to paint my position as dismissive. I'm not saying you or they did not feel anything, just that your perception is not valid evidence to me.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Basically you took what I was saying out of context and used it as an excuse to make fun out of peoples beliefs.

I certainly did not.

I mocked believing what you see on TV.

and my initial posts contained nothing but criticism, not insult.

that is to also forget that I looked for the work you are talking about before even posting about the man

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, so you have evidence that I have a closed mind? Else, its a pretty obvious strawman. Not to mention that it is personally insulting, as I would consider myself fairly open to new things.

Im talking about you acussing me of using that link as proof.

Originally posted by inimalist

there is a phrase: "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"

Whats that got to do with me?


Originally posted by inimalist


I have every right to tell anyone what I please

Yes you do and you can choose to be a dick about it as well.


Originally posted by inimalist

and no, I don't take subjective experience as proof of anything. If you want, I can look up some lit that shows, pretty unequivocally, that self reports of this manner are essentially useless in science.

Yes im aware that am I asking you believe in what I believe? Did I not say im not entirely convinced. Whats are you arguing about now?

Originally posted by inimalist

also, hallucination is a very loaded term, and it is an attempt to paint my position as dismissive. I'm not saying you or they did not feel anything, just that your perception is not valid evidence to me.

and do I have a problem with that? Whats your point, what are you arguing about now?


Originally posted by inimalist

I certainly did not.

Then why did you accuse me of believing what I see on TV?

Originally posted by inimalist

I mocked believing what you see on TV.

Which you accused me of doing.

Originally posted by inimalist

and my initial posts contained nothing but criticism, not insult.

Oh no your initial post didn't, but im not talking about that im talking about the hadokken statement. edit: its also pretty anooying to be told you should be lambasted for something you are not even doing.

Originally posted by inimalist

that is to also forget that I looked for the work you are talking about before even posting about the man

Do I have a problem with that?

ok, so you present a video, but you don't believe it

you have subjective experience, but they aren't convincing to you

you don't know if you believe in chi, yet you make a thread and get offended at some tongue in cheek remarks...

yet I'm close minded because I don't go talk to the researcher who is doing the experiments, even though there is no proper publication of them

like, ok, so what you are saying is that, even in light of no reliable evidence, we should all rush to ask the very person making the outrageous claims and give them credibility?

like, i dont know, if you had a video even of monks performing what is being claimed in the video, as, even that clip was cut for the purposes of the documentary. Would you be surprised to find out the monks in that scene were actors?

you seem to be getting really defensive about this, and I'm sorry if what you believe in doesn't qualify as scientific fact, but that is no reason to call people who are skeptical of your experiences close minded. How close minded is it to say that what you were experiencing couldn't be psychosomatic?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Basically yes.Then it doesn't belong in the Religion Forum. And I doubt this Professor doesn't have better things to do than answer spam.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I can't dry towels with chi, whats to defend? The assertion or belief that magical mystical kamehameha energy exists.

I've no doubt stress and relaxation have effects on the body, I'm sure Dr Benson is a perfectly credible scientist, and if these monks have managed to achieve a strange form of voluntary thermoregulation that's interesting. But it doesn't mean there's anything beyond the biochemical and physiological happening. And it doesn't go anywhere towards "proof that chi exists" and if I devoted my life to harnessing this awesome-o power I can subsequently yell Incendio and burn off someone's eyebrows.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so you present a video, but you don't believe it

In my opinion I think its possible but the sensible things to do is to contact him and find out more about the experiements. Whats the problem?

Originally posted by inimalist

you have subjective experience, but they aren't convincing to you


Stop trying to twist things around. They are convincing to me....I don't expect them to be convincing to you, get it?

Originally posted by inimalist

you don't know if you believe in chi, yet you make a thread and get offended at some tongue in cheek remarks...

I didn't say I didn't believe in chi I said im not 100% convinced by the video. Instead of being a man about admiiting your rude your making all the excuses in the world. When somebody is discussing their beliefs I try to be civil and not make tongue-in-cheek, remarks (unless they are fundamentalists). Its not just the remarks its accusing me of doing something im not.

Originally posted by inimalist

yet I'm close minded because I don't go talk to the researcher who is doing the experiments, even though there is no proper publication of them

like, ok, so what you are saying is that, even in light of no reliable evidence, we should all rush to ask the very person making the outrageous claims and give them credibility?

See what I mean, you making excuse again. Where did I say you should rush out ask the person? Even im not going to rush out ask him. Again you are assuming im trying to say something when thats not what im doing.

Originally posted by inimalist

like, i dont know, if you had a video even of monks performing what is being claimed in the video, as, even that clip was cut for the purposes of the documentary. Would you be surprised to find out the monks in that scene were actors?

Nahhhhh really??????? Why are you telling me this? Im well aware they could be actors but they not be.....thats why you can contact the people involved!!!!!!!

Originally posted by inimalist

you seem to be getting really defensive about this, and I'm sorry if what you believe in doesn't qualify as scientific fact,

I get defensive about everything! I don't really give a shit with its sceintific fact or not if I find enough evidence that its not true i'll reject it.

Originally posted by inimalist

but that is no reason to call people who are skeptical of your experiences close minded.

I don't have a problem with you being a skeptic ive got a problem with you being rude and accusing me doing something im not.

Originally posted by inimalist



How close minded is it to say that what you were experiencing couldn't be psychosomatic?


LOL what makes you think I haven't considered the possibility. See how you're trying to twist things around?

I have no qualms about admitting that I don't soften what I say. I have no problem telling people exactly what I think of their beliefs, especially while anonymous on the internet. Why would you suppose I wouldn't admit that?

I think you are missing the point in what I'm saying, with regard to contacting Dr. Benson. Assuming he is even interested in a bunch of people with no qualifications in his field emailing him to clarify an experiment, I don't consider that good evidence. Like, people can write books about whatever they want, they can make documentaries about what they want. Both of those are subject to freedom of speech and do not have peer-reviewed content. The editors of that video are going to care more about selling the idea than about truth. There is a reason my first reaction was to go to PubMed. Since, to the best of my ability, I was unable to find anything close to people being able to dry towels with their chi energy, I am assuming it was never published for peer review. It is such a publication that would make me believe there might be something to this, else my standard of evidence would be so low that I might as well believe in shape shifting reptiles, because I can contact those researchers and I'm sure David Icke will gladly confirm that they are real.

There is a question, to be sure, of whether the documentary is properly describing Dr. Benson's research, but lets say it is. Contacting him as a way of confirming what he has done is highly spurious. It would be like calling a priest to get a unbiased view of religion. Confirmation bias is a very salient thing in research, and not just paranormal research.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have no qualms about admitting that I don't soften what I say. I have no problem telling people exactly what I think of their beliefs, especially while anonymous on the internet. Why would you suppose I wouldn't admit that?

Thats not really what I have a problem with..... * sigh*


Originally posted by inimalist

I think you are missing the point in what I'm saying, with regard to contacting Dr. Benson. Assuming he is even interested in a bunch of people with no qualifications in his field emailing him to clarify an experiment, I don't consider that good evidence. Like, people can write books about whatever they want, they can make documentaries about what they want. Both of those are subject to freedom of speech and do not have peer-reviewed content. The editors of that video are going to care more about selling the idea than about truth. There is a reason my first reaction was to go to PubMed. Since, to the best of my ability, I was unable to find anything close to people being able to dry towels with their chi energy, I am assuming it was never published for peer review. It is such a publication that would make me believe there might be something to this, else my standard of evidence would be so low that I might as well believe in shape shifting reptiles, because I can contact those researchers and I'm sure David Icke will gladly confirm that they are real.

Again I don't have a problem with that? It seems you're not getting my point.

Originally posted by inimalist

There is a question, to be sure, of whether the documentary is properly describing Dr. Benson's research, but lets say it is. Contacting him as a way of confirming what he has done is highly spurious. It would be like calling a priest to get a unbiased view of religion. Confirmation bias is a very salient thing in research, and not just paranormal research.

That maybe the case but he might be able point you to sources were he has documented the experiment, he might be able to tell you why its not in a journal. Im not even opposed to actually going to the universcity myself but thats just me. Hell just because you couldn't find it alone doesn't mean it may not be documented.

Again I don't really give a shit wether you are sceptic or not too be truthful. Eventhough I believe in the supernatural I am very sympathetic to people who don't. I am really offended that you think im using that as evidence and that I expected you to believe in that just by looking at the video. I wasn't pissed off about the hadoken statement until you asked me wether he I should be lambasted for using it as evidence...which im not.

The whole point of the blasted thread was that maybe you could contact the people involved and get information on it if you were interested......its really that simple.

I don't feel the need to quote the first post in the thread back to you

however, the line under the video is something like "here is a good place to start with proof chi exists"

lol, you want me to admit I'm rude, sure, I am rude. That doesn't make me wrong, or my points any less valid.

I guess if you aren't trying to say chi is real, if you aren't trying to provide video or personal evidence, if you aren't trying to convince people, and if you only wanted to show people they could contact some person in the video (mind, you said the video isn't evidence, which then almost calls into question why we would want to contact them anyways), like, what's the point of the thread. Most people know there are people who believe in Chi, that one of those people is educated and is given money to study it is not highly convincing (especially given his research is more into relaxation).

and ya, you clearly care about whether or not I agree with you, else you would be way less defensive, and probably wouldn't nit pick words like "rush". I'm sorry basic scientific practices are offensive, I am only asking for proof.

If it's published in a peer-reviewed (life) scientific or medical Journal, then it would be on PubMed. Ergo it is not documented in a peer-reviewed Journal.

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.

The fact that other people have to go look for shit, while you're not providing anything besides a youtube video cutscene, and that you still expect people to want to go look for "the truth is out there" leads me to say "crap thread."

"I think this would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists." Heaven's forbid anyone be led to believe you were using it as evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't feel the need to quote the first post in the thread back to you

however, the line under the video is something like "here is a good place to start with proof chi exists"

What did I mean by that? Maybe you misunderstood me but I thought it was common sense that watching a video is not proof. My intention was that maybe it would interest you enough that you could contact the people involved if you wanted.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone


I am personally not suprised because I believe in chi, but if you are interested enough you could contact the people doing the research.

What do you think the underlined section of my post means ie I am more open minded about this than most people on this forum but if you are sceptical there are names of instuitions and scientists that you can contact.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone

lol, you want me to admit I'm rude, sure, I am rude. That doesn't make me wrong, or my points any less valid.

You can do what you like, but if you accuse somebody of doing something and thats not what they are doing it makes you look like a dick. If you want to look like a dick thats up to you.

Originally posted by inimalist

and if you only wanted to show people they could contact some person in the video (mind, you said the video isn't evidence, which then almost calls into question why we would want to contact them anyways), like, what's the point of the thread. Most people know there are people who believe in Chi, that one of those people is educated and is given money to study it is not highly convincing (especially given his research is more into relaxation).

So you think the thread is stupid, so what? The point is acussing me of using that video as evidence.


Originally posted by inimalist

and ya, you clearly care about whether or not I agree with you, else you would be way less defensive, and probably wouldn't nit pick words like "rush". I'm sorry basic scientific practices are offensive, I am only asking for proof.

See how you're making excuses again? You misunderstood what I was saying period. Instead of you simply admitting that you misunderstood what I was trying to do you're trying to put me on the defensive. Do I care what people think..to an extent but that doesn't mean I expect them to believe what I beleive by just watching a video....stop making excuses.

You misunderstood my intentions be a man and stop making excuses.

lol

so the only thing you are arguing about is whether or not you used the video as evidence?

look man, I'm not going to engage with you over something that childish. fine, you are right, the video is not evidence.

now you have even less evidence than before and there is no reason for me to contact anyone

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


The fact that other people have to go look for shit, while you're not providing anything besides a youtube video cutscene, and that you still expect people to want to go look for "the truth is out there" leads me to say "crap thread."

Im not telling anybody to do anything. Its not a hard concept to understand its up to you. Stop looking ofr an excuse to bite somebodies head off.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

"I think this would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists." Heaven's forbid anyone be led to believe you were using it as evidence.

If I was using it as evidence why would I want to contact the people involved to investigate further???? If it was evidence I would have just accepted the video. Stop trying to twist things around.

Multiple people being mislead by your sloppy statements says nothing of their ability to comprehend and everything of your ability to convey.

What a pointless waste of bandwidth.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Multiple people being mislead by your sloppy statements says nothing of their ability to comprehend and everything of your ability to convey.

What a pointless waste of bandwidth.

Stop makking excuses.


Originally posted by inimalist
lol

so the only thing you are arguing about is whether or not you used the video as evidence?

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!

Originally posted by inimalist



now you have even less evidence than before and there is no reason for me to contact anyone

If you said that in the first place there would have been no argument.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Multiple people being mislead by your sloppy statements says nothing of their ability to comprehend and everything of your ability to convey.

What a pointless waste of bandwidth.

Keep making excuses.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!

so, you made a thread called "chi and energy"

posted a video about scientists looking into it

and the only thing you wanted to express was that the video is not evidence for chi?

explain to me how this thread isn't spam then? it seems a fairly pointless discussion if there is to be no discussion of the validity of chi. and it certainly wouldn't belong in the religion forum.....

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Stop makking excuses. You post a video. Followed immediately by the statement that it "would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists." Followed by professing a belief in "chi."

I and apparently, inimalist, ergo multiple people interpreted this as you submitting the video as evidence of chi from the above sequence (shock! horror!). And considering we're in a subforum of the General Discussion Forum, I and apparently inimalist interpreted a thread being created here to be intended for the purposes of "discussion." (shock! horror!)

Instead this is apparently an advertisement for us to spam A/P Benson, after being wowed by what is apparently not intended to compel people to believe (ergo evidential of) chi. Brava.

Okay, no excuses, I admit to not realizing how much of a crap thread this was immediately.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

Good article but I think New Age people are thinking of radiation when they say energy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good article but I think New Age people are thinking of radiation when they say energy.

indeed

yet, one is lucky we don't irradiate

I think they mean the X-men when they talk about energy

Originally posted by inimalist
so, you made a thread called "chi and energy"

posted a video about scientists looking into it

and the only thing you wanted to express was that the video is not evidence for chi?

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.

Originally posted by inimalist

explain to me how this thread isn't spam then? it seems a fairly pointless discussion if there is to be no discussion of the validity of chi. and it certainly wouldn't belong in the religion forum.....

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.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You post a video. Followed immediately by the statement that it "would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists." Followed by professing a belief in "chi."

I and apparently, inimalist, ergo multiple people interpreted this as you submitting the video as evidence of chi from the above sequence (shock! horror!). And considering we're in a subforum of the General Discussion Forum, I and apparently inimalist interpreted a thread being created here to be intended for the purposes of "discussion." (shock! horror!)

Instead this is apparently an advertisement for us to spam A/P Benson, after being wowed by what is apparently not intended to compel people to believe (ergo evidential of) chi. Brava.

Okay, no excuses, I admit to not realizing how much of a crap thread this was immediately.


Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Not sure where to put this really but since chi is usually associated with spirituality I thought I would put this here. Ive spoken about this video before. It shows monks wrapping themselves in cold towels in very cold envinronments and drying the towels with their body heat. It doesn't shows it straight away you will have to wait for a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNVkPy-CEU&feature=related

I think this would be a good place to start with proof that chi exists. Its not simply about surviving the cold but its the fact that they actually managed to dry the towels, which implies they were actually able to generate energy. I am personally not suprised because I believe in chi, BUT IF you are interested enough you could contact the people doing the research.

What do you think the underlined bit means? I wasn't using the video as evidence the underlined bit clealy indicates its just something you might be interested in, my other posts also indicate that.

The issue here is wether or not I was using the video as evidence not wether I was going to discuss it.

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

Edit: I'm letting that 10% thing go..... for now!! >whew< But then, I already know you to be a gentleman and a scholar.

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. Given how much our knowledge and tech has advanced in the previous 50, I wouldn't be surprised.

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.