I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!
I will probably get hammered on this question but oh well here it goes. is possible that Chi in general is referring to the oxygen that is carried in our blood? Thanks!
Forget about Yesterday, Live for Today and Pray for Tomorrow
www.Weaponsathand.com
"Anything is possible!"
It's possible, even probable (to some degree), that it's "an element" of it.
OTOH, depending on your experiences, there are instances where various manifestations of "chi" very obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of oxygen within your blood.
Which begs the question of whether experiences of Chi are mainly psychological
Chi is the primary element used to make "Yoga Fire".
im not sure about hard science but it is often referred to as "life energy"
and I do remember reading something about reading levels of biochemical activity or something...
I'll find the article but basically they had a reading that they associated with qi.
http://thestar.com.my/health/story.a...936&sec=health
some good info and I can can ask my wife who has a masters in oriental medicine for more resources if you are intrested
Last edited by sideslider; 04-16-2009 at 12:38 PM.
I'd definitely be interested. A complete scientific link to Chi would be fantastic.
There isn't one. The connect to electricity and biochemistry is that they show qi's exitence indirectly. The changes in them are because of a change in qi.
Let me ask you something, do you ever ask for a complete scientific link for a painting or a movie? What about music or a well written book? You don't need science for them and you don't need science for qi.
No, its not similar to electricity.Qi is similar to electricity. you cant see electricity, but you can know its existance from the fan or light it drive.
You can see electricity. You can feel electricity. Other people can see and feel electricity without any training, too.
Then it does not exist.There isn't one.
Then what is it? Manipulated electricity in the body? Willpower? Psychological mindset? Circulation? All of these can be explained through science.The connect to electricity and biochemistry is that they show qi's exitence indirectly.
The ridiculous thing about your statement is that there IS a complete scientific link to our ability to create and express ourselves. YES, there ARE things we do not yet understand about the human brain, but there is CONSISTENT PROGRESS being made to understand these things.Let me ask you something, do you ever ask for a complete scientific link for a painting or a movie?
Actually music, painting, and writing are all complete technical sciences. Then when you add in the human component they become expressive. The ability to express ourselves are ALSO Sciences related to psychology, our understanding of the human brain, and how our five senses shape our world for us.What about music or a well written book? You don't need science for them and you don't need science for qi.
If you don't understand melody or rhythm you can't exactly produce any kind of music, now can you? If you don't understand the language you're writing in, or the technical aspects of writing, you can't properly express yourself in writing, either. Nor can you properly express yourself in painting or drawing, unless you understand the technical aspects of that, either. Otherwise you're just drawing stick figures and ink blots.
Is it a valid artistic expression to draw, paint, or play music with no technical abilities? Absolutely. But the technical understanding of these things allows us to express ourselves to the fullest of our abilities.
That is NOT to say you can't teach yourself these things, or create your own ways, but even those ways are a result of a learning process, they become your technical abilities which you use to better express yourself.
And the expression itself can be explained scientifically, too. That doesn't make it worth any less, it simply means we're an incredibly developed people who understand the organic , incredibly complex computers that are brains really are.
You frickin' anti-science ass-hats really crack me up.
Yeah, we don't NEED science to explain to us why we can walk, talk, or learn.
But if we want to continually develop as a culture, if we want to continually develop and understand these concepts, then yes, we do NEED science.
Last edited by AdrianK; 04-16-2009 at 05:44 PM.
"qi" is a metaphor, albeit one that encompasses a variety of phenomena;
the character for "qi" was originally a pictogram depicting vapor rising off of fermenting rise; as such, the concept was firmly grounded in observable phenomenon; in TCM it generally correlates with a variety of relatively objective physiological processes that are clearly described and understood using contemporary knowledge paradigms; it was / is utilized to describe those physiological functions that were at one point observable only at a macro level; in some cases it was a discreet function that we would recognize today, such as respiration; in other cases, it was the net function of what we would refer to as a physiological system, such as digestion; in other cases, it referred to what would at present be defined as relating to a psychological state, be it a primary organic (e.g. - schizophrenia) or environment based (e.e.g - PTSD); of course, "ancient" Chinese culture included ideas about spirits, demons, etc., as well as a variety of other fantastical stories, so"qi" got tied up into some of this stuff as well, such as Taoist Immortals riding around on purple clouds...
the idea of "rhythm" permeates the metaphor of "qi": that is, a fundamental concept is periodicity, which is part of what gives the construct a great deal of predictive and prognostic power in context of medicine: basically by observing various rhythms in the body, one can become adept at correlating changes in one rhythm with another
"qi" also is used to describe a variety of relatively subjective sensorial experiences, such as what one might experience during certain types of exercises that impact the sensorimotor system; these include meditation, qigong, taiji, etc.; like any other form of exercise, these practices impact the physiology in different ways; if one ones 5 miles, the physiology will change to reflect that sort of activity, and one will experience an internal state change (e.g. - "runner's high"); likewise, if one practices "100 Days Opening", one will also have a set of "internal" experiences that reflect the nature of that particular practice; specifically, one will experience changes in one's autonomic nervous system that will cause various sensations internally, such as heat, feelings of lightness or heaviness, euphoria, calmness, etc.;
the idea of looking for "qi" as a discreet entity, as some sort of energy akin to heat, gravity, electricity, magnetism, potential / kinetic energy etc. is a fallacy; that's because the processes that "qi" describes all contain these energies to a varying extent: if we talk about the function of the human body, any time you describe any physiological process, you involves all of these forces; "qi" is a the unifying descriptor; that includes emotional / psychological function as well;
saying that "qi" cannot be described by / doesn't need "science" is an extremely narrow-minded perspective; the bod is the body; the universe is the universe; different people / cultures have described it in different ways, but we are all looking at the same thing; the difference is one o approach: so-called "eastern" culture, to some extent, looks at the macro in order to understand the micro (relatively speaking); so-called "western" culture looks at things in a reductionist way, trying to understand things at their "smallest" in order to then understand the whole; meaning, that, both are "holistic", just coming at it differently; I find it interesting how people are so quick to point out the "limitations" of science, and talk about how the Chinese really understood the "internal" workings of things so much better: well, the Chinese didn't know about cellular function, DNA, atomic theory, sub-atomic particles, etc.; certainly, their perspective might have inferred it, but if anything, current "science" has looked at the "internal" much more deeply than any one else has done, ever; strange then, that this "mysterious energy" manages to evade objective detection, but exists very abundantly from a subjective perspective, usually amongst people who do not posses the knowledge to correlate what they feel with current understanding of physiology...
"qi" was what was used when the technological limitations got in the way of specific observation at a level smaller than what was observable with the human senses at the time; it described a gestalt effect with the main purpose of having predictive / prognostic value in medicine, but also as a means of talking about the interrelated nature of all things, something that has been a commonly discussed idea throughout the history of mankind, but every different culture, in lots of different ways; so nothing unique there - it's all in context of how we as humans experience the universe within which we "exist"
Last edited by taai gihk yahn; 04-16-2009 at 07:09 PM.
With this thinking, ideas don't exist. Science has no place in the subject of qi. It has no place in the subject of meaning, philosophy. The best it can describe is the mechanism of a thing, but not the reason. Explain how science was required for logic, when the scientific method itself uses logic.
[quote]Then what is it? Manipulated electricity in the body? Willpower? Psychological mindset? Circulation? All of these can be explained through science.
No, no, no, no and no. My sentences in the post you quoted already explained that. You have just made me needlessly restate them (although in an abbreviated form) because you didn't want to pay attention.
Since none of those things are qi, it doesn't matter one ****, if those things can be explained through science. It's good to see you are incapable of average thought.
But, not the reason why creativity is expressed. All science is doing is explaining a mechanism. And since there is a variety to the mechanism, science is not explaining WHY (see, I can capitalize words, too) someone would choose one way to express something, while someone else chooses something else.The ridiculous thing about your statement is that there IS a complete scientific link to our ability to create and express ourselves.
Stop acting like you're in second grade and use your brain.
I'll tell you what. On this point, when you read up on NOMA, then we can return to this point. But, I'm gonna bet you don't know it without looking it up first.YES, there ARE things we do not yet understand about the human brain, but there is CONSISTENT PROGRESS being made to understand these things.
Psychology is refered to as a soft science, one of the humanities. You don't even understand what soft science means. I'd say go back to school, but you're continuing to prove you never went in the first place or you didn't finish.Actually music, painting, and writing are all complete technical sciences. Then when you add in the human component they become expressive. The ability to express ourselves are ALSO Sciences related to psychology, our understanding of the human brain, and how our five senses shape our world for us.
Bull$hit. Only the dumbest motherfu@ker is gonna claim science is required to understand melody or rhythm. Beethoven didn't use the **** scientific method to write his music.If you don't understand melody or rhythm you can't exactly produce any kind of music, now can you?
Once again, you are proving to not be capable of things elementary school kids can do. I'll get my 10 year old niece to tutor you.
Spoken languages have existed. So have pictoral languages. Here's a thought, watch the discovery channel. Eventually, amongst all the cgi dinos and monkeys, they talk about early people. That way, you can have giant pictures and sound effects like the other big boys.If you don't understand the language you're writing in, or the technical aspects of writing, you can't properly express yourself in writing, either.
You have proven once again that you are one of the largest dumba$$ on this board. You never heard of cave drawing or an oral history of a people. God, your school must have been $hitty teaching history.
You never took art in school, did you? Tell me how a first grader is gonna use the bleedin' scientific method to fingerpaint.Nor can you properly express yourself in painting or drawing, unless you understand the technical aspects of that, either. Otherwise you're just drawing stick figures and ink blots.
A drawing is a drawing, regardless of how fu@ked up you want to say it is. A bad drawing is still a drawing.
You haven't provided **** to show science is needed to make art. You could randomly throw trash together and someone will find it to be art.
You are arrogant. Where are you getting this 'fullest expression' from? Based on what? How are you gonna measure what someone's fullest expression capabilities are? Da Vinci could do more life like drawings of people, Picaso made them all looked fu@ked up during his cubism period. Are you gonna sit there and tell me that during his cubism phase, Picaso wasn't expressing himself to the fullest of his abilities?Is it a valid artistic expression to draw, paint, or play music with no technical abilities? Absolutely. But the technical understanding of these things allows us to express ourselves to the fullest of our abilities.
There are ways I'm thinking of expressing myself right now and they've got zero to do with science or the scientific method.That is NOT to say you can't teach yourself these things, or create your own ways, but even those ways are a result of a learning process, they become your technical abilities which you use to better express yourself.
More bull$hit. Assuming there is something without any proof is not science. It is not being scienfitic. You can't even get away with it by saying this is not a lab or this is just the discussion at the 'every day man's' level. This is why you don't see me claiming qi is science or scientific. The next time you debate science, don't do something stupid, like this.And the expression itself can be explained scientifically, too. That doesn't make it worth any less, it simply means we're an incredibly developed people who understand the organic , incredibly complex computers that are brains really are.
I've wasted enough time on your stupidity. I'm not speaking to you on any subject again. I don't want to become infected by your shameful disregard for facts, logic and reason.You frickin' anti-science ass-hats really crack me up.
Yeah, we don't NEED science to explain to us why we can walk, talk, or learn.
But if we want to continually develop as a culture, if we want to continually develop and understand these concepts, then yes, we do NEED science.
Adrian - you may want to re-acquaint yourself with this parable...