"Nadie Niemand" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:39:56 GMT, "Tom" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"rb1_622" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> >> "Tom" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<
[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> > Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that
would
> >> > provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific
> >community?
> >>
> >> Why do some people need scientific proof for everything?
> >
> >I don't. I didn't ask for scientific proof of everything. You have neglected to notice that I was
> >following up a statement made by Nadie Neimand in which she seems to indicate that qi *is*
> >detectable and measurable, so I asked this question to clarify her statement.
>
> You are just chock full of assumptions, false claims, and iIlogic based on no facts or either
> deliberate or completely incompetent interpretation of others statements and questions. One might
> think that your point is not to learn something, but rather simply to argue.
>
> First wrong assumption: the fake name associated with the fake e-mail address I post under is
> "Nadie"--Spanish for "Nobody", "Niemand"--German for "Nobody". Had you actually *read* my post,
> you would have seen that the name signed at the end of it was "Garry".
Since Garry has decided to end his conversation with a load of flamgae followed by a plonk, he
probably won't see my entire response, if he sees any of it at all. However, others may still be
reading this and would like to hear how I respond. So this is for the benefit of those who are
willing to listen.
Does my use of a screen name instead of a signature name have any bearing on the statement Garry
made about qi? It strikes me as completely irrelevant.
> BTW, just so's you'll know, Garry is a masculine name, not a feminine one. But this is probably
> all in vain anyways since you don't actually read other people's posts for comprehension; you're
> just trying really hard to get a flame war started and keep it going, no?
No.
> 2nd wrong assumption: YOU stated that qi is undetectable and unmeasurable.
This is incorrect. I never made that statement.
> I asked YOU to provide evidence of your claim.
What claim? I thin Garry may have confused me with Rick, who did make a claim like that.
> It is perfectly valid just to say, "there is no scientific proof one way or the other at
> this time."
This statement is also completely irrelevant to the question I posed to him.
> >I can measure the vibrations in the air that are identified as music. I can measure the
> >frequencies of the tones and record and replay the music
as
> >it is produced. I can play that music for anyone who claims music
doesn't
> >exist.
>
> You mean, like a person who has been deaf from birth?
Yes. Do you know any deaf people? Do any of them deny that music exists? I'll bet you can't find any
who sincerely believe that music doesn't exist.
> Can you show this person that the music is qualitatively different from other forms of vibration,
> different in such a way that it is beautiful and pleasing to the ear?
That a person who is totally deaf cannot appreciate music the way you can doesn't preclude them from
having scientific evidence that music exists.
> Can you communicate what music is to the deaf person?
I can. I cannot communicate how it feels to me, though.
If qi is not a form of energy, but is a feeling one gets when one moves or imagines in a specific
way, then Garry's analogy makes sense. The energy and frequency and rhythm of music can be detected
and measured by someone totally deaf. However, one can't detect and measure the feeling of beauty
and pleasure a hearing person gets from listening to music.
> >"Awareness" is an internal experience. I can be aware of a whole bunch
of
> >things that exist entirely within my imagination and have no correlation
at
> >all to external events. Those can't be detected or measured either.
Could
> >qi be like that?
>
> Yes, it could. Then again, maybe it isn't. Music could be like that, to a deaf person. Color and
> art paintings could be like that to a blind person. BTW, science is conducted by looking at
> evidence and evaluating it. Have you looked at any? I didn't think so, Mr. Flamer.
What evidence should I look at?
> >You asked me why some people need scientific proof of everything. So
I'll
> >ask you a question, too. Why do some people need to object to such questions?
>
> And why do some people need to answer a question with a question without answering what they were
> asked when they were the first to make a strong claim?
I did answer it. Perhaps, in Garry's zeal to decry me as someone who doesn't read with
comprehension, he wasn't reading my posts with comprehension. I said quite clearly, in direct
response to "rb1_622"'s question, that I was not asking for scientific proof of everything. I wasn't
even asking for scientific proof of qi. All I asked was whether Garry believed that qi was
detectable and measurable scientifically. The closest he has come to an answer so far is maybe it
can and maybe it can't, which seems evasive.
