throat chakra hot spot

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by David Dalton, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:59:03 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Qi cannot be detected or measured, and your "first hand experience"
    will be
    > >insufficient evidence to earn you that Nobel.
    >
    > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of experiments designed and
    > carried out by others (perhaps something similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved
    > the idea of an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that qi cannot be
    > detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the publication information or a URL please?

    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?
     


  2. Earl John

    Earl John Guest

    "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
    news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:59:03 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Qi cannot be detected or measured, and your "first hand experience"
    > will be
    > > >insufficient evidence to earn you that Nobel.
    > >
    > > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of experiments designed and
    > > carried out by others (perhaps something similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that
    > > disproved the idea of an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that qi
    > > cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the publication information or a URL
    > > please?
    >
    > 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?
    >

    Do you feel that there is a way to disprove the existence of Qi in a way that would make people stop
    doing QiGong?
     
  3. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "Earl John" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of experiments designed and
    > > > carried out by others (perhaps something similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that
    > > > disproved the idea of an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that qi
    > > > cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the publication information or a
    > > > URL please?
    > >
    > > 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?
    >
    > Do you feel that there is a way to disprove the existence of Qi in a way that would make people
    > stop doing QiGong?

    Certainly not. Nor is there any way to disprove the notion that the earth was directly created by
    God 6000 years ago in such a way as to make people stop some people from believing it.

    I'm not evangelizing. I'm asking a question.
     
  4. Karuna

    Karuna Guest

    Tom wrote:
    > "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote
    >>qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the publication information or a
    >>URL please?
    >
    > 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?

    Well first we'd have to train the lab rats in qi gong (presumably not the rats who were given dental
    amalgams, as that might interfere with the energies)

    Then grade them, maybe: Brown belt qi-rats; black belt qi-rats? Just have to find a qi gong lab rat
    teacher. Maybe the rat dentician knows one. "teenage mutant ninja rodents"

    Here's one abstract, but with a sad ending: they sacrificed the main characters. From a study by the
    University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson-Medical School, Newark, NJ
    08854, USA. "A preliminary study of the effect of external qigong on lymphoma growth in mice."

    OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of external qigong on the in vivo growth of transplantable
    murine lymphoma cells in mice.

    BACKGROUND: Qigong is a traditional Chinese health practice that is believed by many to have special
    preventive and healing power. Underlying the system is the belief in the existence of a subtle
    energy (qi), which circulates throughout the body, and when strengthened or balanced, can improve
    health and ward off or slow the progress of disease.

    To date, much of the literature showing the effects of qi are presented in the non-Western
    literature, and as such are viewed with considerable skepticism.

    In an attempt to demonstrate qi in a controlled setting, the effect of external qigong emission from
    a qigong healer on the in vivo growth of transplantable murine lymphoma cells in mice was explored
    in two pilot studies.

    METHODS: In study 1, 30 SJL/J mice were injected intravenously with lymphoma cells that localize and
    exhibit aggressive growth in the lymphoid tissues of untreated syngeneic recipients.

    These tumor-injected mice were divided into 3 groups:
    (1). qigong treatment (administered by a qigong healer);
    (2). sham treatment; and
    (3). no-treatment control.

    The sham group received the same number of treatments from a person without training in qigong, who
    imitated the motions of the qigong healer. The control group received no treatment at all.

    In study 1, the mice were sacrificed on the 9th or 11th days after tumor-cell injection, and in
    study 2, the mice were sacrificed on the 10th and 13th days. Tumor growth in lymph nodes (LN) was
    estimated by LN weight expressed as a percentage of total body weight.

    RESULTS: In study 1, LNs from mice in the qigong-treated group were significantly smaller than LN
    from mice in either the control group or in the sham treatment group (p < 0.05), suggesting that
    there was less tumor growth in the qigong-treated mice.

    In study 2, using the same design as study 1, the same pattern of difference found in study 1
    emerged: LN ratio from mice in the qigong-treated group was smaller than that in either the control
    group or in the sham group. However, these results did not reach statistical significance, partially
    as a result of larger variances in all groups in this study.

    CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results, while still inconclusive, suggest that qigong treatment from
    one particular qigong practitioner might influence the growth of lymphoma cells negatively. Further
    studies with different practitioners, more repeated trials, and/or different tumor models are needed
    to further investigate the effects of external qigong on tumor growth in mice. J Altern Complement
    Med. 2002 Oct;8(5):615-21. Chen KW, Shiflett SC, Ponzio NM, He B, Elliott DK, Keller SE.
    http://tinyurl.com/fjqx

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
    &db=PubMed&list_uids=12470443&dopt=Abstract
     
  5. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, rb1_622 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"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? If you observe people practicing tai chi
    >you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm of life. You can put music in notation, but
    >it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music is heard and felt. I think
    >understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that can't really be nailed down
    >with quantitative or qualitative analysis.

    You may be right, but that's not what a lot of people mean by qi. On the other hand, I don't know
    that any of those people have any way of measuring it. I do know someone who claims to have a sort
    of "compass" that can show you where the qi is particularly strong (in a room, say), but I've never
    seen it in action and I have no idea how it works.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  6. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > You may be right, but that's not what a lot of people mean by qi. On the other hand, I don't know
    > that any of those people have any way of measuring it. I do know someone who claims to have a sort
    > of "compass" that can show you where the qi is particularly strong (in a room, say), but I've
    > never seen it in action and I have no idea how it works.

    I'd be very interested to know if anyone has examined this device carefully.
     
  7. Rb1_622

    Rb1_622 Guest

    "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > You may be right, but that's not what a lot of people mean by qi. On the other hand, I don't
    > > know that any of those people have any way of measuring it. I do know someone who claims to have
    > > a sort of "compass" that can show you where the qi is particularly strong (in a room, say), but
    > > I've never seen it in action and I have no idea how it works.
    >
    > I'd be very interested to know if anyone has examined this device carefully.

    IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of experience. I can understand
    your need to quantify or measure the energy since this post was really about pain in the throat
    chakra. If this person has pain in that region they should see a physician. It may be organic in
    nature. I myself am very skeptical of claims that qi or raising kundalini can cause harm by
    overloading the nervous system. I have not had that experience.

    I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and bone breathing techniques, and
    the Western Middle Pillar exercise, along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have
    improved my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more focused. Stress has
    dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for concentration. And overall my thinking is much more
    integrated.

    It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of advancement. Reaching new levels is
    something that can only be understood internally by achieving deeper levels of meditation, finding
    more effective solutions to problem solving, and experiencing solace in one's life. Daoism has
    affected so many facets of my life that the only measurement I have is that I just keep getting
    better and better at my game.

    rb1
     
  8. Two_bears

    Two_bears Guest

    "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote

    > IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of experience. I can understand
    > your need to quantify or measure the

    Qi is experiencial

    > energy since this post was really about pain in the throat chakra. If this person has pain in that
    > region they should see a physician. It

    A better choice would be visit a good accupuncture therapist.

    > may be organic in nature. I myself am very skeptical of claims that qi or raising kundalini can
    > cause harm by overloading the nervous system. I have not had that experience.

    you DON"T want that experience either. Not all kundalini awakenings are that auden that the person
    is unable to deal with. Many kundalini awakenings are so gradual that they are unaware that it is
    happening.

    > I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and

    I am a fan of Zazen myself.

    > bone breathing techniques, and the Western Middle Pillar exercise, along with studying the chakra
    > centers. These exercises have improved

    The Midle Pillar (the one I have done) is NOT western in nature, It came deom the Kaballah
    originaly. The Kabbalah is mystical judaism. The middle pillar only works with 4 parts of the body
    that are aligned with 4 of the 7 chakras.

    > solace in one's life. Daoism has affected so many facets of my life that the only measurement I
    > have is that I just keep getting better

    Taoism is spelled with a T; but pronounced as a D.

    Taoism is probably the world's oldest (recorded) monotheistic religion. Taoism is more than 5000
    years old. Judaism only goes back about 3,800 years, and "christianity" as it is today only goes
    back 1500 - 1700 years. The indians and Hawaiians did not have a written language till about 200
    -300 years ago; so there is no idea how long they had been practising their faith.

    Aloha nui loa; Two Bears.

    Received the title 'master' 8 times; and STILL working on self mastery. Click the link to read my
    HUNA intro. http://www.geocities.com/huna101
     
  9. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of experience.

    The same can be said of daydreams.

    > I can understand your need to quantify or measure the energy since this post was really about pain
    > in the throat chakra.

    I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a "need".

    > I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and bone breathing techniques, and
    > the Western Middle Pillar exercise, along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have
    > improved my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more focused. Stress has
    > dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for concentration. And overall my thinking is much more
    > integrated.
    >
    > It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of advancement.

    No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are measurable.

    Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture. Focussing your attention
    on anything will improve your ability to focus your attention. Learning to quiet and relax your body
    with breath control will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your nerves, and focus
    your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been demonstrated through a considerable
    body of solid research in stress management.

    Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to do this?
     
  10. Tom wrote:
    > "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >>IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of experience.
    >
    >
    > The same can be said of daydreams.
    >
    >
    >>I can understand your need to quantify or measure the energy since this post was really about pain
    >>in the throat chakra.
    >
    >
    > I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a "need".
    >
    >
    >>I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and bone breathing techniques, and
    >>the Western Middle Pillar exercise, along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have
    >>improved my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more focused. Stress has
    >>dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for concentration. And overall my thinking is much more
    >>integrated.
    >>
    >>It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of advancement.
    >
    >
    > No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are measurable.
    >
    > Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture. Focussing your
    > attention on anything will improve your ability to focus your attention. Learning to quiet and
    > relax your body with breath control will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your
    > nerves, and focus your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been demonstrated
    > through a considerable body of solid research in stress management.
    >
    > Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to do this?
    >
    >

    great question!

    looking for a noun when really a verb is called for?

    blandcriminal
     
  11. Rb1_622

    Rb1_622 Guest

    "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > > IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of experience.
    >
    > The same can be said of daydreams.
    >
    > > I can understand your need to quantify or measure the energy since this post was really about
    > > pain in the throat chakra.
    >
    > I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a "need".
    >
    > > I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and bone breathing techniques,
    > > and the Western Middle Pillar exercise, along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises
    > > have improved my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more focused. Stress has
    > > dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for concentration. And overall my thinking is much more
    > > integrated.
    > >
    > > It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of advancement.
    >
    > No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are measurable.
    >
    > Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture. Focussing your
    > attention on anything will improve your ability to focus your attention. Learning to quiet and
    > relax your body with breath control will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your
    > nerves, and focus your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been demonstrated
    > through a considerable body of solid research in stress management.
    >
    > Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to do this?

    To improve my golf swing. ;)
     
  12. On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 07:56:37 -0500, "Two_Bears" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Taoism is spelled with a T; but pronounced as a D.

    Two Bears, my brother, you are correct about the pronunciation, and partially correct about the
    spelling. If you are using the Wade-Giles system of transcribing Chinese, then yes, you would spell
    it with a T. Wade-Giles has been in fairly common usage in the West.

    However, nowadays, the Chinese themselves use a system called Pinyin. In Pinyin you actually spell
    the word with a D. Personally, I like Pinyin much better. If you mean T, use T, if you mean D, use
    D. Much more to my liking! :)

    Just thought you would like to know.

    namaste,

    Garry
     
  13. Rb1_622

    Rb1_622 Guest

    "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? If you observe people practicing tai chi
    you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm of life. You can put music in notation, but
    it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music is heard and felt. I think
    understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that can't really be nailed down
    with quantitative or qualitative analysis.

    rb1
     
  14. On 30 Jun 2003 04:08:52 -0700, [email protected] (rb1_622) wrote:

    >"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? If you observe people practicing tai chi
    >you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm of life. You can put music in notation, but
    >it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music is heard and felt. I think
    >understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that can't really be nailed down
    >with quantitative or qualitative analysis.

    Interesting line of thought! By the same token, music is very mathematical, and if you took the
    mathematics out of it, it would sound like noise. And even noise has mathematics in it. Yet you
    don't have to be a mathematician to enjoy or even create music. I'm thinking taiji is much the same.
    It is very much about physics applied to "the flow and rhythm of life", as you put it, yet one can
    practice it, enjoy it, "play taiji", without being a physicist.

    Isn't it wonderful when knowledge and wisdom and experience blend together so harmoniously?

    Garry
     
  15. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "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.

    "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of experiments designed and
    > > carried out by others (perhaps something similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that
    > > disproved the idea of an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that qi
    > > cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the publication information or a URL
    > > please?

    Do you think it's unreasonable for me to ask her to clarify what she wrote?

    > If you observe people practicing tai chi you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm
    > of life.

    I can see that you think they are doing this. But, since it is alleged that I cannot detect or
    measure this rhythm you say they are tapping into, I simply have to take your word for it... or not.

    > You can put music in notation, but it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music
    > is heard and felt.

    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.

    Can we do that with qi?

    > I think understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that can't really be
    > nailed down with quantitative or qualitative analysis.

    "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?

    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?
     
  16. Jan S

    Jan S Guest

    rb1_622 wrote:

    > Why do some people need scientific proof for everything? If you observe people practicing tai chi
    > you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm of life.

    When you wrote the above I think you assumed two things:
    - That others see what *you* see in Taiji
    - That Taiji movements really are tapping into the "flow, rythm of life"

    I personally would never make the first assumption and the second assumption just doesn't make any
    sense to me. This is partly why *I* ask for scientific proof - to guard against making wrong
    assumptions about my environment and others.

    > You can put music in notation, but it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music
    > is heard and felt. I think understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that
    > can't really be nailed down with quantitative or qualitative analysis.
    >

    I agree with you here. :)

    Jan

    --
    Jan S j a n 1 1 4 @ o n l i n e . n o
     
  17. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 30 Jun 2003 04:08:52 -0700, [email protected] (rb1_622) wrote:
    >
    > >"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? If you observe people practicing tai chi
    > >you will see they are tapping into the flow, the rhythm of life. You can put music in notation,
    > >but it doesn't express the feeling or excitement one has when music is heard and felt. I think
    > >understanding qi is a lot like that. It's an awareness of the life that can't really be nailed
    > >down with quantitative or qualitative analysis.
    >
    > Interesting line of thought! By the same token, music is very mathematical, and if you took the
    > mathematics out of it, it would sound like noise.

    Very true. It is the perception of the relationships between the notes and rhythmic patterns
    (which can be expressed mathematically and measured precisely) which brings us our esthetic
    appreciation of music. If we could not detect these relationships, we would indeed hear no music.
    If we couldn't somehow measure (even if only roughly) those relationships and replicate them, we
    could not produce music.

    > And even noise has mathematics in it. Yet you don't have to be a mathematician to enjoy or even
    > create music. I'm thinking taiji is much the same. It is very much about physics applied to "the
    > flow and rhythm of life", as you put it, yet one can practice it, enjoy it, "play taiji", without
    > being a physicist.

    I agree. So, as I asked you before, do you think that qi is detectable and measurable
    scientifically, as music is?
     
  18. 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". 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?

    2nd wrong assumption: YOU stated that qi is undetectable and unmeasurable. I asked YOU to provide
    evidence of your claim. Asking you to provide evidence of a claim of non-existence is NOT the same
    as claiming existence. It is perfectly valid just to say, "there is no scientific proof one way or
    the other at this time." BTW, we're still waiting for either proof of your claim, or else at the
    very least a qualification of your prior statement, if not an out and out retraction. You could say
    "As far as I know, qi is not detectable or measurable" and that might be a true statement. But just
    not very useful for your purposes, huh? You need a really *strong* statement to get a good flame
    going, don't you? Just saying "AFAIK" just leaves you open to personal attacks about why you are
    even arguing about a subject of which you are completely ignorant.

    So, either you are a very poor reader and a completely inept logician, or else you are a flamer.
    Which is it? I personally vote for:

    http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame11.html

    >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? 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? Can you communicate what music is to the deaf person? Can you teach them to
    distinguish between good music and bad? Can you do it scientifically?

    >Can we do that with qi?

    Do you have functional eyes and ears and are you willing to look and listen? Or are you
    just a flamer?

    http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

    >"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.

    >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? Perhaps because they have no evidence to back
    up their position? Hmmm?

    http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

    Have a nice life! :)

    <Plonk>

    Garry
     
  19. Suzee

    Suzee Guest

    Tom wrote:

    > 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.

    Ahem... I guess you didn't see the signature...? Nadie Niemand, aka Garry. She's a he....

    sue
     
  20. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "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.
     
Loading...