Ki & Chi?

[StanLee]

In your opinions,do you think that there is a distinct difference between ki and chi? Or do you think there are "grey" areas where the two concepts overlap?

[Pero]

Do you mean ki - japanese and chi - chinese?
I think that they basically mean the same thing. But I think that ki in Japan is a wider concept than chi in China.

[StanLee]

Do you mean ki - japanese and chi - chinese?
I think that they basically mean the same thing. But I think that ki in Japan is a wider concept than chi in China.

Yes I do mean japanese ki and chinese chi.

I posted this question because I had once read somewhere that the two aren't quite the same.

Any other takers on this one??? A more detailed explaination?

Cheers

[The Nephilim]

Personally, I think they are the same. It is still the internal energy of the body, but in a different manner.

One country and philosophy goes deeper into the meaning than the other yet in the holistic view, both are in essence, the same feel regardless of wording.

[moksha]

StanLee,

Ki, and Chi are the same. The Chinese Kanji no matter if it is read by a Chinese person, or a Korean it has the same meaning. The only difference is the pronunciation of the Kanji. The both mean Body, and Mind together. Hope that helps.

[Whiskey Jack]

I'm sure that if you get down to a very microscopic cultural level you can find differences between the concepts. Just as you'll find minor differences in the cultural interpretation of "heart" in the different European countries. The similarities, however, generally outweigh the differences by so large a degree that, unless we're debating the finer points of theology/philosophy, we can use them pretty interchangably.

For that matter, in an ecumenical MA discussion you could probably lump the Brazilian idea of Axé in as well. Its application in the martial arts doesn't differ too significantly.

[total-immortal]

It's just the bodys energy that flows through it and sustains it as far as I've known. Ki and Chi, two different names same basic meaning/idea.

[Kimpatsu]

The words "ki" (Japanese) and "chi" (Chinese) are the same; they are written with the same character. Where the concept is perhaps more greatly bound up in Japanese culture is that the standard Japanese greeting for "how are you" is "how is your ki?" ("O-genki desuka"), whereas the standard Chinese greeting is "Have you had your meal?"
Make of that what you will.

[Kimpatsu]

Energy could be about the energy felt by the senses of one's body, or the energy seen in the movement of objects, or the energy of the atomic particles, or simply the broad descriptive term of anything causes action or movement including the processes of being alive.
This sounds like a woo-woo definition of energy to me. Care to elaborate?

[Gene Williams]

Dear God!!! Pleeze,pl,pl,pl,pleeeeeze!!! Not Bruce and Tony again. Help!!!!Help!!! Calling all mods! This is not a drill!!!!! :eek: :eek:

[Kimpatsu]

Dear God!!! Pleeze,pl,pl,pl,pleeeeeze!!! Not Bruce and Tony again. Help!!!!Help!!! Calling all mods! This is not a drill!!!!! :eek: :eek:
No, it's a hammer, Gene. :D

[Gene Williams]

You are right about the woo woo thing, though. :D

[StanLee]

Good to have both Tony and Bruce in on this discussion.

I somehow managed to have got into my head that the japanese and chinese each have a different usage for the word.

[Kimpatsu]

Oh, god it is THE Bruce Baker!
---
Bruce, science doesn't admit to the existence of ki/chi. It simply doesn't exist. Anything you say ownstream of that point is therefore pseudoscientific, and nonsense. If you can demonstrate the existence of this mystical force, you'll win $1 million and a Nobel prize. So why not go for it?

[Mandeigh Wells]

http://www.ipn.at/ipn.asp?AQB

[Mandeigh Wells]

http://www.chiexplorer.com/newsletters/084/084_A.html

[Kimpatsu]

Mandeigh, directing me to those woo-woo sites don't help. The first site was classic pseudoscience, right down to the misuse of the word "energy". The sites prove nothing. Have the authors submit their claims to a peer-reviewed journal, such as "Nature" or "The Lancet". Then I'll start to take their claims seriously.

[Mandeigh Wells]

Oh yes how silly of me, I forgot, you don't accept any input that doesn't conform to the slenderest most minimal supposed scientific evidence collectors that you subscribe too.......and the continually changing goal posts of course.....why is that? Because you don't want to ever find out if this stuff exsists in reality, because the only person who is wooo wooo is you. I love the term 'peer-reviewed' its a bit like the police policing themselves. It would appear that there are people the world over running scientific tests on a variety of your wooo wooo subjects, some of there findings are very interesting indeed, but not that that would ever matter to you Tony, its far more comfortable for you to sit back and use the old chestnut...collect your million $$$ here. You are a one trick pony Tony.

By the very fact of your non acceptance of qi/chi/ki (or insert any number of Tony's favourite woo wooo subjects here) whatever term any one wants to give it, regardless of anyones experirments, makes you something of a non-expert really. You are a classic example not so much of a skeptic, cos a skeptic at least has an open mind, but of an individual with a very narrow vision, based on the current limitations of the scientific industry....... I prefer to live in a world of possibilities.....whether they are measurable yet or not.....

[Gene Williams]

Trick pony... :) I like that.

[Kimpatsu]

Mandeigh, your lack of understanding is science is certainly extensive, but all you are doing is showing yourself up. I like your claim about the "police policing themselves"; it is in the very nature of the science to be self-correcting. Your woo-woo sites do not conform to even the basic nations of how to examine phenomena; for a start, the ki test was not even double-blinded!
Getting angry does nothign to change the facts: these people are full of nonsense. Their claims do not hold water. If they really did, why have these people never won the $1 million, and a Nobel prize? The real woo-woo idea is that scientists are somehow engaged in a vast conspircacy to conceal the Truth as you see it. Nothing could be more wrong, particularly as the way a scientist makes a reputation is by proving their forerunners incorrect. Belief in such conspiricies, however, is yet another fact of woo-wooism, in which reality is just too hard a pill to swallow.
Just do me a favour, and apply for the $1 million. I look forward to reading your propsoed protocol.

[Mandeigh Wells]

Yep.....just proved my point again Tony.

[Kimpatsu]

Namely that you're scientifically illiterate, Mandeigh? Yes, I beleive I have.
Reality is that which does not change, even when you're denial about it.

[Mandeigh Wells]

interesting response Tony. Neigh.........

[Gene Williams]

Namely that you're scientifically illiterate, Mandeigh? Yes, I beleive I have.
Reality is that which does not change, even when you're denial about it.

"i" before "e" except after "c" and sometimes "y."

[Kimpatsu]

"i" before "e" except after "c" and sometimes "y."
Gene, don't confuse typos with misspelling.
That's what i get immediately before bed, when I'm tired.

[Kimpatsu]

Yeah, Ki and Chi are a fantasy of the human mind, but it is about as good as it gets for now ....

If Tony has something better, or can educate us ... do so. I for one .. can do without the sarcasm, can't you?
CHi/Ki (for simplicity's sake, I'll stick to just using "ki" hereinafter) is a nonscientific concept created in ancient China to explain the scientific phenomenon of life. To ancient peoples all over the world, the only clear thing that they could see distinguished a live body from a dead one was breathing. Hence god imbuing Adam with the "breath of life" in the Biblical creation myth. (This is also why the words "spirit" and "respiritory" have the same root.) Native Americans depicted the soul (i.e., last breath) as a bird escaping from the mouth, and it is also why the traditional British method of execution for centuries was hanging; it meant that the spirit could not escape, but was doomed to linger in the vicinity of the condemned, a shade subject to earthly torment until the Second Coming. The ancient Sino-Japanese model of "ki", as a mysterious "lifeforce" to explain the difference between life and death, is no less so. Forget references to QM; this is just so much pseudoscientific gobbledeygook. The reality is that life is an epiphenomenon of complex biochemical processes that are ongoing all the time in all living cells. To stick to the human model, for example, the Krebs cycle occurs approx. 10 million times per second in every single cell in your body, and that's jst one of the many complex processes. Death is the cessation of those processes. Life is not an external "force" (a word much beloved by the woo-woos!) that animates a physical body for approx. 70 years and then departs; life is a consequence arising of these processes. Death is the cessation of those processes, not the departure of something external. All "ki" claims to the contrary are de facto claiming that all of modern science is wrong. If you beleive that, why are you using a computer? How do you think it works? Pixies inside the machine are manipulating images at high speed (pace Douglas Adams)? Of course not. You, too, accept mechanistic causality as the explanation only correct and viable explanation why your PC works as it should. (Most of the time; Windows software is different, but then I always suspected Bill Gates is really the Devil... :D )
Does that answer your question, Bruce, or would you like more?

[Peter Rehse]

So is there any difference between Ki and Chi? As far as martial artists from those respective cultures would understand it.

And Tony is dead on here Mandeigh. I've always liked the comparison of ki/chi to the four humors of Greek medicine. I've read medical textbooks from the forties that referred to them. Remarkably persistent but both concepts were once used to describe a much broader range of phenomenon which narrowed dramatically once science reared its ugly head.

[Kimpatsu]

So is there any difference between Ki and Chi? As far as martial artists from those respective cultures would understand it.
No, there's no difference, Peter, any more than there's a difference in definition between the English "god" and the French "dieu", for example. Disagreements as to what constitutes "god" are denominational, not cultural. Similarly, there are different schools of accupuncture, moxibustion, etc., that define "ki" differently, but that's to do with their different schools of thought, and have nothing to do with whether they are Japanese or Chinese (or Korean, for that matter).

[Kimpatsu]

Clearly if you did actually read what I wrote, Bruce, you didn't understand it. I started with several illustrations from different cultures of the superstition surrounding the epiphenomenon of life, and then went on to explain why there is no need to resort to superstition to explain said epiphenomenon. Or didn't you read that part?
Once again, you misdefine the word "energy". If something is energy, it can be measured in joules. A joule is either the energy required to employ one Newton (i.e., the force required to move a 1-kg mass 1 metre), or the energy required to pass one amp through a resistance of 1 ohm for 1 second. If whatever you're talking about can't be measured in this way, it isn't energy.
Different cultures have broadly arrived at similar conclusions regarding the mystical nature of life not because there's some validity to the notion, but because as all people are human, they conceptualise their environment in the same way. (Oh, and BTW, Bruce, the sky and the land are NOT "eternal"; wait another four billion years and see what I mean.)
The universe is NOT alive. It does not have a genetic structure, and cannot pass on self-replicating molecules. (Where would its offspring exist, anyway? Elsewhere on the same brane, or on a different brane? How would it branch to a different brane, and as the universe is a closed system, how would the matter in question, even in the form of energy--note the correct use of the term--make the journey to that brane?) Any definition of life requires a genetic component; without it, such phenomena as fire, typhoons, and tsunami could be defined as life. Bioelectrical energy in the human body is again an epiphenomenon of certain biochemical processes--the Krebs cycle being a perfect example, as it is the descriptor of sugar metabolisation, which gives the cells fuel. If you really think that lightning storms are "somewhat the same", I suggest that instead of eating Bic Macs in future, you plug your finger into the light socket, and see where it gets you.
You claim to have spent the past two years "chasing down new discoveries", Bruce. In which laboratory have you been working? What is the name of the university? Watching the Discovery channel and reading woo-woo posts on the internet don't count. You also say that science will "one day figure out what ki is". We already have; ki doesn't exist, which is the--key (ha ha!)-- point of everything I have posted in this thread, and yet is one you have consistently missed. You are hankering for scientific validation of a non-existent phenomenon. You are never going to get it, Bruce. Energy--real energy, not the woo-woo definition--is supplied to your cells by metabolic processes, following catabolism by means of eating and drinking. Don't take the "my body is a machine" metaphor too far; the real genius lies in knowing where the metaphor is applicable, and where it's lousy, an excuse not to have to think in biochemical terms. Contrary to what you believe, Bruce, it really IS "as simple as (bio)chemical processes". Trying to graft quasi-mystical explanations on top violate Occam's razor, and are moving further away from true explanations. You claim to have spent two years researching energy, and yet still misunderstand its basic definition. Learn that first, Bruce, and then you will see the need to rewrite your last post completely.
If you can find the energy to do so...

[StanLee]

Now this is the kind of discussion I was looking for when I first started the thread.

Keep it coming!

[Aikido_Girl918]

Okay guys, I am really interested in the more....how do I put this......spiritual? Side of Martial Arts and I would love to learn about Ki and Chi, but could someone please put this in simpler terms? I am 12! I started a thread asking "what are Ki and Chi?" yesterday and nobody answered. I am simply looking for some answers that nobody seems to be willing to give! Please, can somebody explain? In case you are wondering, our sensei doesn't teach the kids class (I can't move up untill i am 13, i won't move up until i have junior black belt) anything so complicated as Ki and Chi seem to be, probably because kids can and do ener as young as 5. I am going to ask him soon about more things like Ki and chi, but i just took a big step in martial arts as it is and I want to get on feet as far as that goes before I get into anything else at the dojo. if I can talk to somebody here than I can focus soley on what is going on at the dojo without my mind wondering off trying to figure out what Ki and Chi are. please help!

Fanci Rosselot

[Kimpatsu]

I don't understand what you mean by "spiritual", but ki/chi simply doesn't exist.
Could you be more specific?

[Aikido_Girl918]

i don't know, i am very confused. and also very interseted

[Aikido_Girl918]

i guess i meant softer side. the side of martial arts that doesn't revolve around fighting and self defense, the side of martial arts that is more about changing your life, becoming one with nature, etc.

[Jeff C.]

Tony, that is very helpful. :rolleyes:

Fanci, some people believe that "ki" or "chi" is some mystical, magical "life force" power that flows throughout our bodies and all living things, and if properly harnessed allows us to do superhuman things. Many people like Tony and I believe that is complete bunk. Virtually every demonstration of ki can be explained through normal biomechanical principles. Unfortunately some "martial artists" are demonstrating nothing more than a magic trick.

Just focus on perfecting your technique. That is ALL you need to do.

Jeff Cook

[Cliff Hargrave]

Fanci, one thing you need to understand is that there is nothing magical about martial arts. The whole "self improvement" thing is great but martial arts do not have a leg up on any other activity in that aspect. You can pick just about any constructive activity, sports, art, school work, etc. Things that make you concentrate, spend time practicing and perfecting, and allow you to accomplish goals will do. If you want to use martial arts for that then great, but don't get caught up in the mumbo jumbo. When you spend time and sweat to learn and perfect a new technique, you contribute to your own self worth. It builds your confidence and motivation to learn more. this effects you over time, no short cuts. Those seeking enlightenment or oneness or whatever are reaching for the shortcuts that do not exist. Stay focused on your training and the rest will come naturally.

[Gene Williams]

Well put, Cliff.

[Tony Dismukes]

Rather than compose an original response, I'd like to cut & paste a post I made in another (non-martial arts) forum when a similar discussion came up. Just replace the word "chakras" with the word "chi", and the meaning should hold the same.

If anyone is interested, here (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/19523#332757) is a link to the original discussion this quote comes from.


"Just my 2 cents on chakras, as a sometimes practitioner of yoga and a long-term advanced student of the martial arts: I believe that the concept of chakras was invented to explain certain localized physical, kinesthetic & emotional experiences/sensations discovered while pursuing various mind/body exercises. These experiences are somewhat consistent for a variety of people doing the exercises and provide a practical mental focus for people doing certain types of exercises for awareness & control of the body and emotions. The problem comes when you try to interpret the chakra as a literal thing rather than as a metaphoric construct for internal experiences that probably have a variety of physical causes having to do with brain and PNS wiring."

Later in the thread ...

"No one seems to have made reaction to my original thought about the nature of chakras, However, I think that thought provides a bridge between ptermit's and mediareport's views. If you take the theory of chakras in its literal sense as a vitalistic theory about mystical energies, then ptermit is quite right to reject it in the absence of good evidence. However, in order to reject something, you need to know what it is you are rejecting.

The original creators of yoga, tai chi & other mind-body disciplines were not biologists or physicists. The were people who had discovered useful, practical ways to control their own bodies and emotions. They needed a way to describe to their students how to do these things and what it felt like. Even if they had had the knowledge to describe exactly what was happening from a scientific viewpoint (in terms of alpha waves, release of hormones, stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system), it wouldn't have been of practical use to the students. They had to describe what the sensations actually felt like. That's where the chakra concept came from. Much of the theoretical interpretation of these experiences probably came later.

I'll give an of example from outside yoga. In aikido, there is a trick called "the unbendable arm." A skinny aikido practitioner imagines a stream of energy flowing out through his arm, through the fingertips and off to infinity. A big, strong volunteer are invited to bend the practitioner's arm. He can't. The big, strong volunteer is invited to make his arm as strong as possible. The aikido practitioner bends the volunteer's arm with ease. This is a replicable experiment. I've done it many times myself. The beam of energy actually makes the martial artist's arm stronger. From a practical standpoint, it works. Of course, the fact is that there is no beam of energy. Visualizing the energy just happens to makes the practitioner's triceps contract fully while completely relaxing the biceps. The big, strong volunteer inevitably tightens his biceps while trying to be strong, thereby undermining his own strength. Chakras work the same way. They have practical value. they just don't literally exist."

[lightninrod]

Once again, you misdefine the word "energy". If something is energy, it can be measured in joules. A joule is either the energy required to employ one Newton (i.e., the force required to move a 1-kg mass 1 metre), or the energy required to pass one amp through a resistance of 1 ohm for 1 second. If whatever you're talking about can't be measured in this way, it isn't energy.

Well, apparently you don't know the defenition for energy either. From Webster:

Main Entry: en·er·gy
Pronunciation: 'e-n&r-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Late Latin energia, from Greek energeia activity, from energos active, from en in + ergon work -- more at WORK
1 a : dynamic quality <narrative energy> b : the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy>
2 : vigorous exertion of power : EFFORT <investing time and energy>
3 : the capacity for doing work
4 : usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power
synonym see POWER

Some types of energy can't be measured using your standard. Such would include mental energy, light energy, heat energy (BTUs), atomic energy, chemical energy, etc. Your limited defenition of energy only applies to electrical and mechanical energy. You are also very conveniently skipping over the fact that all of these forms of energy existed long before scientists ever found ways to measure them. But, just because scientists couldn't measure them in the past didn't make them nonexistant. All of this means that your standard of declaring something nonexistant due to a lack of a measurment system for it is absolutely absurd. You keep going on and on about science, but you make the same basic mistake that many scientists have made since there was such a thing as "science". That is, you ignore any other possible explanations except the one that you want to assert as being correct. This is the exact bias that some people refer to when they say science is biased. Truthfully, science (coneptually) is unbiased, but people aren't. So as long as people are involved in science.....
If you were as smart and scientific as you seem to think you are, you would have already thought about all this and I wouldn't be having to point it out to you. You continually flout your personal beliefs and biases as "scientific" while ignoring all evidence to the contrary, which means you really aren't scientific at all.


Justin Mears

[Tony Dismukes]

Some types of energy can't be measured using your standard. Such would include mental energy, light energy, heat energy (BTUs), atomic energy, chemical energy, etc. Your limited defenition of energy only applies to electrical and mechanical energy.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Light energy, heat energy (BTUs), atomic energy, chemical energy, etc can all be measured in joules. 1,000 joules = 1 BTU. Other units of measurement may sometimes be used when dealing with energy in different forms, but they can all be converted to joules.

"Mental energy" uses the term "energy" in a more metaphorical fashion. Technically, you could measure the electrical energy used by the brain in joules, but generally we use "mental energy" to refer more to a subjective experience. (Unless you're referring to some sort of a mystical energy used for psychic powers, in which case the evidence strongly suggests that it doesn't exist.)

[Kimpatsu]

Once again, Bruce posts absolute rubbish masquerading as what he thinks is science. This is not how science is done, Bruce. Can you figure out why not...?

[Jeff C.]

Bruce, sometimes water is just.......water. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jeff Cook

[Aikido_Girl918]

Thanks guys (and/or girls), that helps, but still i would like to put up a few of my own little....hints that there may be something more out there. before i get started a couple of you seemed to think i was just looking for an easy way to learn.No. I don't believe there are any easy ways out withinthe martial arts-or anywhere. it just doesn't work that way! i am not after some type of magic, i am after more knowledge of interesting matters and the full experience of the martial arts.please excuse my spelling and grammer as i just don't bother on chat forums. anyway, you could ask my parents, my sensei's, anyone who really knows me and they will tell you that from day one i have been working hard to prove myself. i have goals within the martial arts and i will never quit. there is no end to the knowledge to be gained in aiki-tora-ryu aikido. even shihan neal hummerstone, founder of aiki-tora-ryu, learns something new every day. there is no end. it is infanit (sp?). anyway, i have my books right here with me containing the history of Hwarang-do andthe history of aikido containing a few interesting points. see what you make of them. keep in mind these are exact quotes and they are from handbooks from my dojo so i do not know the information sources.

History of Hwarang-Do:

Nea-Gong (inner power) is based on Yin and Yang, the universal energy or life force, sometimes reffered to as complimetary opposites. this is the same energy in which aikido bases its techniques and applies during the execution of various maneuvers. this energy, accordin to oriental philosophy, comes frome ones center, or tan tien.


History of Aikido:

1.Iwama is considered the birthplace of aikido. Prior to his (Ueshiba Morihei's) move to Iwama, Morihei's system was calledAiki-jutsu, then Aiki-budo, still primarily arts rather than spiritual paths.

2. during the years from 1942 when the name aikido was first formally used to 1952, Morihei consolidated the techniques and perfected the religous philosophy of aikido.

3. (part of an actual quote from Ueshiba Morihei)...that is to say, to sweep away the impure world into the world of spirit. This is the mission of aikido.

well, i will chat tomorrow, have fun with all that. :wave:

[Kimpatsu]

Bruce, you are talking CLOOB once again.
Water is H2O. If you think differently, you're deluded. What do you mean, "look in a microscope"? Try a spectrographic analysis! Water is one molecule of oxygen to two molecules of hydrogen. That's it. WTF do YOU think it is?!
:confused: :rolleyes:

[Jeff C.]

Bruce, I was not "ragging" on you; my reply actually has some depth in its simplicity. Your response to me has an inappropriate tone to it, which I DO NOT appreciate.

Jeff Cook

[Jason T Gatts]

For what it's worth, I think that the most interesting point of this thread has not been said - these are some amazingly insightful questions and comments being made by a 12 year old!

Fanci- you seem extremely bright and sincere. If you don't find what your looking for don't stop searching. Don't ever stop searching.

Chi/Ki is what it is. Terms used to describe a concept. Valuable to those who believe it. Worthless to those who don't.

I too am at times frustrated by watching potentially good future martial artists "suckered" by charlatan martial arts instructors with seemingly magical powers, but I am amused by many of my scientifically minded peers who think it logical to argue for a belief in a Universal Negative. You can not disprove chi/ki any more than you can disprove God. Just because you cannot find something or find no need to look for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Let's all just believe what we believe, train the way we train, and do it well.

[Aikido_Girl918]

Well Jason, first of all, thank you. I try hard to do my best and I look for every hint that the scientifically impossible may be possible. After all there is much scientific evedence that spirits (ghosts) do not exist, and you can call me crazy if you wish, but I have had firsthand experiences that lead me to believe that, whether they are ghosts, spirits, or something else, there is something more out there that we have yet to understand fully. Man created scientific studies, so who is to say that scientific studies are not just a way for people to avoid their own fears? Just my personal opinion, flame me if you wish, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Correct me if I am wrong, but forgeting the man-made ideas called science, is it not possible that there is something more out there, for instance, Ki & Chi, or spirits?

Turst me, I will never stop searching, and I will never stop learning new things inside and outside of the martial arts, but the most important thing any of us could do would be to never forget that nobody knows everything, never think anyone knows very much at all, because there is always someone smarter, more intelligent, and wiser than you.

And also, you said "Just because you cannot find something or find no need to look for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.". I think that may be the wisest thing I have ever heard!

Thanks for the advise everyone! It really helps.

[Aikido_Girl918]

Oh yeah, and this is not directed at anyone specific, but, please don't think of me as a child, little girl, etc. When it comes to the martial arts, I am no little girl.

[Jason T Gatts]

Oh yeah, and this is not directed at anyone specific, but, please don't think of me as a child, little girl, etc. When it comes to the martial arts, I am no little girl.

I don't doubt that for a second Fanci. A martial artist is a martial artist, nothing more, nothing less.

[Kimpatsu]

Well Jason, first of all, thank you. I try hard to do my best and I look for every hint that the scientifically impossible may be possible. After all there is much scientific evedence that spirits (ghosts) do not exist, and you can call me crazy if you wish, but I have had firsthand experiences that lead me to believe that, whether they are ghosts, spirits, or something else, there is something more out there that we have yet to understand fully. Man created scientific studies, so who is to say that scientific studies are not just a way for people to avoid their own fears? Just my personal opinion, flame me if you wish, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Correct me if I am wrong, but forgeting the man-made ideas called science, is it not possible that there is something more out there, for instance, Ki & Chi, or spirits?

Turst me, I will never stop searching, and I will never stop learning new things inside and outside of the martial arts, but the most important thing any of us could do would be to never forget that nobody knows everything, never think anyone knows very much at all, because there is always someone smarter, more intelligent, and wiser than you.

And also, you said "Just because you cannot find something or find no need to look for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.". I think that may be the wisest thing I have ever heard!

Thanks for the advise everyone! It really helps.
Your opinion that science was invented to avoid fears is not scientific; at most, it is a projection. Science is the only way to understand the universe coherently.
Ghosts and spirits do not exist. For them to do so, you would have to answer the following:
1. What are they made of?
2. How does this... whatever interact with the physical world?
3. How do you avoid the Cartesian fallacy?
FYI, the notion that because you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is an attempt at describing the rational fallacy called argumentum ad ignoratium, and can be criticised with the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". For some claims to be true, however, would mean that everything we think we know about the universe is wrong; such claims, such as the existence of ki or the esistence of ghosts do not add to the body of knowledge; they claim such knowledge is wrong. In other words, proponents of such are saying that Newton, Einstein, Bernoulli, Hawking, et. al., are all wrong.
And that violates Occam's razor.

[Jason T Gatts]

I do not offer the statement "...because you can't find something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist." - as proof of something's existence, I stated it to mean what it says. If a person is comfortable in their belief in chi/ki then let them be. It's seems that you are the one who is concerned with their beliefs therefore the burden of proof(in this case disproof) lies with you.

I know that you probably won't agree with me, but there are still some things that we do in our lives that require faith.

For example, I have faith that you exist (as an individual) because I am having this correspondence with you. This Budoseek site could be operated by one individual under the guise of thousands of individual members. Then my interaction with the individual member Tony Kehoe would not be real. Now I am comfortable in my belief (faith) that you do exist and we are communicating therefore I will continue to do so, but if you question the reality of this exchange then it would be up to you to somehow prove that either these individual members do exist or that one person is making all of these posts.

That's the best that I can explain my view (in a quick post).

For what it's worth.

[Kimpatsu]

No, Jason, you are completely wrong. It is not incumbent on me to disprove the existence of a fantasy such as ki (after all, how does one prove a negative?); the burden of proof lies with those who claim it does exist.
And I am living proof that you do not need faith to live your life. Nor do any Brights anywhere in the world. The idea that Budoseek is run by one person assuming the guise of thousands is possible, but not probable, so again, you have violated Occam's Razor. That I exist is NOT an article of faith, for I can demonstrate my existence in a variety of ways. Belief in the existence of ki, however IS faith, for it is belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and for which to exist, must mean that existing ideas of medicine are flat-out wrong.
Your final assertion is just plain ridiculous, as it violates several scientific tenets. You will need to explain yourself more clearly, or study science a bit more.

[Kimpatsu]

Once again, Bruce, you ignore the funamental scientific tenet that it is not incumbent upon science to disporve the existence of the fantasy called ki; it is incumbent upon those who claim ki does exist to demonstrate so.
Until you do, all your downstream arguments are worthless.

[Kimpatsu]

Bruce, your first sentence is a strawman, and the rest of your post once again mischaracterises the methodology of science. I've said it before and I'll say it again: go and learn some real science at a proper university before spouting off here, and showing your ignorance.

[Jason T Gatts]

No, Jason, you are completely wrong. It is not incumbent on me to disprove the existence of a fantasy such as ki (after all, how does one prove a negative?); the burden of proof lies with those who claim it does exist.
And I am living proof that you do not need faith to live your life. Nor do any Brights anywhere in the world. The idea that Budoseek is run by one person assuming the guise of thousands is possible, but not probable, so again, you have violated Occam's Razor. That I exist is NOT an article of faith, for I can demonstrate my existence in a variety of ways. Belief in the existence of ki, however IS faith, for it is belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and for which to exist, must mean that existing ideas of medicine are flat-out wrong.
Your final assertion is just plain ridiculous, as it violates several scientific tenets. You will need to explain yourself more clearly, or study science a bit more.

I disagree. If a person believes in ki/chi and they are not trying to convert you to their beliefs then they have nothing to prove. You are the one who seems extremely concerned about beliefs in ki/chi and are obviously trying to convince others of your view, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it.

I also disagree that it is inprobable that a bored, computer savvy person could/would create a place where they could post several points of view under different personas. We see salesmen, advertisers, criminals, and even journalists doing it every day.

As to your existence, perhaps I described my view poorly. Of course you don't have to prove your existence to yourself, but if I at the other end of this internet connection doubted your existence then it would be up to me, not you, to prove to myself your existence.

As for science:
how does it measure- love, beauty, morals, etc.

Just out of curiosity, what are "Brights"? (gives me the impression that you think that you are among an elite group of people that are smarter than everyone else)

Just wondering.

[Kimpatsu]

I disagree. If a person believes in ki/chi and they are not trying to convert you to their beliefs then they have nothing to prove. You are the one who seems extremely concerned about beliefs in ki/chi and are obviously trying to convince others of your view, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it.
Wrong again. That's not how science works. The very claim that someone believ es in ki is a claim that such a phenomenon exoists; it is therefore their responsibility to prove it. That's science 101.


I also disagree that it is inprobable that a bored, computer savvy person could/would create a place where they could post several points of view under different personas. We see salesmen, advertisers, criminals, and even journalists doing it every day.
You've missed the point completely, Jason. In science, we ask, what is the most likely? And the idea of a single person typing all these disparate replies violates Occam's Razor. And that, too, is fundamental science.

As to your existence, perhaps I described my view poorly. Of course you don't have to prove your existence to yourself, but if I at the other end of this internet connection doubted your existence then it would be up to me, not you, to prove to myself your existence.
No, it would be up to you to REASON whether or not I existed, based upon the evidence. You seem to be hankering after a cewrtainty that simply oes not exist.

As for science:
how does it measure- love, beauty, morals, etc.
Love and beauty can be measured on logarithmic scales. Science has nothing to do with morals, and I nev er said it did. What does your question have to do with the issue at hand?


Just out of curiosity, what are "Brights"? (gives me the impression that you think that you are among an elite group of people that are smarter than everyone else)

Just wondering.
So now you demonstrate a lack of English as well as of science. Note that "Bright" is a noun, not an adjective.
FYI, a Bright is someone with a naturalistic worldview. Check us out here. (http://www.the-brights.net/)

[Aikido_Girl918]

Your opinion that science was invented to avoid fears is not scientific; at most, it is a projection. Science is the only way to understand the universe coherently.
Ghosts and spirits do not exist. For them to do so, you would have to answer the following:
1. What are they made of?
2. How does this... whatever interact with the physical world?
3. How do you avoid the Cartesian fallacy?
FYI, the notion that because you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is an attempt at describing the rational fallacy called argumentum ad ignoratium, and can be criticised with the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". For some claims to be true, however, would mean that everything we think we know about the universe is wrong; such claims, such as the existence of ki or the esistence of ghosts do not add to the body of knowledge; they claim such knowledge is wrong. In other words, proponents of such are saying that Newton, Einstein, Bernoulli, Hawking, et. al., are all wrong.
And that violates Occam's razor.

You missed my point completely! Think about the posssibilities that science may be a way to avoid fear and DON"T TRY TO SOLVE IT WITH SCIENCE, THAT DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE!!!!!!!!
I did not say i believed in ghosts, i said i believed that there may be something more out there.

I do not offer the statement "...because you can't find something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist." - as proof of something's existence, I stated it to mean what it says. If a person is comfortable in their belief in chi/ki then let them be. It's seems that you are the one who is concerned with their beliefs therefore the burden of proof(in this case disproof) lies with you.
[COLOR=DarkOrchid] I did not think or say it was proof of anything, i said it was very wise.

As for God being proved or disproved, it is about the same as disproving chi/ki, but ... before anything can be proved or disproved ... FIRST WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT EACH PERSON THINKS IT IS!!
I agree with you there.
anyway, please think before you reply

[Jason T Gatts]

"So now you demonstrate a lack of English as well as of science. Note that "Bright" is a noun, not an adjective.
FYI, a Bright is someone with a naturalistic worldview. Check us out here.
__________________
Tony Kehoe
I only do Shorinji Kempo for kicks. "
bright

adj 1: emitting or reflecting light readily or in large amounts; "the sun was bright and hot"; "a bright sunlit room" [ant: dull] 2: having striking color; "bright greens"; "brilliant tapestries"; "a bird with vivid plumage" [syn: brilliant, vivid] 3: characterized by quickness and ease in learning; "some children are brighter in one subject than another"; "smart children talk earlier than the average" [syn: smart] 4: having lots of light either natural or artificial; "the room was bright and airy"; "a stage bright with spotlights" 5: made smooth and bright by or as if by rubbing; reflecting a sheen or glow; "bright silver candlesticks"; "a burnished brass knocker"; "she brushed her hair until it fell in lustrous auburn waves"; "rows of shining glasses"; "shiny black patents" [syn: burnished, lustrous, shining, shiny] 6: splendid; "the bright stars of stage and screen"; "a bright moment in history"; "the bright pageantry of court" 7: not made dim or less bright; "undimmed headlights"; "surprisingly the curtain started to rise while the houselights were still undimmed" [syn: undimmed] [ant: dimmed] 8: clear and sharp and ringing; "the bright sound of the trumpet section"; "the brilliant sound of the trumpets" [syn: brilliant] 9: characterized by happiness or gladness; "bright faces"; "all the world seems bright and gay" 10: abounding with sunlight; "a bright sunny day"; "one shining norming"- John Muir; "when it is warm and shiny" [syn: shining, shiny, sunshiny, sunny] 11: full or promise; "had a bright future in publishing"; "the scandal threatened an abrupt end to a promising political career" [syn: promising] adv : with brightness; "the stars shone brilliantly"; "the windows glowed jewel bright" [syn: brilliantly, brightly]

I can find not definition of "Bright" in any dictionary that lists it as a noun meaning- "someone with a naturalistic worldview".
You sure it's not some fancy British secret society?

I took some time to read some of your posts on other threads, aren't scientists supposed to discover, document, and define new things?
It seems to me that Martial Scientist Tony's number one attribute is close mindedness, how's that work?

[Aikido_Girl918]

huh? i am lost

[Bugeisha]

There are two points that have been bugging me while I've read this, so here goes:

I) Water IS water. H2O (or potentially H1.5O depending on the state of the protons). All water is the same. Different sources of water have different things IN the water, but those things are not the water. An obvious demonstration of this is that we can filter those things out of the water, and the water we're left with is the same. Typically, we don't even need a chemical filter to do this, and anything that can be mechanically seperated is not a molecular compound. Regardless of other particles in the solution, water is always water.

II) Just so we can clear up some apparent misunderstandings, here's a quick look at how science works. Science isn't a belief or doctrine, it's a practice. The fundamental process is called "the scientific method." Here's how the scientific method plays out, generally:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
(http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000)

Science doesn't seek out or make up things to disprove; it is an attempt to ascertain the validity of an observable process or phenomenon. I'm not really interested in joining the argument over the existence of ki/qi, but I'm interested in making sure people don't make fools of themselves by making assertations in areas they don't understand. I'm a philosophy student, but I'm taking science courses because I don't want to make an argument that falls apart under the scrutiny of basic logic. In order to argue strongly you need to understand the tools you're using, and the scientific method is probably the best tool we've designed to check the logical and observable validity of something.

The particular point that always sends up warning flags is when someone states "you can't disprove the existance of qi/ki/God/unicorns/Kimpatsu, so they could be real. That's not how science works. If you saw a unicorn, you could use the scientific method to test, observe, and verify that it was in fact a unicorn. Likewise with the discussion of everyone on Budoseek being fragments of Mr. Carver's fractured and deranged mind. All it takes to disprove this is observation of contradictory evidence. If you were really concerned, you could simply find one of the other members and observe them making a post. Since that doesn't fit into your hypothesis of our benevolent dictator's schizophrenia, you would have to discard the hypothesis.

I don't care which way the debate goes, but you undermine your point when you don't understand basic concepts involved in the discussion.

[Jason T Gatts]

Actually, science becomes a belief system/doctrine for an individual when that person makes a statement like: it does not exist because science hasn't proven it. Since the beginings of humankind we have lived with things that science hadn't yet proven (gravity, electricity, etc) whose to say that one day science won't prove the existence of chi/ki? Was gravity real before it's principles were studied and it was named?
I don't care much which way the argument goes either (I don't know that I hold a firm belief for or against chi/ki), I just think that people who do believe in it should be able to talk about it without other people sitting on the sidelines saying "Prove it! prove it!"

[Aikido_Girl918]

Okay, forgetting my ideas that science was created as a way out of fear (which it may have been at first used that way to prove wrong a persons fears and later evolved into more and more studies), there is so much we don't know, haven't proved, haven't disproved, and have studied with no definate answers that nobody can truthfully say either way, we can only argue our own opinions and use anything that science HAS proved in favor of our opinions towards our arguements, so all in all this is all pointless as far as proving anything. However, the facts supporing each argument may open our eyes to things we didn't know before, helping us to understand as much as possible.

Oh, and I agree Jason

[Kimpatsu]

You missed my point completely! Think about the posssibilities that science may be a way to avoid fear and DON"T TRY TO SOLVE IT WITH SCIENCE, THAT DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE!!!!!!!!
What else would you solve it with?! Science, rationality, and logic are the only problem-solving tools we have.

I did not say i believed in ghosts, i said i believed that there may be something more out there.
Such as? Elves? Pixies? Bigfoot? UFOs?

I did not think or say it was proof of anything, i said it was very wise.
In what way?

I agree with you there.
anyway, please think before you reply
I always do. Which is more than I can say for certain contributors.
BTW, what's with the colour? It's very hard to read.

[Kimpatsu]

adj 1: emitting or reflecting light readily or in large amounts; "the sun was bright and hot"; "a bright sunlit room" [ant: dull] 2: having striking color; "bright greens"; "brilliant tapestries"; "a bird with vivid plumage" [syn: brilliant, vivid] 3: characterized by quickness and ease in learning; "some children are brighter in one subject than another"; "smart children talk earlier than the average" [syn: smart] 4: having lots of light either natural or artificial; "the room was bright and airy"; "a stage bright with spotlights" 5: made smooth and bright by or as if by rubbing; reflecting a sheen or glow; "bright silver candlesticks"; "a burnished brass knocker"; "she brushed her hair until it fell in lustrous auburn waves"; "rows of shining glasses"; "shiny black patents" [syn: burnished, lustrous, shining, shiny] 6: splendid; "the bright stars of stage and screen"; "a bright moment in history"; "the bright pageantry of court" 7: not made dim or less bright; "undimmed headlights"; "surprisingly the curtain started to rise while the houselights were still undimmed" [syn: undimmed] [ant: dimmed] 8: clear and sharp and ringing; "the bright sound of the trumpet section"; "the brilliant sound of the trumpets" [syn: brilliant] 9: characterized by happiness or gladness; "bright faces"; "all the world seems bright and gay" 10: abounding with sunlight; "a bright sunny day"; "one shining norming"- John Muir; "when it is warm and shiny" [syn: shining, shiny, sunshiny, sunny] 11: full or promise; "had a bright future in publishing"; "the scandal threatened an abrupt end to a promising political career" [syn: promising] adv : with brightness; "the stars shone brilliantly"; "the windows glowed jewel bright" [syn: brilliantly, brightly]

I can find not definition of "Bright" in any dictionary that lists it as a noun meaning- "someone with a naturalistic worldview".
You sure it's not some fancy British secret society?

I took some time to read some of your posts on other threads, aren't scientists supposed to discover, document, and define new things?
It seems to me that Martial Scientist Tony's number one attribute is close mindedness, how's that work?
Jason, the term "Bright" has been recently coined to mean someone with a naturalistic worldview as an overarching term which embraces atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers, which you would have known if you had bothered to read the reference supplied! Further, you cannot rely on dictionaries alone; after all, even the OED mistakenly says that "gi" is a Japanese word! The most dictionaries can do is give you a definition based upon the consensus of its lexicographers. It is not binding.
None of which is relevant to the main point: that my being a Bright makes you dim, then Oscar Wilde's being gay must make you miserable. See?
Finally, the charge of closed-mindedness is often levelled against rational thinkers, but it was Carl Sagan who pointed out that rational thinkers are in fact very open-minded... but no so open that our brains have fallen out.
The claim of the existence of ki is scientifically impossible. That's all there is too it.

[Kimpatsu]

Actually, science becomes a belief system/doctrine for an individual when that person makes a statement like: it does not exist because science hasn't proven it. Since the beginings of humankind we have lived with things that science hadn't yet proven (gravity, electricity, etc) whose to say that one day science won't prove the existence of chi/ki? Was gravity real before it's principles were studied and it was named?
I don't care much which way the argument goes either (I don't know that I hold a firm belief for or against chi/ki), I just think that people who do believe in it should be able to talk about it without other people sitting on the sidelines saying "Prove it! prove it!"
Again, Jason, who show a complete lack of understanding of the nature of science, or the attitude of sciences. The mantra that science is a belief system is not credible, because science insists on evidence.
FYI, gravity and electricity work to well-understood, documented, and coherent physical laws. Ki does not only have no such history, it cannot operate given what we already know about the universe. If you are a proponent of its existence, you have to explain first what its operating mechanism is. Well?

[Kimpatsu]

Okay, forgetting my ideas that science was created as a way out of fear...
Which it wasn't.

(which it may have been at first used that way to prove wrong a persons fears and later evolved into more and more studies),
Wrong again.

there is so much we don't know, haven't proved, haven't disproved, and have studied with no definate answers that nobody can truthfully say either way, we can only argue our own opinions and use anything that science HAS proved in favor of our opinions towards our arguements, so all in all this is all pointless as far as proving anything. However, the facts supporing each argument may open our eyes to things we didn't know before, helping us to understand as much as possible.
Apart from the fatuousness of this sentence, what exactly is your point, AG? Yes there is much that we still don't know... but, as any scientist will tell you, we're working on it. We also know what cannot be true, ebcause of what we already DO know. And ki is one of those things.

[Cliff Hargrave]

She's 12 years old, move on to someone else........

[Aikido_Girl918]

Cliff has a point, I'm 12, not in my 30's like most people here.
Apart from the fatuousness of this sentence, what exactly is your point, AG?
First, I hate english, so don't harp on me about it, I am really not in the mood.
My point is even if we can prove that some things don't exist, have we never been wrong? Have we as humans, or even scientists for that matter never made mistakes? Error is human.
Before I start quoting again, I must ask you Kimpatsu, why you are so rude when typing your messages? I may not be a sweet little girl but at least I don't insult people, but for you, I make and exception! who do you think you are? King of the universe? No matter what you think you are not any better than anyone else on this thread, so do everyone on the website a favor, go take a couple Vikodin and have fun in the world of Dr. Suess, go to work, do something around the house, cook dinner, anything that will peel you away from the computer screen for a while.
Such as? Elves? Pixies? Bigfoot? UFOs?
NO!!!!!!YOU STILL DON"T GET IT!!!!!!! Okay, something more does not mean I am some wierdo freak who thinks everything that has ever been put into some cheesy television show or movie really exists!!!! Maybe that something more is a the Holy Spirit, maybe it is love, not love among families and friends, love for all living beings that only the monks have managed to harness.

BTW, what's with the colour? It's very hard to read.
What do you mean hard to read? Do you have vision problems? Because i don't find it hard to read at all. I use the same basic colour on other sites and you are the first person to complian, here or elswhere. Oh yeah and what i meant by think before you post was try not to be so mean and critical.

[Jeff C.]

Fanci, you need to move on too. It is not fair to ask Mr. Kehoe to move on if you continue to respond. Let it be.

Thanks.

Jeff Cook

[Aikido_Girl918]

Point taken, but it still annoys me to back down from a debate of any kind.

[Jeff C.]

Understood. But then again, that's why we have moderators. ;)

Jeff Cook

[Aikido_Girl918]

Fine, anyways, thanks everybody, especially Jeff Hargrave, Jason Gatts, and Tony Dismukes, and even, Tony Kehoe (even though you always use rude tones, the things you say are intelligent, just not very open minded, but to each his/her own) for the info, at least now I know a little more about other aspects of the martial arts, and I understand science even less.And i am not sure that I believe either way in this arguement, but I am saying that I believe that we don't see the bigger picture here, with or without science there are things out there we don't know about and some of them may someday shock you. that is what I have been arguing for the whole time, the bigger picture, and nobody seems to understand the point I am trying to get across. i am not leaving the thread for any reasons, but i will back off and only go after posts that really get my attention, happy now Jeff?

BTW, what is the signature supposed to mean, Jeff?

[Kimpatsu]

Fanci, when have I been rude? Robust, yes. Rigorous, Yes. But not rude. Unless you find having your mistaken notions challenged.
As to open-mindedness, I'm more open-minded than you, I'll wager, for I'm willing to believe, for example, that the solution to Fermat's last theorum that we have now is not the one Fermat himself thought of.
As Carl Sagan said, don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. IOW, don't confuse open-mindedness with credulity.
HTH.

[Jeff C.]

While I may disagree with Tony's self-evaluation and many of his comments (and the way he presents them), I still respect the fact that he is a highly educated person who also happens to hold dan rank in his chosen art. You Fanci, on the other hand, are still a child and junior to Tony, myself, and many others both in life experience, martial arts training, and education.

That does not invalidate your opinions; I respect yours as well. But it should cause you to temper your impetuous and sarcastic tone. Treat your elders with respect, even if you do not agree with them.

My signature means: avoid confict as much as possible, but when it is unavoidable, apply yourself wholeheartedly to the task at hand, and make the other person(s) regret their involvement in the conflict.

Thread closed.

Jeff Cook