|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: RichRich Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:13
> Hey, asshole, you're the one who can't seem to understand a simple
> physiological reaction. You're the one reading more into this than is
> there. You're the one challenging a belief system that you can't
> understand.
I'm not challenging or misunderstanding anything; I'm just explaining
what science detects, models and proves.
If it's just visualisation and training, then it's useful but chi is
nothing that isn't already known to exist, maybe in combination. If
it's something else, it can be detected and isolated. There's no party
line on which it is, so it's good to be clear in a FAQ about science
and chi. Do you have anything constructive to add?
Rich
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: David L. BurkheadDavid L. Burkhead Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:20
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:55:52 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
> sff.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:31:28 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
>>> sff.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Please don't try to talk about what's "Scientific" and what isn't,
that
>>>>constitutes scientific evidence and what doesn't. Every time you do
so,
>>you
>>>>get it wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Some examples:
>>>
>> ...
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: halhal Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:26
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), Rich
hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey, asshole, you're the one who can't seem to understand a simple
>> physiological reaction. You're the one reading more into this than is
>> there. You're the one challenging a belief system that you can't
>> understand.
>
>I'm not challenging or misunderstanding anything; I'm just explaining
>what science detects, models and proves.
>
>If it's just visualisation and training, then it's useful but chi is
>nothing that isn't already known to exist, maybe in combination. If
>it's something else, it can be detected and isolated. There's no party
>line on which it is, so it's good to be clear in a FAQ about science
>and chi. Do you have anything constructive to add?
chi is not JUST a visualization and training any more than all there
is to an orange is the process of peeling it. We peel an orange, and
we have an orange. It is a thing in of itself. It has a biochemical...
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: halhal Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:39
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:20:36 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
sff.net> wrote:
>Your earlier example of old men tossing around young bucks like rag dolls
>doesn't fit because arts like Judo and wrestling do that without invoking
>"chi."
Do you mean a Judoka can throw someone much larger and stronger than
they without using ki, or that they learned to throw people much
larger and stronger than they without being introduced to the concept
known as chi (ki). Is chi the journey or the process? Is calling it
chi what you have a problem with? Or does the process of learning
explosive use of power give you a problem? Or do you really think
that learning to throw someone much larger and much stronger than you
merely an act of leverage? If you think it is just leverage, then you
clearly can't do it.
Call it Bob, if you want. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck, and tastes great with orange sauce, it's probably a duck.
Hal
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:58
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:58:12 +0000, hal wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:59:18 -0800 (PST), Rich
> hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>If it's just a visualisation and training method, that's fine but
>>that's all it is, it's not a Real Thing. Visualising that you're a
>>tiger or a gold medallist might help you be good at interviews, but
>>the tiger isn't real, the gold medal doesn't exist. Do you see?
>
> do you see that if it makes a mild mannered man able to fight like a
> tiger it is a real thing?
|
| Show full article (0.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GreendistantstarGreendistantstar Date: Feb 27, 2008 16:44
> Please note;
clipped
Unscientific, self-serving and ignorant best describe this post.
--
GDS
"Let's roll!"
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David L. BurkheadDavid L. Burkhead Date: Feb 27, 2008 17:03
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:20:36 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
> sff.net> wrote:
>>> Your earlier example of old men tossing around young bucks like rag
>> dolls doesn't fit because arts like Judo and wrestling do that
>> without invoking "chi."
>
> Do you mean a Judoka can throw someone much larger and stronger than
> they without using ki, or that they learned to throw people much
> larger and stronger than they without being introduced to the concept
> known as chi (ki).
Judoka can throw someone much larger and stronger then they without
using _anything_ other than Leverage, momentum, angles, timings, etc. It
requires _nothing_ not completely in accord with conventional physics and
biomechanics.
> Is chi the journey or the process?
Or is it, perhaps, the "four humors" of Eastern philosophy?
|
| Show full article (2.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: halhal Date: Feb 27, 2008 17:17
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:03:58 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
sff.net> wrote:
>Talk to your doctor about Chlorpromazine today!
Talk to your sensei about epinephrine today!
Hal
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David L. BurkheadDavid L. Burkhead Date: Feb 27, 2008 17:43
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:03:58 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
> sff.net> wrote:
>
>>> Talk to your doctor about Chlorpromazine today!
>
> Talk to your sensei about epinephrine today!
Airport city, huh?
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@ sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: McNapoliMcNapoli Date: Feb 27, 2008 18:17
Renli wrote:
> Please note; this is not an automated posting. This is a cut and paste
> from an original PDF file; images, hyperlinks, and other non-ASCII
> images (such as Chinese Characters) have not been preserved. I invite
> anyone to comment on this document, do so in the knowledge that
> positive contributions will be incorporated in future versions of the
> Chi FAQ.
>
> -----
>
> 2.0 Is Chi a Scientific Theory?
snip the rant.
Oliver , you sure can shovel it! :o)))
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
