why is chi kung rubbish

Bruce, IMO you are confusing the map for the reality.

Yes, dreams, thoughts, emotions and all that are real. No one is arguing that. Yes your body and brain react to them, this too is real and measurable. The content of those things is not real.

If I think and feel that the world is out to get me I can choose to react to that or not.

However it doesn't mean the world is out to get me.

One of the big things I have learned is that just because I think it doesn't make it true and emotions aren't facts.

 

As far as I'm concerned there's only one reality (aside from multiple universes or something but then they'd just be part of a larger reality).
As soon as you start saying "realities" then you're off the reserve and could be talking about anything.
Noodly nonsense sadly. I was trying to find some nuggets of good stuff in there, that may be of use, but up coming up with nothing.

 

Hence argument from ignorance mate.

 

Now I think you are just being pendantic. Nouns that are specific states or conditions can be capitalized in order to distinguish between the item and the condition. I can experience an emotion because Emotion is a Human trait.

As I say, I believe you have stopped reading what I am writing. Noone said that a person cannot measure the results of an emotion or a thought. People can measure the influence of an emotion or thought. You cannot measure the thought itself. That thought has content, has acuity, has varying degrees of coloration and is...in some unknown way related to activity in the brain....none of which can be measured by your Science. I know that ticks you off....but it does not allow you to demean that Reality simply because you don't agree.

Here in the States the 1960-s saw a range of Social changes. Integration was a thought that people took exception to. Like Harry Potter, the idea was translated into a variety of behaviors. However, Harry Potter, Integration, Freedom of Speech and a lot of other ideas all started as Realities. They produced an effect...which I believe was one of your criteria.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

There are lots of Harry Potter fan clubs, books, movies, etc out there.

The thought of Harry Potter was the source of that. Harry Potter had nothing to do with it.

Again, it's that simple.

 

I think you just had a break-through. Emotions are NOT Facts...Intellect. Thoughts are NOT feelings (Emotions). Behaviors are NOT Emotions OR Thoughts. And Purpose or Being is not any of the previous three. All influence each other and/or are related to each other. Each condition has its own limitations, rules and purview. We mix and match portions of all four of these planes to produce the people we are. Stating that something is Not (IE State of Not Being, Bunny) because we have no value for it does not mean it does not exist or is Hokum. FWIW. Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Nothing?....there go those absolutes again. Harry Potter had something to do with it, but most often in one way and not in another. For instance....an a Physical Plane a guy named Harry Potter did not go out into the community and knock on doors. On an Intellectual plane Harry Potter as an Intellectual construct moved through entire communities. The same can be said of an Emotional Level. Regarding their Being (thats a state, Bunny) we can't know what has transpired since this has not been externalized sufficently to measure or test. According to Bunny, these things are a Reality becuse they induced change. No you can't submit "Harry Potter" to Scientific Method, but he is real....if just not in the Physical Plane.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I'm sorry Bruce but I am going to drop out of this conversation.

Our views of reality are so different as to prevent effective communications. You hold to the view of multiple planes of existence, these planes interact with each other and admit that these views are untestable from a scientific point of view.

I can not accept such a view because it opens wide the door of magic, superstition and other unmeasurable concepts. If you can think it, it is real is not something I can hang my hat on.

Peace.

 

I understand what you're saying. Personally, I have a really hard time completely denying that something may or may not exist just because modern science hasn't figured it out yet. It just seems like the height of arrogance and narrowmindedness in my opinion. I'm in favor of suspending belief until concrete evidence can be presented, but I have a major problem with saying that the possibility of something existing or not existing is completely naught just because a bunch of guys in a lab haven't figured it out yet. Maybe there is something greater out there. Maybe not. However, I myself would prefer to keep an open mind about the universe and what may or may not be possible or exist. Just because science hasn't proven something yet doesn't mean that it is impossible or that it doesn't exist. It just means that science hasn't figured it out yet. The greatest folly of modern man is our arrogance in thinking that we've reached the top of mountain and know all that there is to know. There are many great discoveries that are yet to be made.

 

With all due respect that's an appalling straw-man of what real science is. I doubt there are many scientists that "completely deny that something may or may not exist just because modern science hasn't figured it out yet." There no doubt are some, but I would argue that's their own position and not one that comes from following the scientific method. In the absence of evidence, science defaults to the null hypothesis - non-belief, not disbelief. It's a subtle but important distinction. It doesn't leap to the assumption that something does not exist. What it will do is take the position that if there is something for which there is no evidence, then there is no reason to take that something seriously until there is evidence or data that can be examined and understood in some way.

One thing about open-mindedness is that it's often implicitly assumed to be a good thing, and to an extent it is. However, it's often assumed, following from the former assumption, that the more open-minded you are, the better. I would argue that this is mistaken. Given the sheer mind-boggling quantity of things that we can conceive of, the number of these things that are actually real is only a tiny subset of them. Ideally, we only want to believe those things that are real. Consequently it should be obvious that we need some kind of filter on our open-mindedness. If we don't have any filter then we're highly likely to end up believing in a whole load of things that aren't real. This, obviously, isn't what we want to end up doing. The only effective filter we've ever found that has any chance of distinguishing between truth and falsehood is to appeal to empirical evidence.

It could be argued that science done properly is actually fairly open-minded. An ideal scientist should believe anything, provided there is good evidence supporting it. Think about all the crazy things science has discovered that run counter to our intuitive way of perceiving things:

* We intuitively expect moving things to come to rest after a short time. Science has convinced us that things that are unobstructed will continue to move forever.

* We intuitively think of "space" as being a background reference of sorts to motion of objects. Science has convinced us that all motion is relative.

* We intuitively conceive of our planet as being stationary with things like the sun revolving around us. Science has convinced us that this apparent motion is caused by our own rotation.

* We intuitively thing of our planet as being at the centre of the universe. Science has convinced us that we most likely are not.

If science were closed-minded it would never have accepted any of the above. It would have made hardly any progress so far and we would most likely still be living in something like the stone or iron age.

 

Science is not on the side of arrogance here.

Science says: things may or may not be real. We cannot accept things as real until they have been verified through rigorous testing.

Bruce is saying: I will pull concepts out of my rectum and accept them as true because I think they are.

For example I do not deny the possibility that human levitation is possible. I only deny that it is probable unless someone prevents me with appropriate evidence to the contrary. Appropriate evidence is not "I think levitation exists therefore it exists." THAT is arrogance and that is what Bruce has been doing.

 

My apologies. My post wasn't meant as an attack against science itself. I was addressing a certain perception that I have come across quite often with respect to science (mostly by lay people). No scientist worth his or her salt would outright deny the existence of something just because it hasn't been proven, however, there are many lay people who will do just that because science hasn't figured it out yet, then they will call you deluded or crazy just for considering the possibility that maybe it could be real but we haven't figured it out yet. Reading Bruce's posts kind of made me think of this attitude that I have encountered on many occassions, so I decided to opine (and no, and I'm not saying that Bruce has this attitude, just that his post made some things spring to mind). I'm not saying that we should just blindly believe in any and every thing that we can imagine. I would suspend belief in anything until it is proven with concrete evidence. I would never outright deny the possibility of something existing just because it hasn't been proven yet.

 

I'm not saying that science is close minded, I'm saying that there are a lot of close minded attitudes out there that would completely deny the possibility of something existing just because science hasn't figured it out yet, then they will call you crazy for not sharing the same viewpoints. I'm not even talking about choosing to believe in something that hasn't been proven, I'm talking just entertaining the idea that it could even be possible in the first place. Science itself is open minded by its very nature and it is constantly discovering new things while unraveling old mysteries. I understand this, which is why I clearly stated that there are many discoveries that are yet to be made.

Edit: none of this was meant as a shot at anybody, btw. Something just sprung to mind regarding the subject being discussed and I decided to try to use it to contribute to the conversation. I humbly apologize if I have ruffled any feathers, as I was merely trying to stimulate more discussion.

 

I actually agree with you. In my above post, I stated that I personally would suspend belief in something until some form of concrete proof is put forward to back it up. My whole point was about the attitude of completely cutting oneself off to any possibility of something being possible or even existing in the first place just because it hasn't been proven yet. I don't accept chi as being true because no concrete evidence has been put forward concerning its existence, however, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that I will completely write off the possibility of it happening in the future. Perhaps it is true, or maybe it is a load of rubbish. Until it has been (dis)proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I think that the possibility of it should at least be left open, even if it is merely regarded as a scant possibility at best.

Science says: okay, it may be true, or it may not be true. PROVE it. if you can prove it, then we can accept it as fact. If you cannot prove it, then we cannot accept it as fact. We will remain open to the possibility of it pending your ability to present concrete evidence of its existence, but until you can prove it, then we can't call it fact.

The attitude that I was addressing was: No! It's total rubbish and you are a fecking sod for even entertaining the possibility of it in the first place! Science hasn't verified it, therefore it doesn't exist and there is no possibility of this stance ever changing, further research and future developments within the scientific community be damned!

The scientist keeps an open mind and requires proof. The attitude that I was speaking of is closed completely to the possibility something, and will ridicule those who remain open to the possibility.

 

So you are still open to the concepts of Santa Claus, little green men from Mars and that the earth is hollow and a base for aliens?

 

No. Those things have been proven false. Santa Claus has been proven to be a folk tale, little green men from mars have been disproven by actual exploration of mars via telescope and unmanned missions, and the earth has been proven to have a molten core. These things have been (dis)proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, therefore, the possibility of them being true somewhere down the line has been exhausted. I'm addressing things that could be go either way at this point in time. No little green men on mars, but that doesn't discount the possibility of life in other parts of the universe. A scientist would say that he or she can't state as fact that there is intelligent life in other parts of the universe, but that the possibility is there, so we can't rule it out. A person with the attitude that I highlighted would say that you are totally ridiculous and have too much time on your hands for even giving credence to the possibility since science clearly has not discovered it yet.

 

What I was trying to point out was where do you draw the line?

So form of filter needs to be applied to what you believe is possible. My filter is that until there is some sort of credible evidence, not scientific proof, simply credible evidence I need not entertain it as even possible.

For example telekinesis. There is lots of speculation about it, a lot of pseudoscience around it, a large number of second hand reports but there has not been one shred of credible evidence. No one has showed it under controlled conditions. Ergo, it doesn't exist and gets thrown into the trash can until someone can show credible evidence for it, not how it works or anything like that. At that point it can be dusted off and investigated.

As for Santa Claus and little green men they haven't been scientifically disproven. To do that you would have to create a hypothesis that is disprovable and then run it through the appropriate tests. This has never been done because there is no way to disprove the existence of either. They still get tossed in the dustbin but that doesn't mean they been disproven.

 

The forgotten, it sounds as if you're pretty much on the same page as the majority of us here then. I'll take your point that you were complaining about the closed minded types and not science in general. I think you got jumped on because it looked as if you were accusing the sceptics of being closed-minded. I'm afraid it's something that gets used against us so often that it's a cliché. Most of us are pretty keen to dispel that misconception as it's often used as a tactic to attempt to shut down discussions.

And don't worry too much about apologising - these kinds of debates get pretty heated. So long as everyone is polite and stays within the ToS, most of the regulars here enjoy a good passionate debate.

 

Hmmm, I see. If we allow open ended possibilities then we run the risk of slipping completely into fantasy land and living in a state of total delusion. We can't say that something is true until some sort of credible evidence is presented that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. If there is no evidence, then it is pretty useless to entertain the possibility unless some credible evidence actually surfaces, otherwise, we are simply spinning our wheels and going nowhere at all. We can allow for the possibility, but if there is no evidence or no sign that any is forthcoming, then it becomes pretty pointless. I mean, we keep an open mind and investigate when it is expedient, but we don't waste precious time and resources on something that has no credible evidence forthcoming anytime soon. For some things, as you said, we can just toss in the dustbin, as well. Is this somewhat sound reasoning, or am I making a fool of myself again?

 

So are you saying the Earth is not flat?

And no Santa?

You're just winding me up!