Author Topic: Ask any question about Qigong or Yoga.  (Read 23372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 14, 2016, 12:34:44 PM
Reply #60

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Thanks for once again specifying the very specific and narrow words you are using. That's very helpful in communications.

You mean like bolding and underlying specific words like shannon entropy and von neumann entropy.

Kind of. I was going to mention that for the information to be added to a closed system, such as a RNG that's set to produce 100,000 numbers, then some other information has to be shunted to make way for the addition (though, one could say that they're not adding information and instead are just altering information already present). But then I thought better of it because it doesn't really matter anyway. In a more cosmic sense, I don't much care because the Earth is not a closed system, and we still have no verification as to whether the universe itself is a closed system. And then there's the psi theories about the possibility of actually being able to create energy out of nothing, and then there's the real world physics possibility of energy potentially being able to be created out of seemingly nothing. So I don't much care unless we're talking about a closed system, and even them I don't much care if there's no real point to be made. And I really don't see the point to the entropy discussion.

Your understanding of this is off, though, this is understandable because the average person does not have this understanding... That is why I stick to examples of what you called "psychic dices". Pretty much, the idea in quantum statistical mechanics is that if you swap the location of particles, the universe will be in the same state it was prior to changing the location of the particles; therefore, n-particles can be said to be indistinguishable from one another. This is to say things like mass, spin, and charge are the same. This means there are redundancies in the system. However, if a state with identical properties to the old one is created without the particles sharing these properties, you count both states versus simply counting one state in terms of the entropy because one does not have redundancies. Redundancies, or lack of them, would thus play a role in how much entropy one ends up dealing with and whether or not it changes. This is important, because redundancies allow one to feasibly draw correlations and symmetries in regards to information for different parts of a system, so if you do not have this, it counts towards entropy. Now, we get into why what you said about Earth not being a closed system is irrelevant. Symmetrical things in the universe are homogeneous and isotropic, and when they are no longer so, there are more possible states which impacts the entropy you are dealing with(there is a relationship between those two in words). Recall just a little while before, I said something about indistinguishable particles in respect to symmetries and correlations? The cosmological principle states: "In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.(Cosmological Principle)" In other words, it does not matter if this is happening on Earth or anywhere else. In a context like a wave function(but not exactly), the information specifies the state of the particles including its history that encompasses its position. What I said relates to micropsychokinesis, because entropy and what I explained, above, is a factor in things such as radioactive decay which could be a source of a random event where this is manipulated via manipulating the probability. The universe is a closed system, to say it simply, because matter is not being exchanged between this universe and another universe. Closed is not the same as isolated, mind you. I am not saying that quantum statistical mechanics explains psychokinesis; rather, I am saying information can be modeled in similar way when discussing psi. I could go into the other things you said, but that would be tedious(you said a lot of incorrect things) and would quadruple the size of this already lengthy response.

As far as psi creating energy out of nothing, that is hypothetically possible; however, psi seems to follow something that is analogous to the path of least resistance where this likely means that psychokinesis is merely manipulating information which determines where energy will be in such a way that energy that already exists is manipulated unless otherwise specified which leads into the materialization aspect of psychokinesis. This is implicit in the teleogical nature of psi(see Helmut's research; I disagree with his theories but his experiments show the teleological properties of psychokinesis). For example, biochemistry in a living being is already moving around, so all that needs to be done is to just shift and direct it via manipulating the probabilistic aspects of those reactions. I kind of think to truly appreciate this, you kind of have to have a solid background in natural sciences. For example, when you increase information and order like one does with psychokinesis, one is creating something like a reversal, and in doing that, energy is accessible to do work. Chemical reactions, for example, are dependent on spatial and temporal organizations, so if you fool around with the information, you fool around with both those things which would allow one to manipulate reactions and their resulting structures. Considering the teleological nature of psi, for an intention to say improve health via killing off an infection, you likely would be dealing with that to organize physiological processes more so than creating the energy from scratch. The law of conservation of energy is bent via the violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and this does not negate the universe being physically a closed system in that physically matter is not entering or leaving this universe.

Kobok addresses that here:

Quote
The laws of quantum field theory tell us that energy can and DOES get created and destroyed all the time, but that it does so at such an equally matched rate that the end result is no net change. This means that in small areas and for small times, energy does get created and destroyed noticeably, and the effects of this are measureable.

The only thing keeping the conservation of energy balanced on the everyday macroscopic scale is probability. So long as the probabilities of creation and destruction are equal, there will not be any net creation or destruction. But one reasonable interpretation of abilities like micropsychokinesis might be that we possess the ability to manipulate probabilities. So there's no fundamental reason to think that psi is restricted to obeying the conservation of energy.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Psi

So, I'm really curious as to how you directly observe an informational or statistical manipulation, in much the same way that I can feel (observation through a sense of feel, though not to be confused with the sense of physical touch) the qi interacting with things outside myself and get feedback from it (which is often then also confirmed via my normal physical senses).

I already answered this, and I am not repeating myself because it can be read in my response above this one. I gave you a specific name and way of knowing if something has more or less information, so if you are sincerely curious, just reread and then use Google. The issue, though, is that it is an inference, and that is what you seem to not like. Here is the thing about science; it is inductive(except for maybe experimentation to test a hypothesis). In being inductive, science deals with what is probably true and not with what is necessarily true. In other words, if I interpret an experiment statistically, I am inferring that what the statistical analysis of that experiment indicates is probably true where there is a strong case for this; however, it is not necessarily true. For example, if we were to look at the p-value of an experiment and its significance(especially in relation to null hypothesis and whether or not something is testable), we would actually being looking at a frequents statistical inference. I should note, here, though, there is some debate concerning that(there is some disagreement in terms of where Bayesian statistics should be used) There exists the possibility it could be wrong, but you really can't start proposing other things could be equally true without some sort of scale of it being likely. You are saying we cannot directly observe this; rather, we are merely inferring something based on an interpretation, but most of science is predicated on this, so if you reject what I said for this reason, you pretty much reject science or you reject the scientific study of psi. On the other hand, a lot of ontological/metaphysical frameworks are categorical syllogisms. You actually use of a lot of those(you propose a definition, then you argue from that definition where those definitions tend to be normative). Those arguments are deductive, tautological, and tend to not be scientific because they result in tautological statements that are necessarily true. There are a lot of other things factually wrong in your understanding of Physics, but based on the conclusion that you will likely reject it for what I said, above, I am not going to go into it. Also, conversations concerning psionics that supplement what I have said and would say are on this site where in one of the articles, kobok directly addressed one of your points, so if people are genuinely interested in it, they can find it.

Do you mean to say that we don't have any sensors that can detect the presence of qi, as a causal mechanic that is distinct from pure intention alone? In that case, I'd agree, except for all the people who can perceive the existence of qi as a distinct thing. Hell, 5000 years of Chinese History does it so well that they even have other terms and forces that they deal with too, and have methods for converting one thing to another. And if I recall correctly, Yoga has somewhat similar concepts with regards to pranayama and kundalini.

This usage of Qi is not falsifiable(this isn't to say other ways of approaching qi are intrinsically untestable); therefore, it is not testable, and because it is not testable, you can't really draw meaningful scientific conclusions about it. I cannot statistically infer it's likelihood. It is much like Carl Sagon's dragon in the garage. Furthermore, the persistence of a belief is not evidence for whether or not that belief is justified. The same arguments you are using in favor of qi can be used in favor of <insert deity>; however, it does not constitute scientific evidence(many people will say they have experienced their gods where their experiences will sync up). Also, that, at the moment, is not testable.

Quote
As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he "neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, "but this dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an infra-red camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains that the fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed physical test with a reason why the test will not work.

Sagan concludes by asking: "Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

I am interested in what you can plausibly give me based on a strong inferential link with empirically meaningful evidence. I honestly don't know what you go on about. You speak of Physics that does not exists(there are huge major flaws in the post I am referring to where it just is so tedious to go through it) and then you speak of things being science that are not science and then you say real science is not science. There is no scientific evidence to propose that qi is a causal mechanism for psi. You have admitted to me you are giving me an argument with no evidence. There is enough scientific evidence to conclude that psi exists; however, at the moment, there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that qi exists; therefore, any normative statement formulated in that context has no scientific backing. Saying that having sex saps qi is thus not a justifiable reason to abstain from sex. You have not scientifically proven it.

For instance, if I might guess, I would assume (based on your descriptions of your experiences) that you do most of your psychic stuff within your own head: is that correct, Rayn?

No, it is not correct in that I do not place particular importance on my body, so I am not doing anything internal relative to my head or body... If you are referring to internal as within my own mind, that is a no, too, in that I perceive the presence of other minds as external to my own. I perceive thoughts as objects that are tangible to me where I can perceive how they interact. The focal point in my practices tends to be wherever my awareness is, and, a lot of times, it is no where near my body. In other words, the "energy" performing the action is not coming from my body which is more evident when I am not actually in it. When I was younger, I actually had a problem popping out of my body and being somewhere and somewhen else all of the time. I had strong bouts of clairvoyance where I actually would end up wherever I am at. When I would geist, my skin would feel funny as if it were charged; however, I have concluded that is a parasympathetic response to my emotions and is actually not correlated with the psychokinesis. To be honest, it is hard for me to cut loose with what I can do if strongly associated with my body in that my body has limitations in terms of perception and experience that another part of me does not, so to tap into it, I have to "move away and past" my body where that actually allows me to change my consciousness entirely and shift from looking at things as the way humans do(it is just hard to hold onto that when strongly associated with my body). Metaphysically, my body does not have any particular special importance to me or my experience, so I cannot relate to what you mean when you start talking about physical states and such as related to your practices, to be frank. When I sense a table, a part of my thoughts are that table. A part of me is that table. When I perform psychokinesis, I just utilize that part of me which is that table, so I am not shaping energy; rather, I am shaping myself. I experience a part of me as that thing or that person. When I interact with someone, I have a similar experience. I do not have the experience of all that energy stuff. The closer I am to my body, the harder it is to do that, though. I also don't experience what you do when you get depleted. To be honest, the more I do, the more I want to do and the more I can do. It just gets out of hand, and I lose control over it and myself, so I tend to not cut loose until I can get more control over myself. I have had very strong psychic abilities all my life where I heavily researched mysticism and religion, but I found they cannot explain it where the best bet, for now, seems science, so that is where I am placing my money. I don't know where my abilities come from or why I have them, but if it were not for my experiences, I would not have an interests in science or engineering probably. I also believe that scientifically figuring psi out will benefit society in terms of creating a very potent energy source of clean energy. In that sense, I place little value on things like this because I have what I see as more important goals in mind. I also believe my abilities are my own, and I can do with them what I want, so I tend to resent practices that tell me what I have to or should do with them under the idea you have to subscribe to whatever to refine them, so I am skeptical of schools of thought  that speak of this. I will not say more on this bit in this thread, though, so if you want to discuss it further, you'll have to do it somewhere else with me, because that is not what this thread is about. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 06:32:02 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 15, 2016, 07:01:43 AM
Reply #61

Kemetin

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 123
  • Karma:
    14
    • View Profile
Well, that escalated quickly.

I'm not going to try and play catch up with the debate, or pick up where I left off, since I think I've said most of what I can be bothered saying on the subject. But I would like to make two quick points.

Firstly, what I said regarding you not commenting on things you don't have experience with was specifically in reference to qi gong, not to the broader field of metaphysics in general.

Secondly, you speak a lot about manipulating probability and information, entropy etc. within your own practice, but you don't actually explain how you believe this takes place. For there to be a transfer of information taking place, wouldn't a medium of some sort be required?



February 15, 2016, 08:23:46 AM
Reply #62

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Secondly, you speak a lot about manipulating probability and information, entropy etc. within your own practice, but you don't actually explain how you believe this takes place. For there to be a transfer of information taking place, wouldn't a medium of some sort be required?

No - that's a tenant of materialism, and my practices are not materialistic. Psi is not a particle. It is not energy in the sense of a wave. I actually did specify it; however, it was overlooked because a materialistic paradigm was taken for granted. I went on to say, in a later post, that a part of me becomes what I wish to manipulate, or this is to say that part of my experience represents those state of affairs and thus becomes the informational component which frames the intention which moves that thing. In my experience, I don't have to shoot it with any energy; rather, I experience something I am considering doing becoming what I am actually doing per my decision to actually do it. As I said, in this thread, I believe people become so enmeshed in materialistic ideology they trade one for another. 

In this, there need not be a medium in that I can directly influence the probability of things for the same reason that entropy is not a problem(the physical information of the system would be a subset of what allows for this to happen where there is evidence for this in terms of the spatial-temporal invariance of psi, it being instant, retropsychokinesis, precognition, so on and so forth). Statistical laws can be treated as emergent from underlying spatial and temporal properties. Since psi does not possess these spatial and temporal properties(it does not obey any of the symmetries it should if it did which is why you cannot explain it via Quantum Mechanics entirely), it can skew these statistical laws where the information comes from the experiences and intention of the person themselves where that is derived from psi pointing to a more fundamental domain of sorts. The statistical laws we are playing with are emergent and psi plays off of the fundamental thing the laws emerge from. My intention and experiences, in the sense of psi, are not inert; rather, they have causal properties from which things can emerge. Energy, in that sense, can be abstracted to be the actual process of actualization where the potential for something to be real is put into motion; however, it is fundamentally caused by the mental entity I speak of. When I want to do something, I have learned to reach for the experiences associated with whatever I action I want to do where enmeshed in that experience, in terms of psychokinesis, is the information which describes that state which will manipulate the physical world however I want to. Pretty much, I don't specify the medium because the cause is my decisions, experience, and intention where this need not require a medium. There is really no evidence where you can treat it as a force, particle, or wave(Steve was making an analogous case for this based on Physics that was wrong and no evidence in that he was modeling entropy as being caused by repulsive forces where psychokinesis then becomes another force that stops this; that works in metaphor but there is no evidence to show this is happening), so it really makes no sense to think of it as if there is something mediating a force between your intention and what happens. Technically, if we are saying that something mediates information from your intention and then turns it into a force that interacts with other forces in such a way to act as a medium, you start getting into field and particle theory. That has no support beyond it is intuitive. Thinking of this as a field is intuitive to your average person. Thinking that this field interacts with energy that does something in the world is also intuitive to people; however, there is no evidence to suggests this is happening. Evidence, on the other hand, is more of a topological relationship between the domain from which psi operates and the domain from which statistical properties emerge in the domain that psi operates is more fundamental. Pretty much, I am saying psi operates on a domain that is fundamental to emergent statistical properties where those properties determine the nature of things like matter and energy.   
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 08:31:04 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 15, 2016, 09:13:36 AM
Reply #63

Kemetin

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 123
  • Karma:
    14
    • View Profile
Well it's an interesting perspective, but personally it feels like a rather excessive extrapolation from the extremely limited set of results and even more limited set of theories produced by parapsychology. Even though it has finally started to tighten it's standards and widen it's horizons a bit in the last two decades, I just don't think parapsychology as science says enough to be able to put forward that kind of hypothesis as confidently as you do, and it won't until the field deals with it's many and varied shortcomings internally and then forces the scientific mainstream to acknowledge it as a valid area of study.

I also think you're writing off models such as Qi prematurely, and might find yourself surprised at the ease with which you can reach an amalgamation of some sort with your current views if you took the time to study them or experiment with related practices - if nothing else, it's hardly in the spirit of the scientific method to write something off just because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of how things work.

I also think you might be lead down some interesting paths if you took a bit of a turn with your train of thought and applied your inductive method to the results attained by practitioners using Qi theory or similar models compared to the results attained by practitioners who choose to reject them.

But that's just my 2c.


February 15, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
Reply #64

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I also think you might be lead down some interesting paths if you took a bit of a turn with your train of thought and applied your inductive method to the results attained by practitioners using Qi theory or similar models compared to the results attained by practitioners who choose to reject them.

I believe in presenting both issues to something even if I don't make use of it so people can make up their mind. To that end, I would recommend what Kobok has to say on that subject if a person has an interests in fitting Qi with psionics. I don't, but anyone who is interested should look into what he says on the subject.

Well it's an interesting perspective, but personally it feels like a rather excessive extrapolation from the extremely limited set of results and even more limited set of theories produced by parapsychology.

It is not really an extrapolation, though. I think you probably utilized it in the sense of conjectural due to unknown variables, but unknown data that occurs within a data range can be accurately interpolated in a regression model and it not be conjectural. An extrapolation is something like a function that is outside of a range of discrete points. In what I said, I am stating there is a range of data, from an experiment, where we are deducing something from within that range approximately though it is not an exact fit to the discrete point(a value between the two discrete points 1 and 2 like 1.5). For example, if we run a psi experiment to see if performance increases or decreases relative to temporal distance and/or spatial distance, we have a set of discrete points where we are then deducing something in terms of the hypothesis. If we formulate a  regression based on these points and use that to predict something between the data range without referring to a particular discrete point where it is not outside of the range, it is interpolation. What I am saying I am deducing from an experiment where this is being formulated from within the data range. In other words, it is not an extrapolation, because it is being deduced for cases within a range of data per experimentation. You can deal with the error by using a least squares method. Pretty much if we have a scatter plot of data where we want to make a prediction from within the data without actually having that data, it is an interpolation. It is not excessively an extrapolation because what I have said is contingent on a deduction from experimental evidence to test a hypothesis that lies within the dataset. Of course, there is a rate of error, so you account for that error via something like utilizing a least squares method. An example of this, as used within physics, is Hook's Law. The issue is not whether or not it is an interpolation or extrapolation; rather, the issue is the strength of the inferential link so that I can say there is a general uniformity between that data and things in general(that is called the uniformity of nature). Scientifically, this is reasonable. See this link for a summary of criticisms to this: Problem of Induction(again, I am giving you links to criticisms on my views so people can fairly evaluate).

Links you might find interesting:

ESP and Consciousness
Psi and Philosophy of Mind(I think you should pay attention to this one)
Is PHYSICALISM “REALLY” TRUE?: An Empirical Argument Against the Universal Construal of Physicalism
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 05:35:40 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 16, 2016, 08:05:59 AM
Reply #65

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

May 14, 2016, 11:43:13 AM
Reply #66

Kemetin

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 123
  • Karma:
    14
    • View Profile
I know I'm resurrecting an older thread, but I came across this video which really neatly articulates a lot of what was being debated here, from a figure who generally receives a fair amount of respect and authority in the Daoist community, so I thought I'd post a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaeO2hl4SY

It's a decent length at 45 minutes, but most of what's relevant to the discussion which was being held is in the first half - namely the nature of Jing in traditional Daoist cosmology, how the concept influences Qi Gong practice and relates to Daoist concepts of health and lifestyle, and why it's important, when discussing these arts, to not recklessly cast off the traditional cosmological models within which these arts were developed.