Is Prana the same as Air/Oxygen?

[What Am I]

@aurum And just so I'm not an asshole and only responding to your questions with my own questions, the reason I'm aware of Qi existing in a literal sense is because I've experienced the phenomenon in enough detail to be convinced.

There's many times I've felt Qi deliberately and in ever-growing clarity, but I'd say psychedelic-induced kundalini made it the most obvious that there's a huge piece missing from Western science's understanding of the human body. The experience is beyond extreme, and there's simply no denying it when it happens. Strangely enough though, despite kundalini being absent from practically everyone's understanding, its symbols remain in our culture, such as the caduceus used in medicine.

There's a lot more that can be said, and I'm open to the conversation, but this is a very basic description of one of the things that makes me sure of its existence.

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

What I am interested in is critiquing Qi as a theoretical model. "Qi" is not limited to Qi Gong. This same vitalism model is found in Reiki, the work of Wilhelm Reich, chiropractic medicine, osteopathic medicine, all the various forms of TCM, yoga, bioenergetics and so on and so forth.

There are even people using the idea of Qi in order to try and build over-unity devices that will replace fossil fuels.

So there is a very wide range of beliefs and claims associated with Qi here. It's not just strictly Qi Gong.

The problem is, how do we assess which of these claims are true, if any?

And how does Qi fit into the bigger picture of God and Consciousness?

I like these questions and ask myself them all the time. 
 

I think will use ChatGPT to cross reference the similarities, differences, epistemological stability, and conflicts that exist between yoga, qigong, chiropractic etc, 

I am writing this before I ask ChatGPT. 

A good metaphor I assume would be the elephant and the 5 blind men. Each man is blind and feeling the elephant trying to figure out what it is. “It’s a long broom!” Says one, “it’s a great trunk” says another “it’s sharp and pointy!” Says another… you get the point. Each of these fields is seeing a different aspect of the same elephant , each with different goggles, applications, strengths and weaknesses.  When looking at the human body and vitalism each culture and approach is a different lense and application to see human healing and as well what the human body is. 
 

When it comes to people trying to use Qi as an energy source for vehicles I’m not sure. It sounds like bullshit to me. There is bullshit in science, there is bullshit when it comes to claims around Qi. This is a challenge for all fields in general. How do you sort proper understanding from improper understanding? It’s a deep and challenging issue. I don’t know much about uses of qi outside qigong to be honest. I’m not super new age but came to qigong with a more somatic lens and later came to accept Qi after much skepticism.
 

Qigong is a skill. It’s a practical skill for health and wellness. Working with the Qi is part of it. Obviously a healthy life force is important for health no?
 

I think, my understanding of Qigong and Qi become very solid for the application I wish to use. For the purposes of Qigong and teaching/ sharing with others so they can have more health, wellness, longevity and less stress and more energy. You simply do the practices and understand the techniques, physically, and internal and you make empirical observations. You observe how it affects you and then your students. You hear their feedback and results. You compare it to the source material of your certification and works of experts in the field. 
 

By cross referencing with AI the world’s epistemological paradigms perhaps a stronger more solid and integral understanding can be created. 
 

Science is wrong to demystify reality as well. This is important to note.  Because Qigong is a highly integral and holistic practice it addresses both the physical aspects of the body and the energetic and mystical aspects too. 
 

At the time of writing this I do not claim to be a Qigong master or scholar. I am a Tier 1 Holden Qigong teacher with 2 years experience. I consider myself at the very beginning of my practice and career as a fledgling expert in my field. It’s fresh
 

At the same time Qi, is best understood as a philosophical concept as well as real phonomnen. It can’t be understood without studying and trying to understand the Toaist cosmology and the cosmology and epistemology of Chinese medicine. Then, it’s best to cross reference various aspects of western and Chinese medicine to see the similarities, differences and conflicts.  

I was reviewing Leo’s “The Myth of science” which I think brings up a lot of good points for looking to  view human  epistemology through a multiperspectival holistic and integrative lens that explores and builds understanding of the strength and weaknesses of each epistemic system/ “science” instead of solely relying on western science as the backbone, or western pop science as opposed to open inquiry and pursuit of truth for its own sake.  Western science clearly has many epistemic issues. I’m sure every epistemology does. 
 

Anyway, 

Qi as I understand it in a very practical way to be a human being life force. That is Human Qi. 
 

There is of course Earth Qi and Heaven Qi. But, to grasp this you would have to study and contemplate Chinese/ Toaist cosmology. Not all of which I agree with. Same as not all “science” I agree with and not all scientists agree. 

Edited July 30 by Thought Art

[aurum]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

Is it possible you're only identifying the gross and causal, and leaving out recognition of the subtle? Ken Wilber has a recorded talk where he describes this scenario in detail. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

I have no experience with the things he is talking about.

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

I'm not trying to attack or "gotcha" you. I'm genuinely curious how someone who thinks in such a logical and grounded manner could even believe in spirituality when all evidence of its existence is so sparse and subjective. I'm guessing there must have been a leap of faith in your past to bridge a gap like that.

Because there can be no scientific evidence for what I am saying.

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

but I'd say psychedelic-induced kundalini made it the most obvious that there's a huge piece missing from Western science's understanding of the human body

This is the core bullshittery of Qi proponents.

On the one hand, it's argued that Qi is beyond science. Fine. But then they turn around and make a bunch of pseudoscientific claims that could either be dismissed or validated by science.

You don't get it both ways.

Either the claims you are making fall within the domain of science or they don't. If they don't, then you don't get to make scientific claims.

If they do fall within the domain of science, then you need to show your science to prove it. 

[What Am I]

Wow okay, you're less reasonable than I thought. Your inner curmudgeon has emerged.

25 minutes ago, aurum said:

Because there can be no scientific evidence for what I am saying.

Then why the fuck do you believe in it? I'd say that's borderline delusional.

I've had extraordinary experiences which have been consistently described as within human capacities, as I'm guessing you have as well. I believe mine have the potential to be validated through means of measurement and reproducibility, and it would appear you believe yours can't.

By what basis do you think you're not delusional in your beliefs? Gripping on to smoke and fairy dust, with no intention or even hope towards validating it.

Edited July 30 by What Am I

[Thought Art]

Here is a broad and very basic and overarching starting place conversation with ChatGPT beginning to cross compare these approches in pursuit of a master model:

Prompt: How are their maps the same or different? How are the claims the same or different? How could each field be integrated into a master understanding of vitalism and its efficacy. Please also add energetic herbalism. 

Response: 

### Mapping and Claims of Vitalism Across Different Fields

### **1. Qi Gong**
- **Map:** Uses the concept of meridians, energy pathways through which Qi flows in the body.
- **Claims:** Balancing Qi enhances physical health, mental clarity, and spiritual well-being.
- **Integration:** Focus on the flow of Qi and its impact on overall health.

### **2. Reiki**
- **Map:** No specific pathways; universal life force energy can be channeled through the hands to any part of the body.
- **Claims:** Reiki energy promotes relaxation, healing, and stress reduction by balancing energy.
- **Integration:** Emphasizes the universal nature of life force energy and its healing potential.

### **3. Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Theory**
- **Map:** Orgone energy pervades all living matter; no specific pathways but is influenced by physical and emotional states.
- **Claims:** Manipulating orgone energy can improve mental and physical health.
- **Integration:** Suggests a universal energy that affects both mind and body, though more controversial and less scientifically accepted.

### **4. Chiropractic Medicine**
- **Map:** Focuses on the spinal column and nervous system as pathways for innate intelligence and energy flow.
- **Claims:** Correcting spinal misalignments allows the body's natural energy to flow freely, promoting self-healing.
- **Integration:** Links structural alignment with energy flow and overall health.

### **5. Osteopathic Medicine**
- **Map:** Emphasizes the interrelationship between the body’s structure and its ability to heal itself; does not specifically map energy pathways.
- **Claims:** Holistic health depends on the body's natural ability to self-regulate and heal.
- **Integration:** Supports the concept that physical manipulation can enhance the body’s energy balance.

### **6. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)**
- **Map:** Uses a detailed map of meridians and acupuncture points through which Qi flows.
- **Claims:** Balancing Qi through acupuncture, herbs, and other practices promotes health and prevents disease.
- **Integration:** Provides a detailed and holistic map of energy flow related to various health aspects.

### **7. Yoga**
- **Map:** Focuses on the chakras (energy centers) and nadis (channels) through which Prana (life force) flows.
- **Claims:** Balancing Prana through postures, breathwork, and meditation enhances physical, mental, and spiritual health.
- **Integration:** Offers a structured approach to energy centers and channels, with techniques for balancing them.

### **8. Bioenergetics**
- **Map:** Uses the concept of bioenergetic fields influenced by physical and emotional states.
- **Claims:** Balancing these energy fields can resolve emotional problems and improve overall well-being.
- **Integration:** Connects emotional health with energy balance, emphasizing the mind-body connection.

### **9. Energetic Herbalism**
- **Map:** Considers the energetic properties of herbs (cooling, warming, drying, moistening) and their effects on the body's energy balance.
- **Claims:** Herbs can balance the body's energy, treating various ailments by influencing Qi or Prana.
- **Integration:** Adds the dimension of natural substances to the management of energy balance.

### **Comparative Analysis**

#### **Similarities:**
- **Concept of Vital Energy:** All fields recognize a vital life force (Qi, Prana, Ki, Orgone) essential for health.
- **Holistic Approach:** Emphasis on the balance and flow of this energy within the body and its impact on health.
- **Healing and Health:** Aim to promote healing, health, and well-being through various methods.
- **Mind-Body Connection:** Acknowledge the interplay between mental and physical health.

#### **Differences:**
- **Mapping of Energy Pathways:**
  - **Qi Gong and TCM:** Use detailed maps of meridians and acupuncture points.
  - **Yoga:** Focuses on chakras and nadis.
  - **Reiki:** No specific pathways; energy can be channeled anywhere.
  - **Chiropractic and Osteopathic Medicine:** Focus on structural alignment affecting energy flow.
  - **Bioenergetics and Orgone Theory:** More abstract and less anatomically specific.

- **Claims and Focus:**
  - **Physical vs. Spiritual Focus:** Qi Gong, Yoga, and TCM integrate physical, mental, and spiritual health, while chiropractic and osteopathic medicine focus more on physical health.
  - **Scientific Acceptance:** Chiropractic and osteopathic practices are more accepted in the medical community compared to Reiki and Orgone theory.

#### **Integration into a Master Understanding of Vitalism**

To integrate these fields into a cohesive understanding of vitalism, we can consider the following steps:

1. **Unified Vital Energy Concept:**
   - Acknowledge that various terms (Qi, Prana, Ki, Orgone) refer to a similar concept of life force energy essential for health.

2. **Holistic Health Framework:**
   - Combine insights from different fields to create a comprehensive approach that includes physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions.

3. **Mapping and Techniques:**
   - Develop a flexible map that incorporates meridians, chakras, and other energy pathways, allowing for multiple techniques to balance energy (e.g., acupuncture, yoga, Reiki).

4. **Evidence-Based Practices:**
   - Encourage scientific research and validation of practices where possible, while respecting traditional knowledge and anecdotal evidence.

5. **Personalized Health Plans:**
   - Tailor health practices to individual needs, combining techniques from various fields for a personalized approach to energy balance.

6. **Education and Awareness:**
   - Educate practitioners and the public about the benefits and principles of vitalism, promoting an integrated approach to health and wellness.

By recognizing the strengths and contributions of each field, we can create a holistic and integrative model of vitalism that respects diverse traditions and promotes comprehensive health and well-being.

[Thought Art]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

 

You don't get it both ways.

Either the claims you are making fall within the domain of science or they don't. If they don't, then you don't get to make scientific claims.

 

You have not validated this claim. 
 

You also haven’t validated science. 
 

Claims can be integral which would involve some scientific aspects but also aspects from other epistemic frameworks and sources. 
 

Science is not truth. So, I’m no longer going to allow people to wield it against me like everything true has to for into the model. While, also working to be familiar with more scientific literature surrounding the applications and scientifically measured aspects of the practice of Qigong, but also deepening my understanding of the theory of science and its limitations and other epistemic frameworks. 
 

Psychedelics can sure effect life force energy. There is also a field of energetic herbalism which is using herbs to effect Qi. 

Edited July 30 by Thought Art

[aurum]

37 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Wow okay, you're less reasonable than I thought. Your inner curmudgeon has emerged.

Let's not devolve to personal attacks please. This was a productive conversation.

37 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Then why the fuck do you believe in it? I'd say that's borderline delusional.

Well you said your views closely align with me on God. So why do you believe it?

Some things just can't be understood with science. 

What I'm against is claiming you are not doing science when you actually are.

33 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

You have not validated this claim. 
 

You also haven’t validated science. 
 

Claims can be integral which would involve some scientific aspects but also aspects from other epistemic frameworks and sources. 

Agreed. But you don't get to say your claims are scientific and then skip over the science part. Which is what some Qi practitioners do.

They want the benefits of sounding scientific without actually doing science.

Edited July 30 by aurum

[What Am I]

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

Let's not devolve to personal attacks please. This was a productive conversation.

Fair enough, my mistake. Perhaps I viewed your words with unintended harshness, and it can be easy to misinterpret text. A good lesson for myself in not jumping the gun with reactivity.

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

Well you said your views closely align with me on God. So why do you believe it?

Some things just can't be understood with science. 

What I'm against is claiming you are not doing science when you actually are.

The forcefulness of my beliefs are centered heavily around my extraordinary subjective experiences, which I'm guessing yours must be as well. The sensation of oneness and God-like characteristics that emerge as you get closer to the causal state also contains within it a self-authenticating feature, where the subject is convinced in an undeniable way by a "more real than real" intuition of this being the truth of existence. It's a very palpable thing that needs to be experienced to be understood.

So that explains my beliefs in the causal (Consciousness with a capital C), but the subtle is extraordinary as well, and a profoundly important piece of experienceable spirituality. I'd have to imagine that if you'd had any of the subtle experiences we've been discussing, you'd put them into the same camp of belief that you're currently applying to yourself for God. The subtle has a similar (though lesser) quality as the causal of being able to easily convince.

In regards to what we're labeling "science", I wonder if it's a difference in personal definition and understanding (with myself being the less educated one). You seem like you might actually have a background in science, and I do not. So you may be able to respect its rigors and boundaries better.

When I talk about kundalini being something that I believe can be measured and one day included in a scientific understanding, I'm speaking about it like a person in a forest who has discovered a new and unchategorized snake. In my view at that moment, the snake is obviously tangible and real, but I suppose it technically wouldn't yet fall under the umbrella of being scientifically recognized. But would it be so crazy to make the assumption that this new type of snake is capable of being included in a scientific understanding?

Now if we were to say it'd be foolish to simply look at this snake with our eyes and claim we understand the exact molecular composition of its venom, I can see where that'd be foolish and even harmful to the pursuit of scientific truth. I think it's this type of thing that you're recognizing in people who are into spirituality. And I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some degree as well.

[aurum]

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

Fair enough, my mistake. Perhaps I viewed your words with unintended harshness, and it can be easy to misinterpret text. A good lesson for myself in not jumping the gun with reactivity.

I am challenging your perspective. And really the perspective of anyone with a Qi-centric worldview.

In that sense I can be antagonistic.

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

So that explains my beliefs in the causal (Consciousness with a capital C), but the subtle is extraordinary as well, and a profoundly important piece of experienceable spirituality. I'd have to imagine that if you'd had any of the subtle experiences we've been discussing, you'd put them into the same camp of belief that you're currently applying to yourself for God. The subtle has a similar (though lesser) quality as the causal of being able to easily convince

True but keep in mind my perspective does not negate the potentiality for the existence of something like Qi.

Qi is contained as a potential form with Infinite Consciousness. It must be the case, in fact.

The question is how that translates to the everyday life we are all living.

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

In regards to what we're labeling "science", I wonder if it's a difference in personal definition and understanding (with myself being the less educated one). You seem like you might actually have a background in science, and I do not. So you may be able to respect its rigors and boundaries better.

With respect to this conversation, my general rule of thumb is this: 

Don't try to prove God with science. And don't try to prove science with God.

New agers and Qi believers make this error consistently. They want to conflate these domains of understanding, and it usually goes badly.

Perhaps in the future as science evolves that will change. Exceptions might also exist for people who are particularly knowledgable in both areas. But for the most part, I find this is a safe rule.

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

When I talk about kundalini being something that I believe can be measured and one day included in a scientific understanding, I'm speaking about it like a person in a forest who has discovered a new and unchategorized snake. In my view at that moment, the snake is obviously tangible and real, but I suppose it technically wouldn't yet fall under the umbrella of being scientifically recognized. But would it be so crazy to make the assumption that this new type of snake is capable of being included in a scientific understanding?

It's not theoretically crazy at all. Maybe it's possible.

But no one has done it, and we've known about kundalini, vitalism and Qi for thousands of years.

Why not?

If kundalini can be scientifically validated as you claim, why hasn't that happened? Why do we have scientific consensus around the existence of electromagnetism, the nuclear force, gravity, etc etc but not kundalini?

Is it sufficient to chalk that up to the close-mindedness of scientists? Or that science is just still in the dark-ages around spiritual phenomena?

Maybe. That be pretty bold.

But also, maybe kundalini is just a bad model. Bad models are far more common than good ones.

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

Now if we were to say it'd be foolish to simply look at this snake with our eyes and claim we understand the exact molecular composition of its venom, I can see where that'd be foolish and even harmful to the pursuit of scientific truth. I think it's this type of thing that you're recognizing in people who are into spirituality. And I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some degree as well.

There are some people who claim to have the ability to do essentially the exact thing you are describing. These are your psychics, intuitive, occultists etc.

But it can also be more subtle than that.

The "electric universe" phenomena is a good example of mixing spiritual, psudeoscience BS.

Take some premises that sound spiritual like "we are all one" and then construct a whole scientific theory around it. Except it turns out that the actual science is trash, doesn't work, and their spiritual platitudes mean nothing.

You can dress up any scientific theory in spiritual clothing. It doesn't mean the science is now magically true.

[Thought Art]

23 hours ago, aurum said:

They want the benefits of sounding scientific without actually doing science.

Perhaps the science is doing the practice. 

There is also plenty of studies done on Qigong. 
 

It’s a good conversation. 
 

If Qi is your aliveness, I think we all know people are alive. There is plenty of studies on the efficacy of acupuncture, etc 

If you were genuinely interested in understand life force you can do research on your own. I’ll be referring to your arguments against it because I find it interesting. 
 

Qi is your aliveness. Qi isn’t really a substance or a particular thing. It’s more of a concept or idea. That’s why it’s not one thing that can be measured. It’s your aliveness. All your aliveness. Qi includes all the processes of your aliveness. 

At the same time you do have energy in the body. You can be calm and balanced or anxious and agitated. You can have lots of energy or lack energy. Qi is a useful concept for explaining this phenomenon.

If you didn’t have electrolytes in the body you would die. They carry an electrical charge. One example of the obvious energy in the body. 

ChatGPT:

You're right. Qi is not a physical substance that can be measured or observed directly through conventional scientific means. Instead, it is a conceptual framework used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Chinese philosophy to describe the vital energy or life force that flows through all living things and the universe.

Here’s a more nuanced understanding of Qi:

1. **Conceptual Nature:**
   - Qi is a concept that represents the dynamic, vital energy essential for life and health. It is more of a philosophical and metaphysical idea rather than a physical entity.

2. **Holistic Perspective:**
   - In TCM, Qi encompasses the interactions and balance between various aspects of life, including physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual health. It’s a way to understand and explain how these factors influence overall well-being.

3. **Functional Role:**
   - Although Qi itself is not physical, its effects and manifestations can be observed in the body's functions and health. For example, the idea of Qi is used to explain processes such as metabolism, circulation, and immune response.

4. **Traditional Practices:**
   - Practices like Qigong, Tai Chi, acupuncture, and herbal medicine are designed to cultivate, balance, and harmonize Qi. These practices aim to influence the flow of Qi within the body to promote health and prevent disease.

5. **Interpretative Framework:**
   - Qi serves as an interpretative framework to understand health, illness, and the human body’s relationship with its environment. It provides a holistic approach to health that integrates mind, body, and spirit.

While Qi may not align with modern scientific definitions of energy or matter, it remains a central and influential concept in TCM, offering a unique perspective on health and healing.

Edited July 31 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

Emotions don’t exist in my opinion and anything that can’t be measured with science isn’t real. 
 

Ive been speaking with Claude AI and ChatGPT about this This is not an easy topic. 
 

Because Qi is a framework, it’s a lens or interpretation and has cultural significance. I was asking about What i feel during qigong if qi is a concept, or the devices or tools developed to measure qi. What’s interesting is that whatever the experience that is happening or whatever you measure of the human body is Qi from this lens. It’s not likely to be accepted by scientists. 
 

blood flow, bioelectrical impulses, thoughts and emotions, feelings, sensations, hormones etc are all Qi…

Edited July 31 by Thought Art

[Yimpa]

18 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Emotions don’t exist in my opinion and anything that can’t be measured with science isn’t real. 

Makes sense since emotions don’t have rules.

[Thought Art]

@Yimpa They don’t?

[What Am I]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

With respect to this conversation, my general rule of thumb is this: 

Don't try to prove God with science. And don't try to prove science with God.

New agers and Qi believers make this error consistently. They want to conflate these domains of understanding, and it usually goes badly.

Perhaps in the future as science evolves that will change. Exceptions might also exist for people who are particularly knowledgable in both areas. But for the most part, I find this is a safe rule.

Sounds fair, we all create rules to live by based on what we know and have experienced. I imagine you've seen a lot of nonsense from "spiritual" sources that have made you decide to create a split between your understandings of the natural world and your philosophical understandings of God. But it also sounds like you're leaving a crack open for it to shift if proven otherwise, so that seems reasonable enough.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

It's not theoretically crazy at all. Maybe it's possible.

But no one has done it, and we've known about kundalini, vitalism and Qi for thousands of years.

I wonder who "we" is in this statement, and I wonder what "known" means in this context. It's certainly not the majority who are aware of the theory, and it's probably only the tiniest fraction of the populace who've actually had the experience. Taking yourself as an example, you're someone who could be considered to have extreme spiritual beliefs, frequently posting on a forum focused on spirituality, and you've suggested you have never experienced anything of the type, thereby not even being sure it really exists. I think it'd be more fair to say we as a whole have not known about kundalini, vitalism, and Qi.

I think my earlier metaphorical use of the discovery of a new species may be apt. Are you aware that gorillas were discovered and catalogued in 1847? It's strange that a huge ape like that could remain unknown for so long, but it is what happened. Many more species of animal were discovered much more recently than that. Obviously this isn't proof that we'll now discover "fill in the blank", but it is an interesting example how our understandings continue to evolve in surprising ways.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

If kundalini can be scientifically validated as you claim, why hasn't that happened?

In my worldview, practically all true phenomena can be scientifically validated, even if it requires advancements in the tools used to measure them as well as our knowledge of where to look. If I thought otherwise, I'm not sure I could really say I'm dealing with something that's real.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Is it sufficient to chalk that up to the close-mindedness of scientists? Or that science is just still in the dark-ages around spiritual phenomena?

For me, the second one has to be the answer. Otherwise, I'm having delusional experiences of powerful electrical sensations blasting up my spine into my brain and forcing me into a state of transcendent concentration. I had to make a choice between believing that I'm psychotic or that science hasn't caught up, and I didn't feel like pretending I'm psychotic.

But I'm not in some kind of war with scientists either, where I belittle them in my mind for being unaware. And science has been a blessing beyond comprehension for humanity. It's just that, who could easily find something when you don't know where to look, or that you should even be looking at all?

3 hours ago, aurum said:

But also, maybe kundalini is just a bad model. Bad models are far more common than good ones.

I actually agree pretty strongly here that the model we're using is inferior and based on ancient peoples' thoughts and opinions. We need a modern and updated model to understand what's really going on. And we don't even need to keep using this silly sanskrit name of kundalini! But until something new comes about, this is what we have.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Take some premises that sound spiritual like "we are all one" and then construct a whole scientific theory around it. Except it turns out that the actual science is trash, doesn't work, and their spiritual platitudes mean nothing.

You can dress up any scientific theory in spiritual clothing. It doesn't mean the science is now magically true.

Are we all one in your view? If so, perhaps it wouldn't be too wacky to assume an accurate scientific theory could be constructed around that reality. I do agree though that hippies and goofballs shouldn't be the ones to create that theory, or else it'll be as logically weak as the minds that created it.

3 hours ago, aurum said:

I am challenging your perspective. And really the perspective of anyone with a Qi-centric worldview.

At this point, I actually feel compelled to challenge your perspective. I realized we haven't gone over it in detail, and I don't know why you believe as you do. How is it that you came to the unenviable position of a self-admitted unfalsifiable view about reality where God is concerned? For someone as logical as yourself, I'm very surprised you believe in spirituality at all. Care to explain what led you here?

Edited July 31 by What Am I

[Thought Art]

I thought this was an interesting response from Claude. 
 

Also, I’d love to share a quote from “The Web with no Weaver” which describes the different between western medicines operating system and that of a Chinese medicine doctor. 
 

You've touched on a crucial point. The core issue indeed lies significantly in the epistemological differences between traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western biomedicine. This is an insightful observation that gets to the heart of many debates surrounding concepts like qi. Let's explore this further:

1. Foundational paradigms:
   - TCM: Based on a holistic, systems-based view of the body and health
   - Western medicine: Rooted in reductionist, mechanistic understanding of biology

2. Concepts of health and disease:
   - TCM: Focuses on balance and harmony within the body and with the environment
   - Western medicine: Often emphasizes specific pathologies and their direct causes

3. Approach to evidence:
   - TCM: Relies heavily on historical observation, clinical experience, and traditional texts
   - Western medicine: Prioritizes controlled studies, reproducible experiments, and statistical analysis

4. Language and terminology:
   - TCM: Uses concepts like qi, yin-yang, and five elements that don't directly translate to Western scientific terms
   - Western medicine: Employs precise, standardized terminology based on anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry

5. Diagnostic methods:
   - TCM: Includes techniques like pulse and tongue diagnosis, which are subjective and holistic
   - Western medicine: Relies on objective measurements, lab tests, and imaging technologies

6. Treatment philosophy:
   - TCM: Often aims to restore overall balance and enhance the body's self-healing abilities
   - Western medicine: Typically targets specific symptoms or pathologies directly

7. Epistemological foundations:
   - TCM: Rooted in classical Chinese philosophy and naturalistic observation
   - Western medicine: Based on post-Enlightenment scientific method and empiricism

8. Concept of energy:
   - TCM: Incorporates non-material concepts like qi
   - Western medicine: Focuses on measurable forms of energy (chemical, electrical, thermal)

These epistemological differences create challenges in directly comparing or integrating the two systems. What counts as valid knowledge, evidence, or effective treatment can differ significantly between these paradigms.

Your question highlights the importance of recognizing these fundamental differences when discussing concepts like qi or attempting to "measure" traditional concepts using tools developed within a different epistemological framework.

Bridging these different systems of knowledge remains a significant challenge and opportunity in global healthcare. Some researchers are working on finding ways to translate concepts between these systems or to find areas where they can complement each other, but it requires careful consideration of these underlying epistemological differences.

[Thought Art]

For me, Qigong is a powerful meditative and somatic practice for less stress and more energy. The traditional frameworks of Qi, Yin and Yang and the five elements are interesting and useful Philosophical framework for describing the highly complex and holistic set of subjective and objective effects it has on the person as we create more balance and health via the practice. 
 

Because Qi is the aliveness can be broken down and explained in its components with western medicine.
 

Chinese medicine isn’t as reductionist and material. It’s more focused on balancing the whole. 
 

I am surely at the beginning of my journey. I know Qigong has change my life in profound ways and you can feel the Qi during the practice. 
 

Edited July 31 by Thought Art

[Yimpa]

9 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Yimpa They don’t?

You will discover that the deeper you get into this work. I cannot logically explain it, nor is it my experience 24/7…. that would defeat the purpose of my original claim.

[What Am I]

@aurum I'm not great at these back-and-forth kind of debates, and it's not usually in my personality to even engage in them, but it is interesting having the opportunity to consider my beliefs and the reasons I have them. Outside the forums in real life, I like to think I've been careful enough to keep all this to myself, since I realize how it'd be received by practically all others. On here where nobody knows me, I can go apeshit and say what I really think.

[Thought Art]

@What Am I It’s good to engage and use these conversations to deepen our understanding, see errors in our thinking and provide fertile soil for further contemplation. Remember not to get to heated. These conversations can be triggering and challenging at times. 
 

Debating really isn’t that useful. I’d rather we explore the underrating if science and other ways of knowledge. 
 

Aurum brought a lot to the table here and it was healthy for me to read their comments and Critisms of Qi. 
 

It’s sparked in me a deeper desire to understand Qigong, a practice which has brought a great deal of wellness and balance to my life. 

Edited July 31 by Thought Art

[What Am I]

@Thought Art Right on, agreed on all counts. If beliefs can't be shared, expressed, and justified to a fellow member of a spiritual forum, they're certainly not ready for prime time lol.