Ki & Aikido

[thaiboxerken]

And you just called your own source a liar, as Randi has stated, on his website, that no one has passed pre-testing to qualify.

 

Exactly how is that calling my source a liar? The test Randi proposed to Sylvia is a preliminary test. Preliminary tests are still tests.

Can you point me to where I have made that claim? I don't believe that I have.

 

You believe in ki, nuff said.

I've claimed the ability to perform a specific task. I have performed experimentation to establish to myself that I could. I do not know of others who have repeated my experiment, though I know of others with this skill.

 

Ok, then prove it. Win the challenge. If you doubt Randi, then go to scientists and see if you can use that route. Until then, all you have are claims.

I have been neither vague nor mysterious in my claim. I have offered no explanation for how it works as I have no knowledge of how it works, only how to do it.

 

Fine. I doubt you can do it though.

Again, I doubt it. How would you test for it? How do yo urule out things like "felt the vibration of him moving"? If, indeed, he's working off intent (most people that do this exercise do), then it would be quite possible for someone to fool him by masking intent (which is easy to do unintentionally when "testing" rather than actually wanting to attack).

 

You can doubt all you want, but until you actually take measures to test it, you'll never know.

I would imagine that two are easy to rule out... and I recommend that he work on doing it with his eyes closed and no contact... hearing (and worse, feel) can be harder... perhaps with loud background noise and other moving non-attacking people?

 

Oh, I think Mr Randi can come up with a few suggestions.

 

I agree that there is a point long before 100 where it becomes silly. After about two I wouldn't bother.

Perhaps if we gave a bunch of people a big stick (like a battering ram)... that would let them exert force as a group. (ponders... I wonder how that would turn out)

 

Now you're starting to think like a skeptic.

[JerryLove]

Exactly how is that calling my source a liar? The test Randi proposed to Sylvia is a preliminary test. Preliminary tests are still tests.

 

Yet they fail the same important criteria of impartiality.

You believe in ki, nuff said.

 

What I believe, and what someone else who uses the same word belives, are not neccessirily the same.

 

I believe in what I believe in. I believe in it because my own experiences find it reputible. I know it's easier to lump people into groups, but it's less accurate.

Ok, then prove it. Win the challenge. If you doubt Randi, then go to scientists and see if you can use that route. Until then, all you have are claims.

You'll notice that I brougt them up in response to an inquery. You'll notice I never claimed to have more than claims... though with at least one person here, I've offered to interact and show what I know.

You can doubt all you want, but until you actually take measures to test it, you'll never know.

 

I agree, and I don't know in regards to his claim.

Oh, I think Mr Randi can come up with a few suggestions.

 

I believe I just did... though they were more focused on his personal study than "attempts to avoid deciet" experiments.

 

The obvious way to do that is with a scripted person behind a soundproof wall... but the trick will likely not work for several reasons (even assuming the trick is legit).

Now you're starting to think like a skeptic.

 

I am a skeptic.

[47MartialMan]

So far any demos I have witnessed (per I tried to get them to perform the demo with other material) or participated in, make be "beleive" in Ki/Chi/Qi.

 

Being a magician (retired) like Randi, has made me skeptical. knowing of the many illusionsts out there.

 

Even in Aikido, I have not found it to be.

 

Does Ki/Chi/Qi exists? Depends on the definition, demostration, and example given.

 

But, my "book is still opened".

[thaiboxerken]

Yet they fail the same important criteria of impartiality.

 

You are simply wrong.

What I believe, and what someone else who uses the same word belives, are not neccessirily the same.

 

You claim to be able to feel if someone is injured or not with touch. Now, how do you do that? What do you call what you are sensing?

I believe in what I believe in. I believe in it because my own experiences find it reputible. I know it's easier to lump people into groups, but it's less accurate.

 

Yes, you simply trust your own experiences over the reality of physics. That's fine, but really, it's just a belief.

You'll notice that I brougt them up in response to an inquery. You'll notice I never claimed to have more than claims... though with at least one person here, I've offered to interact and show what I know.

 

Why not do it under controlled conditions?

[JEM618]

No one gets out alive!!!!

 

Aren't you cold?

[aikidokid]

I recommend that he work on doing it with his eyes closed and no contact... hearing (and worse, feel) can be harder... perhaps with loud background noise and other moving non-attacking people?

 

It would be fun to experiment with.

 

I agree it would be fun to experiment, and I will.

You want to believe, that's fine with me, whatever keeps you happy.

 

I agree, and this was my very first post. We are all happy believing what we have seen and have done.

If you want to continue attacking me

 

I'm sorry you take it this way, as you will see from my previous posts, I have been enjoying the discussion and have had no intention of attacking you. I just don't understand why you are not prepared to take a look at things. It's just a comment, that's all.

You put up a good arguement, even though I think we will never agree.

I'm simply a skeptic that doubts your absurd claims.

 

That's fine, I don't have a problem with your skeptisism. There are many who do. I can only talk of my practise.

[JerryLove]

So far any demos I have witnessed (per I tried to get them to perform the demo with other material) or participated in, make be "beleive" in Ki/Chi/Qi.

I can very much relate; it was about 10 years before I found anything I considered compelling.

You claim to be able to feel if someone is injured or not with touch. Now, how do you do that? What do you call what you are sensing?

I don't know. The actual sensation is different depending on more varibles that I have been able to isolate. Physical injury tends to feel "off temperature" or have something of a static-electric sensation (for me).

 

The sensations would be easy to dismiss as delusional if they did not reliably conform to reality (If I had not tested and found that when I thought I felt something it was there).

Yes, you simply trust your own experiences over the reality of physics. That's fine, but really, it's just a belief.

Which reality of physics would that be? And yes, my first judge of reality is my own observation and reason.

Why not do it under controlled conditions?

Equivocation, I did not mention conditions. Though if you really want to test it for yourself, I would suggest doing what I did... learn how to do it and try it for yourself. Then you can go make a million dollars.

[Sasori_Te]

I, too woulike to know what physics you are talking about thaiboxerken. You really do need to stick to the things that you can use to back up your arguments. I'm guessing that you are not a true student of physics or any other science by the previous statements that you have made. You take scientific explanations and use them only when they back up your personal beliefs. This is the same thing that James Randi does as far as I can tell. Yet, you and he talk about how science is flawed if the results don't agree with your persoanl viewpoint. How is that good science exactly? Science is not perfect, nor are the scientists who do the experiments to further scientific research. Science is simply not able to explain everything, including day to day occurrences around the world. I still haven't heard any argument from you about this line of thought.

[thaiboxerken]

The sensations would be easy to dismiss as delusional if they did not reliably conform to reality (If I had not tested and found that when I thought I felt something it was there).

 

Tell me, are you qualified to test these things?

Which reality of physics would that be?

 

The ones that rules our objective universe.

And yes, my first judge of reality is my own observation and reason.

 

I highly doubt that you are qualified to judge such things.

Equivocation, I did not mention conditions.

 

But did you use controlled conditions? I doubt it.

Though if you really want to test it for yourself, I would suggest doing what I did... learn how to do it and try it for yourself. Then you can go make a million dollars.

 

Why the crap would I want to waste my time doing something that I believe doesn't work?!

 

You sure do make excuses for avoiding the challenge. The JREF is a small drive away from you, they have and do test claims JUST LIKE YOURS. Yet you insist on making excuses for why you won't do it. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want your beliefs tested by an objective, third party because you are afraid of the results?

[Sasori_Te]

Please tell me and everyone else thaiboxerken, which realities of physics rule our objective universe????