5 ms·

Qi does not exist.

by nilved 11y ago

Qi does not exist.

loceng 11y ago
So, that's your theory?
djtriptych 11y ago
Can you prove that? There is evidence to the contrary.
- meowface 11y ago
  The Wikipedia article for it shows only skepticism regarding it, with no professional sources arguing for its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_view Could you show the evidence to the contrary? Also, potentially beneficial effects of acupuncture do not imply anything about the existence of qi.
  - djtriptych 11y ago
    Depends on what you mean by existence? Detectable by modern instrumentation? What if Qi is an extremely useful system of mental organization, allowing practitioners to fine-tune their own body's operation. There is plenty of evidence that this is possible (see mindfullness / trancendental meditation) which have concrete isomorphisms (so to speak) to the concept of Qi.
colordrops 11y ago
Qi doesn't exist the same way that software doesn't exist. It's an abstraction that labels an emergent phenomenon. Software is made up if zeros and ones which actually don't exist but are labels we give to certain states of organized matter and energy. The same goes for Qi. It's the perception of a composite of the various aspects of a body's state as well as mental awareness of that state, such as relaxation in a specific part of the body. It's more detailed than explained here, but that's the jist.
- austinjp 11y ago
  Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain or describe any physical, emotional, cognitive, social or "spiritual" phenomena. It is certainly not emergent (nor is software). To paraphrase Dawkins, you already don't believe in homunculi, aether, or many other previous attempts to explain our experience of being ourselves. Qi is just another thing to not believe, try it.
  - colordrops 11y ago
    > Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain or describe any physical, emotional, cognitive, social or "spiritual" phenomena Care to be more specific? How do the terms "necessary" and "sufficient" come into play? It's not a binary "all" or "nothing" distinction. If something helps you even a little bit, then it's valuable. An easy to grasp model of your body's state can help you maintain awareness of that state, and thus improve it. Also, what do homunculi, aether, etc have to do with Qi? Qi is a useful abstraction. I've never claimed that it exists as an objective property of the universe.
    - austinjp 11y ago
      Hi there. Sure -- "Necessary" and "sufficient" are technical terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency You described Qi as "the perception of a composite of the various aspects of a body's state as well as mental awareness of that state". I'm saying Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to perceive these things. Similarly, I could say "Aether carries the mental awareness of my body's state". Or "Tiny homuncli exist in my brain, and it's the job of one of them to make me aware of my body's state". These things are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain awareness of ones own body. Consequently they could detract from explanations that may be genuinely useful. It seems difficult to point to exactly what Qi is, and how it's different from similarly vague postulations. Whether your idea of Qi helps you or not wasn't mentioned in your previous comment, so I wasn't responding to that. If Qi is simply an "abstraction" then we can call it whatever we want. Why call it Qi? If Qi is not "an objective property of the universe" is it entirely a subjective property of whoever believes in it? If that's the case, I'd struggle to understand how "useful" it is. Certainly, I can see that things like self-awareness, relaxation, mindfulness, stillness and so on are "useful". They can be potent, restorative, healthful, etc, and we can demonstrate those effects through experiment. Unfortunately concepts like Qi tend to unravel in the light of experiment because they are so indefinable. Or more accurately: the definition constantly seems to shift. Not everything is definable, of course. I have no issue with finding beauty, wonder and awe in life. In fact -- that's probably one important element in living well. Ultimately I don't particularly mind if you believe in something called Qi, although I find it odd, and I hope you have a happy life :)

Qi does not exist.

by nilved 11y ago

Qi does not exist.

loceng 11y ago

So, that's your theory?

djtriptych 11y ago

Can you prove that? There is evidence to the contrary.

meowface 11y ago
The Wikipedia article for it shows only skepticism regarding it, with no professional sources arguing for its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_view Could you show the evidence to the contrary? Also, potentially beneficial effects of acupuncture do not imply anything about the existence of qi.
- djtriptych 11y ago
  Depends on what you mean by existence? Detectable by modern instrumentation? What if Qi is an extremely useful system of mental organization, allowing practitioners to fine-tune their own body's operation. There is plenty of evidence that this is possible (see mindfullness / trancendental meditation) which have concrete isomorphisms (so to speak) to the concept of Qi.

colordrops 11y ago

Qi doesn't exist the same way that software doesn't exist. It's an abstraction that labels an emergent phenomenon. Software is made up if zeros and ones which actually don't exist but are labels we give to certain states of organized matter and energy. The same goes for Qi. It's the perception of a composite of the various aspects of a body's state as well as mental awareness of that state, such as relaxation in a specific part of the body. It's more detailed than explained here, but that's the jist.

austinjp 11y ago
Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain or describe any physical, emotional, cognitive, social or "spiritual" phenomena. It is certainly not emergent (nor is software). To paraphrase Dawkins, you already don't believe in homunculi, aether, or many other previous attempts to explain our experience of being ourselves. Qi is just another thing to not believe, try it.
- colordrops 11y ago
  > Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain or describe any physical, emotional, cognitive, social or "spiritual" phenomena Care to be more specific? How do the terms "necessary" and "sufficient" come into play? It's not a binary "all" or "nothing" distinction. If something helps you even a little bit, then it's valuable. An easy to grasp model of your body's state can help you maintain awareness of that state, and thus improve it. Also, what do homunculi, aether, etc have to do with Qi? Qi is a useful abstraction. I've never claimed that it exists as an objective property of the universe.
  - austinjp 11y ago
    Hi there. Sure -- "Necessary" and "sufficient" are technical terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency You described Qi as "the perception of a composite of the various aspects of a body's state as well as mental awareness of that state". I'm saying Qi is neither necessary nor sufficient to perceive these things. Similarly, I could say "Aether carries the mental awareness of my body's state". Or "Tiny homuncli exist in my brain, and it's the job of one of them to make me aware of my body's state". These things are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain awareness of ones own body. Consequently they could detract from explanations that may be genuinely useful. It seems difficult to point to exactly what Qi is, and how it's different from similarly vague postulations. Whether your idea of Qi helps you or not wasn't mentioned in your previous comment, so I wasn't responding to that. If Qi is simply an "abstraction" then we can call it whatever we want. Why call it Qi? If Qi is not "an objective property of the universe" is it entirely a subjective property of whoever believes in it? If that's the case, I'd struggle to understand how "useful" it is. Certainly, I can see that things like self-awareness, relaxation, mindfulness, stillness and so on are "useful". They can be potent, restorative, healthful, etc, and we can demonstrate those effects through experiment. Unfortunately concepts like Qi tend to unravel in the light of experiment because they are so indefinable. Or more accurately: the definition constantly seems to shift. Not everything is definable, of course. I have no issue with finding beauty, wonder and awe in life. In fact -- that's probably one important element in living well. Ultimately I don't particularly mind if you believe in something called Qi, although I find it odd, and I hope you have a happy life :)