Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Is Qi really a type of liquid matter dependent on a firm vessel inside the body? Philosophy of Science forays

10 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

It is not. I could enter on philosophy of the scientific method here, mention Popper or Aristotle, but I guess it sufices to say that "science" is a philosophical belief system based on some principles which are impossible to prove in their very conception.

Research is one of the elements science pretends to use, but which actually depends on the researcher NOT abiding by the philosophical principles of science - in order to remain neutral and unbiased.

OK so when you see the word "science" you think it is something different than what I think it is. Yes I am familiar with Karl Popper and Aristotle. I've read quite a bit of philosophy of science actually. There's Feyerabend, and Stephen Toulmin and Hempel - Carl Hempel - and Lakatos - and H.M. Collins - and Professor Stephen Braude - and the quantum philosophers of science are number - Ruth E. Kastner and one of my favorites is - well so many names to remember. Bernard D'Espagnat. And my own quantum physics professor wrote a philosophy of science book - Herbert J. Bernstein. Yes "philosophy of science" is interesting. Karl - oh he wrote the Great Transformation book - Karl Polyani. Also Hazel Henderson's book "Politics of the Solar Age." Of course - let's not forget - Oh but I have forgotten. too many names to remember. I read one scholarly book a day for ten years! Hold on -
Isabelle Stengers and her co-author who got a Nobel Prize. - oh and Steven Strogatz - and Brian Josephson - and the inventor of MRI (who was ignored for the Nobel prize). Also - so many "tip of the tongues" on the names. I cite many in my book.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/the-moan-zone/279031d1330198691-retune-your-music-444-old-tuning-standard-alchemy-rainbow-heart-music.pdf
Here is my free 2012 book - with 725 scholarly footnotes.
Oh I am reminded of many philosophers of science: Orest Bedrij. Yes on Aristotle I quote Shahn Majid - a physics professor.
Dr. William Braud. Asher Peres. Professor JZ Young. Henry P. Stapp. Ralph Abraham. Manfred Schroeder.
Oh I can't forget Philosophy of science professor Oliver L. Reiser and his collaborator Dr. Andrija Puharich.
Gerald Hawkins.
Abraham Seidenberg.
Arthur Young.
Henri Poincare.
Nigel Cook.
Lee Smolin.
Basil J. Hiley
Ian Stewart.
Tony Wright
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Yeah those are some philosophers of science - I don't agree with them all. I'm just saying there's a lot more out there than Popper and Aristotle.

10 hours ago, Desmonddf said:


Maybe that is the main point you're not getting here - Qi is a substance. It is as "liquid" as blood (ying qi is), and its vessels are as "firm" as blood vessels.

It is not a  "release of potential" or "energy" on a physics sense of the world. It is not a "field". It is a THING. It is made of "matter" if we can say so for things which do not exist as physical matter.

This is were I say people are wrong at their inception on this theme. They think "oh, nerves are being activated and neurotransmitters produced, this must be how acupuncture works!" when acupuncture will deal not with marrow or other physical substances, but with the flow of this "liquid" called Qi. 

If you think Qi is "actually the name of something physical" instead of looking at what TCM says about Qi, you're not researching TCM. You're trying to "scientificize" TCM, destroying and ignoring its workings and base, research being your excuse.

So you're stating Qi is a "thing" and is made of "matter" but it is does not "exist as physical matter" rather it is a "flow of this liquid" called Qi.
OK that's a very interesting take - not very clear but interesting. You say the "vessels" of qi are as "firm" as blood vessels. Well maybe when qi is in the body - but qi can also be formless - outside the body. As in psychic energy or spiritual energy - the yuan qi or even yin qi sent out of the body.

10 hours ago, Desmonddf said:
You want to know how acupuncture works using "science" ? Fair enough. Go on with it. But please don't try to make diagnosys and assumptions without trying them beforehand (as you would in any biomedical research).

Yes I'm not sure what you mean - I have not made any "diagnosis" - that is a specific Western medical term. I've never even written that word before except for now - as far as I know.
In terms of "biomedical research" - well I did used to work as a science lab assistant in a biomedical laboratory at University of Wisconsin-Madison - for a genetics research of cancer. So I do have some experience. But I would say again that there can be no "double blind" studies of Qi - unlike "any biomedical research." So Karl Popper's schemata of "falsification" probably does not apply.

Actually Popper wrote about quantum physics with John Eccles - and he promotes a "resonance" model of reality based on Kepler. So that actually fits with my view of reality. I quoted Popper in one of my earlier books. It might be in that 2012 book actually.

Yep - I did quote him! I'll post it on my blog - since this website does not allow "cut and pastes" from pdfs.




and this:









No comments:

Post a Comment