What is Chi?

[Kai]

Rat, you're redefining a word that most commonly has a different meaning that the one you're ascribing to it.

You should really read the LessWrong sequences.  He has a bit about that.

Well, that's why I said "in some sense..." . I wasn't defending the newage concept. After all, I find it difficult to come up with any kind of argument about how someone could detect this with their hands or eyes

Goddamnit rat.

This thing we're doing, it's called communicating. The purpose of communication is to relay messages. This shit you do, it doesn't actually aid in communicating anything other than "I am a slippery bastard, watch me dance". That's what your "language-fu" comes off as. This is why LMNO is telling you to read the Sequences, cause it's damn annoying trying to communicate when you do this.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well by all means point me to the essay. I've been reading LessWrong but haven't read all of it.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the definition of aura is?

[Kai]

Not anything physical, which is what you would be implying.

[Triple Zero]

Rat, you're redefining a word that most commonly has a different meaning that the one you're ascribing to it.

Says you and Kai.

If you say that the word "aura" means by definition "Not anything physical", as Kai put it, then you are the ones taking the easy and wrong way out, failing at communicating, BADLY.

Yeah sorry, I've been reading those LessWrong sequences too, and sometimes I disagree with them. But what really disgusts me is how Eliezers words are being treated as gospel. Especially when people try to engage in real discussion, they say something that doesn't fit with treating the way it was treated on LW, so instead of actually communicating your own thoughts (Think for Yourself style) you tell people to "read the sequences, I'm not entirely sure how you are wrong, but read the holy sequences, and it'll become apparent to you".

I know, I know, I'm overstating it a littlebit. I know and damn well hope you guys don't think like that, but it sure sounds like it.

Anyway, back on topic, as far as I know, the most commonly used meaning of the word "aura" is that it's some kind of "energy field" around a living organism.

If you want to insist that no, it's by definition non-physical, and therefore paranormal and therefore doesn't exist, then congratulations, you won the argument by defining the word in a way that wins you the argument. Stating it that way is also just about as useful to state (if I'm quoting you quoting Eliezer correctly) "I'm not anticipating any God", which you said is not a very interesting thing to state and only needs to be said once, if at all.

who's the authority on what the word "aura" should mean? Let's say it's the new age hippies that believe in them. The strongest I ever heard one seriously argue is that it could be, or might be non-physical, but no one ever told me it HAS to be non-physical otherwise it's not an aura. On the OTHER hand, every single definition I ever heard of the word aura DID include "it's some kind of energy fields around a living organism".

It's just like that discussion on souls and ghosts we had a little while back. But back then you didn't tell me I was being More Wrong than Less Wrong when I compared [spitirual] energy to memetics. Yet following the same argument, I was totally redefining the words, because I was arguing that, they might not be entirely paranormal.


Weren't we all in agreement about how it's rather useless to flaunt the skeptic statement "I don't anticipate God" and rather dumb (More Wrong than Less Wrong) to make the atheist statement "I don't believe in God" ?

Good!

Cause I think the same argument can be made here. And once we get past that we ALL might actually get to the interesting parts that, among others, Ratatosk was trying to get to.

Cause IMO, the interesting parts are, if the paranormal doesn't exist (we are in agreement) then what is it, what is the thing that people claim to perceive as auras or Ki?

Could part of it be a result of near-infrared radiation?



If the way I'm stating my case is Too Wrong to be Less Wrong, my apologies and please continue, I'll leave this thread alone so that people can use it to agree with the Scriptures.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Not anything physical, which is what you would be implying.

Well... I disagree. The entire package of beliefs around auras ascribe many qualities to the word, but most of them seem to consider an aura as a kind of physical luminous radiation that surrounds all life. Some newage people claim to feel them, or see them or can read your personality in them or take pictures of them... and I still think that's all very likely bullshit. However, the most basic claim, which most people (including myself) have considered as bullshit up to this point is that there's some kind of physical radiation or light which comes from all living things.

Here's some definitions:

In parapsychology and many forms of spiritual practice, an aura is a field of subtle, luminous radiation surrounding a person or object (like the halo or aureola in religious art). The depiction of such an aura often connotes a person of particular power or holiness. Sometimes, however, all people, or all living things, or all objects whatsoever are said to manifest such an aura. Often it is held to be perceptible, whether spontaneously or with practice: such perception is at times linked with the third eye of Indian spirituality.[1][2] Various writers associate various personality traits with the colors of different layers of the aura.[3][4][5] - Wikipedia

An invisible breath, emanation, or radiation. - Answers.com

(Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Alternative Belief Systems) (in parapsychology) an invisible emanation produced by and surrounding a person or object: alleged to be discernible by individuals of supernormal sensibility - Free Dictionary

a luminous radiation - Webster

an energy field that is held to emanate from a living being - Also Webster


I would really like to read the LessWrong essay that shows my logical flaw here.

[Faust]

People DO have an electromagnetic aura, its not in the visible spectrum and certainly isn't what is described by ki or the people who claim to see aura's. But strictly speaking they are PHYSICALLY there so that shouldn't be where the problem comes in.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

People DO have an electromagnetic aura, its not in the visible spectrum and certainly isn't what is described by ki or the people who claim to see aura's. But strictly speaking they are PHYSICALLY there so that shouldn't be where the problem comes in.

I don't know if Kai and LMNO thought I was saying "OMGZ MAGIKZ AURA IS REALZ!!!!" or what... I just really thought it was interesting and an appropriate comparison. However, if I'm wrong and its a bad way to communicate, then I'd like to understand what the hell I did so I can fix it.

[Kai]

I objected because the last thing I want this thread to turn into is a definition fest over whether auras are "real" or not.

[Faust]

I objected because the last thing I want this thread to turn into is a definition fest over whether auras are "real" or not.

Aura's are real, they have no significance beyond the basic electrical and characteristics of the body (overall resistance and such) and they certainly can not be seen by the naked eye.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I objected because the last thing I want this thread to turn into is a definition fest over whether auras are "real" or not.

Ah, I didn't intend to Jack the thread, it was just a comment. Apologies, carry on.

[Cramulus]

encoding the whole thing into a document is going to be a lot of work -- but many hands can do it more easily

I've pasted the first page of this thread onto my sandbox wiki --- feel free to paste more on there, it'll make it easier for [whoever does it] to make it into a sexy pdf

http://principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=What_is_Chi%3F

^^

just in case anybody feels up to it, I think there's a lot of info in this thread that could be condensed into something awesome and stand-alone

[Telarus]

I found this article interesting, and more proof that while there may or may not be "physical" subtle-energies, there looks to be a neuro-somatic feedback loop that damn well resembles them.

http://www.alternet.org/story/148800/how_new_agey_energy_healing_can_cure_your_body_and_mind?page=entire

[Kai]

I found this article interesting, and more proof that while there may or may not be "physical" subtle-energies, there looks to be a neuro-somatic feedback loop that damn well resembles them.

http://www.alternet.org/story/148800/how_new_agey_energy_healing_can_cure_your_body_and_mind?page=entire

That was awesome.

The best part about that story was not only the full investigation, but how the accupoint tapping actually disarms the alarm response of the amygdala. THIS Is the sort of thing I meant when I started this thread. Here is a clear case of psychosomatic interactions and the method to utilize them. I just wish the author provided a methodology of the accupoint tapping, when and where to tap, so that I could use this technique in the future.

[Brotep]

While some points are genuinely situated over nerve bundles, I think a great deal of it is the performance side, even in the speedy stuff. Will comment more when I've time fully peruse the article.

[Ari]

Found this thread, loving it, printed out 97 pages to read in comfort and make notes - catching up while trying to wrap my head around the semantics and then expressing a hopefully worthwhile thought on the matter.

Quick thanks to Telarus' for the very nice and detailed post about complete breathing techniques: a superb complement to my own breath work.
And general big thanks to everyone involved for the stimulation.