"Ki", or "Chi"(they're the same thing, just different languages), a concept discovered a few thousand years ago by the Taoists, is an energy that is present in all living things, and it is no more supernatural or inexplicable than magic. Sure, there is still strong skepticism about its existence, and I myself was a skeptic for a while, but that was an attitude that I couldn't uphold when I had discovered a strong buzzing sensation inside my hands after long practice of form.
That's not to say that Chi is very similar to magic. The movies where master Hoo Flung Dung tosses someone across a room without touching him or Goku fires a beam of yellow force out of his hands are extreme exaggerations. Chi is manipulated for improved health, the application of Chinese medicine, in combat, and cannot be projected outside the body. Chi is simply an alternative source from where a martial artist(or in our case monk) can draw power, as you can see from the internal artists who can deliver a very strong punch when they only move their fist one inch. Chi is used in martial arts to empower our actions without tensing our muscles, or at very high levels of mastery, to disrupt the flow of Chi in the opponent's body(think quivering palm, but less severe, the most I've heard it doing is rupturing the liver). It can be thought of as a weapon that spans the entire inside of the body, which leads me to my next point.
I don't think Ki should be a power source. Ki is simply a weapon in martial arts, and is not the application in itself. Calling a power source "Ki" is akin to saying that Regdar the Fighter uses the "Iron" power source. Ki doesn't move by itself. We have to move it with our minds. In 3.5e, the unarmed Psionic was closer to a Ki-user than the monk, and the development team should look back at that when doing the monk for 4e. The Ki-user is not truly "martial", or perhaps far less martial than the other martial classes, because it doesn't rely on muscular strength.
This runs under the assumption that the D&D monk uses just Chi-based martial arts. The external martial artists, such as the Shaolin monks, develop their muscles and willpower to be as strong as steel, rather than focusing on the more internal Ki, thus this type of monk can be argued to be "martial".
The monk is difficult to classify into a power source because the concept of "monk" is so diverse. Is a monk the guy who runs 60 feet and jump kicks an ogre in the jaw, or is it the guy who causes orcs' insides to haemorrage when he palms them in the chest? Personally, I say that they should be 2 distinct classes, or at least one class with 2 exclusive builds. The 3e monk was a vague mixture of the two, and it didn't let players play one or the other(unless you played an unarmed psionic, then you got a strange but more accurately depicted internal artist).
I understand that D&D is a fantasy game and needs not be an accurate depiction of what RL monks do, but my fantasy monk is the skinny guy in robes with a low strength score because he doesn't need muscles or weapons to make his opponents bleed.
Bottom line, monks cannot be classified as benefiting from one single power source.
"Ki", or "Chi"(they're the same thing, just different languages), a concept discovered a few thousand years ago by the Taoists, is an energy that is present in all living things, and it is no more supernatural or inexplicable than magic.
Oh come on... everyone knows that's the Force. ;)
I don't think Ki should be a power source. Ki is simply a weapon in martial arts, and is not the application in itself. Calling a power source "Ki" is akin to saying that Regdar the Fighter uses the "Iron" power source. Ki doesn't move by itself. We have to move it with our minds. In 3.5e, the unarmed Psionic was closer to a Ki-user than the monk, and the development team should look back at that when doing the monk for 4e. The Ki-user is not truly "martial", or perhaps far less martial than the other martial classes, because it doesn't rely on muscular strength.
I agree with most of your post except this part. To say chi is a weapon is a gross misconception. Chi is energy. You can use chi as a weapon (some speculate anyway, whether or not this is fact is for another argument) but that's not all chi can be used for. You can also use chi for healing. I would say the opposite of what you said is true, martial arts is an avenue for channeling chi, rather than chi being a weapon of martial arts.
I think for 4th edition though we can call chi "the magic of the soul." That's how I think of it anyway. It's just another way heroes become more than normal and raise above everyone else. For what it's worth I hope the chi source, rather than represnt "asian" classes (which no one has ever confirmed this is what it will do) represents enlightened heroes.
I agree with most of your post except this part. To say chi is a weapon is a gross misconception. Chi is energy. You can use chi as a weapon (some speculate anyway, whether or not this is fact is for another argument) but that's not all chi can be used for. You can also use chi for healing. I would say the opposite of what you said is true, martial arts is an avenue for channeling chi, rather than chi being a weapon of martial arts.
I think for 4th edition though we can call chi "the magic of the soul." That's how I think of it anyway. It's just another way heroes become more than normal and raise above everyone else. For what it's worth I hope the chi source, rather than represent "asian" classes (which no one has ever confirmed this is what it will do) represents enlightened heroes.
You can use a bottle of health potion to heal and as a weapon as well. Heck, tasers are basically weapons and energy at the same time. They don't necessarily have to be one or the other.
We channel chi through deep mental concentration and through martial arts form, so yes, you are correct in saying that martial arts is an avenue of channeling chi, however I must point out that it is also what internal artists use instead of muscular strength. It is as much a weapon as muscles are, and as you pointed out, has other healing purposes. You can fight monsters or roast marshmallows with the same spear. Again, both mine and your views are correct.
And I definitely agree with you on chi not being limited to "asian" classes, because I'm a part-Irish Newfie who can channel chi and I have no reason to doubt that the next guy over could do it as well if he had the training.
While a fascinating essay, I'm not sure it matters much. While your description of RL Ki was interesting, I question its relevance. The D&D version of Ki will most likely be a 'fantasy' version, since D&D is a fantasy game.
What Ki can and can't do in RL doesn't matter, because the game is not, in any way, a simulation of RL. If it were, there would be no magic or divine or primal or shadow or anything else, to say nothing of no dwarves, elves, dragons, etc.
And I definitely agree with you on chi not being limited to "asian" classes, because I'm a part-Irish Newfie who can channel chi and I have no reason to doubt that the next guy over could do it as well if he had the training.
And that's particularly irrelevant. No one, not me nor anyone else, is an attempting to code D&D classes by character ethnicity. At most, people are saying one of two things:
1. That specific asian concepts fit into the ki power source (samurai, ronin, ninja, monk, etc), or
2. That incarnum and soulknives don't fit well into the ki power source, and shouldn't be shoehorned into it in service of some weird desire to stop ki from having too much asian stuff in it.
I fall into the second category. I don't care much what ki classes there are, as long as they're recognizably ki. I don't think you should have to swallow a lengthy explanation for how ki is really related to the soul and the soul is related to a cosmic background radiation of soul energy that can be harnessed in the form of azure blue glowing energy that can be shaped into articles of clothing that confer magical benefits upon their wearer. Beyond that, I don't really care, as long as you can state the premise for a ki class in one or two sentences and have the typical listener say, "oh! that's a ki class!"
I hate reality.
This pretty much sums it up. Have a cookie.
Short and blunt response: Ki doesn't exist in real life and D&D is a fantasy game anyways so your experiences don't really matter.
You should keep an open mind about things. Just because you can't measure something in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
The reality is that Chi/Ki/Qi/however you want to spell it is just as magical as western magic, and indeed, magic itself is oftentimes presented in a very similar manner to Ki.
All I care is whether the portrayal of it is fun and reasonably different from other forms of magic, such as divine magic, arcane magic, ect.
You should keep an open mind about things. Just because you can't measure something in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
If it is impossible to measure, then it doesn't exist for all intents and purposes because it does not interact with reality, and in all probability doesn't exist at all.
It is impossible to disprove that there are insubstantial invisible pink unicorns prancing around us at all times which have no interaction with the physical world whatsoever, but beyond the fact that there's no reason to believe they exist, whether they exist or not matters not a whit.
And indeed, Ki, if it did exist, as it is supposedly a sort of energy, would be measurable in a laboratory.
All magical beliefs are the same in this regard, be it souls, ki, spiritualism, divinity, ritualism, or whatever you want to be talking about. As far as science is concerned, they only exist as ideas, and have no physical reality beyond that of any other idea. No one has been able to demonstrate otherwise, and the likeliest reason for it is that they don't exist at all.
Saying "absence of evidence is not tantamount to evidence of absence" is to misunderstand what that means. Absence of evidence indeed constitutes a form of evidence of absence; we conclude something is not true if our hypothesis is disproven time and again by testing. If I say "I can levitate", and then I am unable to do so in controlled trials, chances are, I cannot levitate, not "Your skeptical energies are messing with the spiritual forces which counteract gravity". If I look for evidence of something under conditions where I would be expected to find it, and cannot find it, chances are it doesn't exist.
Note that this is not saying "Well, quarks weren't detectable before particle accelerators, so clearly they did not exist!" If I have no means of detecting it, and wouldn't expect to be able to detect it, then not detecting it isn't evidence of anything because I'm not even capable of looking for it. But this isn't an excuse for "Well, my ki powers aren't detectable by your sensors!" because they should be if they're capable of influencing the real world. If you claim you can levitate, then we should be able to figure out how you're doing so. If you cannot levitate under controlled conditions, then most likely we should conclude you're a fraud. Its the same as the people who claim the world will end in year X (2000 was a common choice); when it doesn't, their claim is pretty conclusively disproven, yet many people continue to believe in movements with failed prophecies like that, justifying it with increasingly convoluted reasoning while the rest of us look on sadly.
Its not my job to tell you want to believe and what not to believe, but if you try to convince me your beliefs are correct, you'd better have some good evidence to back them up. "No one has disproven it!" is not good evidence, and without good evidence, its unreasonable to expect people to believe your assertions any more than if you asserted you were secretly a half-dragon.
And real people do believe in dragons, half-dragons, elves, the fair folk, ect. I have friends who believe they're dragons in spirit. But that doesn't mean I believe them.
Being open-minded is not equivalent to being gullible. Critical thinking is what distinguishes having an open mind from being a sucker.
All that said, I still totally want the Fairy Flag.
Are you going to tell me all these astrophysicists who believe in dark matter are loony? The only thing that "proves" the existence of dark matter is that its a theory that can be applied to certain things and make them right.
So I stand by my statement with an addendum, just because you can't measure something in a lab, with current technologies, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Titanium Dragon, please direct your attention to dark matter. Dark matter is an energy that CAN'T be measured, however most scientists will agree it exists because it forms a theory for how and why galaxies form. Dark matter is a real theoretical energy that no one has ever seen, touched, interacted with, or measured.
Are you going to tell me all these astrophysicists who believe in dark matter are loony? The only thing that "proves" the existence of dark matter is that its a theory that can be applied to certain things and make them right.
So I stand by my statement with an addendum, just because you can't measure something in a lab, with current technologies, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Of course dark matter can be measured. We can measure its gravitational pull. We can't measure it with most of our best tools, so we don't know much about it, but we can measure it.
just because you can't measure something in a lab, with current technologies, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
ok, but just becuse it can't be messured doesn't mean we have to belive in it...
can we please get this moved to off topic...it is now a religus debate...ILR matters 0...not at all...
I don't care about real life I care about game play...Ki is a great FANTASY idea...if you want to discuse that then fine...but come on
Of course dark matter can be measured. We can measure its gravitational pull. We can't measure it with most of our best tools, so we don't know much about it, but we can measure it.
My point is that science doesn't have all the answers.
ok, but just becuse it can't be messured doesn't mean we have to belive in it...
I'd never insist that. I'm merely stating that one shouldn't immediately dismiss ideas because they can't be measured.
Titanium Dragon, please direct your attention to dark matter. Dark matter is an energy that CAN'T be measured, however most scientists will agree it exists because it forms a theory for how and why galaxies form. Dark matter is a real theoretical energy that no one has ever seen, touched, interacted with, or measured.
Uh, no. Its not.
Dark matter and dark energy aren't "real". What they are is a very large deviation in our actual measurements of the universe from what we'd expect. The likeliest cause is not that 90% of the universe is made up of dark energy, 9% dark matter, and only 1% observable matter, but rather that our current understanding of physics is flawed in some way.
Moreover, dark energy is measurable, and in fact has been measured. You apparently don't understand what it is.
We looked at the rate of expansion of the universe and found that, over time, it was increasing rather than decreasing. This is, well, wrong, according to everything we know and understand about the laws of physics. People invented "dark energy" as a repulsive force which was acting to pull the universe apart.
The problem is that we don't know that this repulsive force even exists, and most likely it does not exist in the sense of being a repulsive force. It is very likely relativity is flawed in some manner, just as Newtonian mechanics were flawed before it. We can see that the universe is not meeting with our expectations, so it is observable, but it doesn't necessarily mean there's a force involved.
Dark energy and dark matter are basically words for "we don't understand what these are, but we like to sound like we do." Any scientist with an understanding of the field knows that dark energy and dark matter are essentially fudge factors meant to keep the universe working under our current laws of physics. Our failure to figure out what dark matter is over a (relatively) long period of time is indicative of this.
Incidentally, string theory is much the same way. Many people think it is probably right, some believe it is right, but there's really no evidence for it, and we still haven't found some things which should exist if it is right, and I'm starting to suspect that we won't.
Are you going to tell me all these astrophysicists who believe in dark matter are loony? The only thing that "proves" the existence of dark matter is that its a theory that can be applied to certain things and make them right.
They don't believe in "dark matter". They have observed that objects are acting like they're more massive than they really are, and posited that the reason for this is that there is a large amount of non-luminous matter around galaxies which is causing this phenomenon. Unlike dark energy, dark matter probably exists in some form or another; we've actually observed its effects far more directly, seeing gravitational lenses without visible objects which correspond to them or with visible objects much less luminous than they should be for the amount of matter involved.
The problem is that they don't know what it is. That's why they call it "dark matter". There are theories about what it is and what is causing it. I personally feel that some of it very likely is simply non-luminous, ordinary matter, and that a lot of our errors stem from a deep-rooted lack of comprehension of the laws of physics. Relativity is a good approximation, but I'm pretty certain it isn't absolutely correct when it is unable to account for the large-scale behavior of the universe.
So I stand by my statement with an addendum, just because you can't measure something in a lab, with current technologies, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't think you understood my post at all.
Detection limits exist. As a chemist, I understand this. You, however, don't. I understand that there are things we cannot detect. But what we cannot detect is becoming an increasingly more confined set. We can see the EM spectrum; we have telescopes capable of picking up light from galaxies over ten billion light years away; we have chemical detection methods capable of measuring parts per million of some compounds and parts per quadrillion or more of others; we have the ability to break apart atoms to look at some of their constituent parts, though we cannot look at the finest scale of structures because it falls below the least energy we can detect due to noise or lack of ability to measure that level of excitation.
We cannot detect the smallest scale of energy possible. We can look at the stars, but we cannot physically go there within a reasonable period of time. Dark matter is only mysterious because we cannot go up there and pluck it from the heavens, and most likely it is something quite mundane; we simply do not know precisely what it is because by its very nature it is matter we know exists according to our calculations but which isn't visible directly, or that our calculations are inherently flawed.
My point is that science doesn't have all the answers.
Science grants us access to all the answers. It just doesn't grant us access to all the answers now.
All I want is a concession, I'm willing to say chi may not exist, if you're willing to say it may. We don't have to agree, and I don't even completely believe it exists, however I'm open to the possibility. But this is only because the concept of chi has been around for thousands of years, and I think if there wasn't something to the idea it would have died out by now.
Wizards' main priority in making a ki source is a workable concept that their ki classes can launch from. Authenticity's a minor player, and will always yield for better gameplay.
I'll be happy to consider the existence of chi/ki seriously when I have solid evidence for doing so. Tingly hands doesn't cut it.
see beliving in something without any evidence is a type of belife...it has a name...FAITH
I have a faith...if you want to hear about it great...But don't you dare shove your faith down my throat...
you belive in Chi in real life...I DO NOT...you belive that there is a way to focus inner energy into physical force...I DO NOT
All I want is a concession, I'm willing to say chi may not exist, if you're willing to say it may.
no offence...but stop preaching we need to keep open mind about FAITH
edit: My father is a second degree blackbelt in Karate...and has some belt in Akido, he use to teach Martial Arts at the Police acadmy, he can break bricks with little more then 3 inchs of space...and not once in his life has he EVERY thought about CHi, it is all muscle control. He also laughs at most MA movies, and the concept of Chi and Meditation, becuse he understands the Science of throwing a punch and Muscle control. Wht he does CAN be messured in a Lab....
So He can do similar to chi users, but his can be messured...so why do we need real life things in this game again...
And priests and devout complaining that prayers don't really work the way they do in D&D.
While we're at it, a few more more revelations:
Wizards don't seem to practice occult Hermeticism!
Warlocks don't resemble wiccans!
And more importantly, none of this matters!
Next we're going to had druids complaining about the accuracy of that class.
And priests and devout complaining that prayers don't really work the way they do in D&D.
While we're at it, a few more more revelations:
Wizards don't seem to practice occult Hermeticism!
Warlocks don't resemble wiccans!
And more importantly, none of this matters!
Ding Ding DIng QFT
Namely - that it cannot have an observable external effect on an individual.
Studies have been done in this regard, whereby Reiki masters have done "off the body" energy work, whereby a noticable electro-magnetic energy field was created (and documented scientifically) extending from the reiki practicioner to the patient.
Whenever I channel Reiki (or universal life energy), I feel the noticable "buzz" you mention, not only in my hands, but throughout my entire body - and felt most strongest in the hands, head, back, and arms - the direct pathway between one's Crown Chakra to the practicioners hands.
And this is not counting the practice of "Distance healing" via a surrogate/focus person/object of which there is also documented evidence as to its veracity (in this case, the reiki masters were placed in a separate room to the patient, with both master and patient being attached to sensitive monitoring equipment).
While these studies were unable to prove that Reiki had a "healing" effect on the subjects, there was a documented (and proven) exchange of energy between the reiki master and their subject, which showed on numerous EMF and "energy" measuring devices (including, but not limited to EEG, ECG, CAT/MRI, Ambient EMF devices, Kerillian photography, Infrared spectrography, etc).
As such, your assertion that Ki/Chi can only be manipulated internally is false. We have documented evidence to the contrary which documents its external transferance.
Unsurprising however, the "infrared" changes were centered on those area's of injury to which the Reiki practicioner claimed to have been healing (and resulted in a cooling effect on the inflamed area).
It should also be mentioned that Reiki itself has a great deal of similarity with other "faith" healing practices (native/christian) in both presentation and affect, and can therefore be assumed to draw upon the same principles/energies.
With that being said, none of this evidence actually explained "what" Reiki was, or what effect it was having on the individual beyond the measurable changes in EMF/Infrared/Brain Wave patterns.
My point? Ki energy is both external and internal, and is measurable (albeit in a primitive way).
As such, I personally have no problem with exaggerated use of Ki (Ki blasts/energy waves/etc) any more than I have a problem with the exaggerated feats of martial prowess that high level martial characters can perform.
As a trained Reiki Master, I have to disagree with several of your points.
And as a professional biologist I have to disagree with you on your points as well. Like it or not, reiki and other similar things are viewed as pseudoscience, and have no objective, controlled scientific studies proving their claims of causation.
As a trained Reiki Master, I have to disagree with several of your points.
And as a Daoist I find your opinions misguided.
That's an application for the JREF prize. One million dollars if you can prove that you have Ki or Reiki powers (or, heck, just about any supernatural power whatsoever). Let us know how it turns out.
However, with that being said - It is a verifiable FACT that people can transmit electro-magnetic energy to each other at short distances, and that this energy can be detected and measured by sensitive infra-red and electro-magnetic measuring devices.
With that being said, while we can detect and verify that such energy exchanges can (and do) occur, there is no evidence (one way or another) whether the transmitted energy has the power to heal (studies into the effects of such energy are on-going in the scientific community).
Whether Reiki (and other such techniques) can/cannot heal is irrelevant to my point however.
My point is that since such energy has been proven to exist; that it can be channeled from one individual to another; and that it is believed to be the direct manifestation of Ki/Chi energy - there is sufficient evidence to justify the existance of concussive waves/blasts of electro-magnetic (Ki) force in a ficticious game world.
This is of course assuming that the existance of anime/pop-culture references to such was not sufficient justification in and of itself, and that a Real-World parallel must first exist before it would be considered appropriate for inclusion in the Dungeons & Dragons game (a logical fallacy if ever Ive heard one).
Regarding my own ability to Heal:
FACT: When I practice Reiki, my clients walk away claiming to be in less pain than before they arrived.
FACT: I couldn't care less whether they are in "less pain" as a result of an actual healing event; due to relaxing on my table; or as a result of a psycho-somatic response to their belief in my ability to heal.
All that matters to me are the results, and the results are the same regardless of the actual reason for their percieved pain reduction.
For the record: I have never claimed to have the ability to "Heal" another individual. I only claim to have the ability to channel "Reiki" energy, and that "Reiki" energy is believed to have healing properties by a large number of people.
I'll be happy to consider the existence of chi/ki seriously when I have solid evidence for doing so. Tingly hands doesn't cut it.
Wizards' main priority in making a ki source is a workable concept that their ki classes can launch from. Authenticity's a minor player, and will always yield for better gameplay.
This.
Bel
Seriously. "Power Source" is a functionally meaningless bit of fluff. Primal is "Nature", Martial is "Practice", Arcane is "Magic", Divine is "Religious-y", and Ki will be "Mystical Martial Artsy power". Good enough. Don't like it, change it. It's not connected to much at all.
But hey it was only Ripley's Believe It Or Not, so take it as you will.
It was the electro-magnetic measuring devices which yielded the most interesting results, as they did not only prove the existance of an Electro-magnetic Field extending from the healers hands to the patients body (which was only present when the Reiki master was consciously channeling the energy, and which could be turned on/off almost on command), but also showed the existance of an electro-magnetic current (aka: a flow of electrons) from the Reiki master to their patient.
In any case, this is off-topic, and was only brought up to establish a real-world precedent of a non-martial application of real-world "Ki" energy, and only so far as it provides justification for why the Ki Power Source could/should exist, and more importantly - how it is anything but "Martial but MOAR Awesome!"
Sure, Ki has its martial application - but this is not the only application of such energies.... Ki Healing is also an extant part of the "Ki" mythos, and something which has already been incorporated in to DnD, and represented (albeit poorly) in previous editions in abilities such as the 3.X monk's "wholeness of body" and similar powers.
Ki is a cultural idea, something sort of like the Western "spirit" (as I understand it, they both kind of mean "breath"). The cultural baggage around Ki makes it suitable to be a D&D power. So what?
Otherwise, my only contribution to this thread is that I hope the Ki power source can be broadened to not bring along too much cultural baggage. I'm fine with the "Monk" because monasteries exist all over the world (but part of me also wanted monks to be a divine class; I'm in a small minority there). Heck, the word "monk" is English, so by that virtue alone it carries less cultural factors with it than a foreign word does to a native English speaker.
Ask a number of people to describe a "monk" to you. I'm sure many will end up describing something akin to Buddhist monks, but others might end up describing Friar Tuck. But, if you ask a number of people to describe a "samurai", I'm sure nearly everyone will make mention of a katana (or a "samurai sword" as I often hear).
There are many people who don't like the idea of samurai or ninja being ki classes, because they prefer historical samurai or ninja over fantasy ones. If that were what D&D should do, though, we would have martial paladins.
Too Long-Didn't Read Version: If "samurai" ends up being a Ki class, I hope it not only gets an English name (swordsage would be fine with me; swordsage sounds like swordsaint which translates to Kensai), but I also hope it goes above and beyond the historic samurai, getting crazy ki things like a sword swipe that cuts something twenty feet away, or lightning fast draws. The "samurai" should be a ki user who becomes one with their weapon, learning to fight with it as if it were an extension of their body.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
Actually, it is.
I know that's a popular and snappy phrase, but its technically wrong. What it SHOULD read is this: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
Which is true. A lack of proof of something's existence is not proof that it doesn't exist.
But it IS evidence.
“If the present argument appeals to any general epistemological principle, it is this rather obvious one: If a proposition is such that, if it were true, we should have evidence for its truth, and if we are aware that it has this property, and if we have no evidence for its truth, the fact that we have no evidence for its truth, is (conclusive) evidence for its falsity.” Peter Van Inwagen
To give a simple example, suppose I visit someone, and I want to determine whether or not they have a cat. If they have a cat, it is likely that there will be evidence of the cat. There might be a cat dish, or scratched furniture, or shed hair on their sofa, or a smell of a cat. If I detect none of these things, I naturally judge it less likely that they have a cat. The absence of these evidences are evidence of the absence of a cat. They are not PROOF of an absence of a cat, but they are evidence nonetheless.
This has been your daily Epistemology Moment. Thank you for your attention.
To the OP, you're using Ki and Chi interchangabley, but in reality they are somewhat different concepts....Yes, they both use the same Chinese/Kanji character, but thats kind of it. Ofcourse I am generalising the following but....
Ki - is basically Japanese for the word Energy. In Japanese martial arts, it's meaning is very much aligned with body mechanics, posture, efficiency of movement and striking. To a Japanese martial artist, Ki is a very real concrete concept and Chi is hocus pocus.
Chi - is the Chinese concept of energy, but its much more esoteric and very much "internal". Breathing exercises, for example, where you breath in Chi and move it through and focus it in various regions of the body. This idea is a just as much spooky magic to a Japanese person as it is to Westerners.
As a further example, a Japanese Martial Artist might physically train hard and as a result, his "Ki" improves. But he doesnt directly train his "Ki". Whereas a Chinese internal or soft martial artist would train his "Chi", and as a result his punch is more powerful.
Theres a huge long thread over here at these martial arts forums, for interested readers: http://www.martialedge.net/forum/martial-arts-talk/re:chi,-ki,-universal-energy?-science-or-spiritual?/
It's also obvious from that thread above that even experienced martial arts practioners have widly varied views on the concepts.
I think the DnD Ki is closely aligned to the Chinese Chi. While the Japanese Ki is much closer to that of DnDs Martial power source.
DnD is a fantasy game, so the DnD Ki can be whatever mix and exaggeration of real world concepts it likes. If that means characters can channel their soul or energy into a big shockwave, cool.
As I've said in another thread, I just think Wizards choice of the word "Ki" was a poor one. Its loaded with so many varied meanings and confusion, the end result is threads discussing whether "its the Asian powersource" or "is the Ninja Ki?"and people claiming that "Ki can heal, but it can't throw fireballs" nonsense.
Its DnD, it can do whatever the designers decide, just make it worthwhile and cool. So for me, that means the Monks powers and fluff should sound like things that cant be done without Ki. For example, a Monk "Flying Kick" power is meh, because anyone can run and jump kick someone. But "Flying Flame Kick of the South Wind", then you got something a bit more fluffy, esoteric and soul powered.
see beliving in something without any evidence is a type of belife...it has a name...FAITH
I have a faith...if you want to hear about it great...But don't you dare shove your faith down my throat...
you belive in Chi in real life...I DO NOT...you belive that there is a way to focus inner energy into physical force...I DO NOT
no offence...but stop preaching we need to keep open mind about FAITH
edit: My father is a second degree blackbelt in Karate...and has some belt in Akido, he use to teach Martial Arts at the Police acadmy, he can break bricks with little more then 3 inchs of space...and not once in his life has he EVERY thought about CHi, it is all muscle control. He also laughs at most MA movies, and the concept of Chi and Meditation, becuse he understands the Science of throwing a punch and Muscle control. Wht he does CAN be messured in a Lab....
So He can do similar to chi users, but his can be messured...so why do we need real life things in this game again...
Gm I am sincerely sorry if I came off as pushing faith, this is not my intent. I in fact am a Christian, not a Taoist, Buddhist, or Hindu. The whole point of my argument is that one should keep an open mind of others' religions. Just because western science can't explain something doesn't mean one should dismiss it out of hand, doing that is practically using science as a replacement for faith. I guess I got a little carried away and lost sight of what I should have been saying all along, which is simply don't knock on other peoples' faiths. Let them believe what they want to, even if you perceive it as incorrect.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation and I hope you all can forgive a sentimental fool for getting a little carried away. If all of you take anything from this I hope it's that faith should be respected, not dismissed. Faith is a very powerful thing.
Just because western science can't explain something doesn't mean one should dismiss it out of hand, doing that is practically using science as a replacement for faith.
There's so much wrong with this sentence that it blows my mind.
Whew. There. Just needed to get that off my chest.
I'm not going to comment further, because that would just feed the flames of this thread, which pretty much in its entirety is inappropriate for these forums.
I've practiced Tai Chi Quan for nearly 2 years now, and thus I have somewhat of an insider's view on Ki/Chi itself. After reading through some of the boards' discussions on Ki, I'd like to clarify some things.
"Ki", or "Chi"(they're the same thing, just different languages), a concept discovered a few thousand years ago by the Taoists, is an energy that is present in all living things, and it is no more supernatural or inexplicable than magic. Sure, there is still strong skepticism about its existence, and I myself was a skeptic for a while, but that was an attitude that I couldn't uphold when I had discovered a strong buzzing sensation inside my hands after long practice of form.
That's not to say that Chi is very similar to magic. The movies where master Hoo Flung Dung tosses someone across a room without touching him or Goku fires a beam of yellow force out of his hands are extreme exaggerations. Chi is manipulated for improved health, the application of Chinese medicine, in combat, and cannot be projected outside the body. Chi is simply an alternative source from where a martial artist(or in our case monk) can draw power, as you can see from the internal artists who can deliver a very strong punch when they only move their fist one inch. Chi is used in martial arts to empower our actions without tensing our muscles, or at very high levels of mastery, to disrupt the flow of Chi in the opponent's body(think quivering palm, but less severe, the most I've heard it doing is rupturing the liver). It can be thought of as a weapon that spans the entire inside of the body, which leads me to my next point.
I don't think Ki should be a power source. Ki is simply a weapon in martial arts, and is not the application in itself. Calling a power source "Ki" is akin to saying that Regdar the Fighter uses the "Iron" power source. Ki doesn't move by itself. We have to move it with our minds. In 3.5e, the unarmed Psionic was closer to a Ki-user than the monk, and the development team should look back at that when doing the monk for 4e. The Ki-user is not truly "martial", or perhaps far less martial than the other martial classes, because it doesn't rely on muscular strength.
This runs under the assumption that the D&D monk uses just Chi-based martial arts. The external martial artists, such as the Shaolin monks, develop their muscles and willpower to be as strong as steel, rather than focusing on the more internal Ki, thus this type of monk can be argued to be "martial".
The monk is difficult to classify into a power source because the concept of "monk" is so diverse. Is a monk the guy who runs 60 feet and jump kicks an ogre in the jaw, or is it the guy who causes orcs' insides to haemorrage when he palms them in the chest? Personally, I say that they should be 2 distinct classes, or at least one class with 2 exclusive builds. The 3e monk was a vague mixture of the two, and it didn't let players play one or the other(unless you played an unarmed psionic, then you got a strange but more accurately depicted internal artist).
I understand that D&D is a fantasy game and needs not be an accurate depiction of what RL monks do, but my fantasy monk is the skinny guy in robes with a low strength score because he doesn't need muscles or weapons to make his opponents bleed.
Bottom line, monks cannot be classified as benefiting from one single power source.
The problem is when people hear the word "Ki" in fantasy these days, the first thing to pop into their heads is...
Son Goku. Your argument is sadly wrecked because of fantasy becoming more dominant than reality.
I wanted to add something to the back and forth about earlier about "As a trained/professional X, I find Y whatever:"
"As a professional East Asian historian I find the modern Western understanding of Chi laughable." :P
Anyway, I've come to an understanding with myself to have no problem with a ki powersource no matter what it turns out to be so long is its not the catchall "Asian Powersource." So help me if its just "slanty-eye power" I will raise all kinds of pointless stink.
Hm I concede I remembered incorrectly what I learned about dark matter. Thank you for correcting me. But Titanium Dragon you say that our detection limits are becoming more confined, how can you be sure of this? Isn't it true that the more we learn the less we know. Isn't it possible there are detectors science isn't even aware exist?
The more you learn, the more you know. Its just that you have a better grasp about how little you know.
Though people both over and underestimate our knowledge level. The amount of knowledge humans have today is absurdly more than what we had a century ago, and even 30 years ago. Electronics cause us to learn more, faster, and at an ever-accellerating rate because we can do stuff faster. 30 years ago, it took us ages to sequence something very short; now we can sequence stuff in weeks with modern machinery. We can run a hundred assays simultaneously watched by computer, whereas before we'd have to do them all individually by hand. This incredible growth in the rate at which we learn things means that the more we learn, the faster we learn, and I see no reason why this exponentiality will level off anytime soon - indeed, in a hundred years, it wouldn't surprise me if we'd sequenced the genome of every known organism.
There are many detectors which do not exist yet, but thing is, what detectors typically do is more directly measure things we didn't directly measure previously. Atoms have been known about for a long time, but we couldn't directly measure an atom's properties until this century, and now we can look at the electron fields around individual atoms. In fifty years, we'll probably have imaging techniques which make SEMs look primitive and backwards for some of the things we use them for.
All I want is a concession, I'm willing to say chi may not exist, if you're willing to say it may.
Chi doesn't exist. There are certainly things which exist which we don't know we don't know about, but chi isn't one of them. Nor is anything "magical". There is no such thing as magic, and indeed it is pretty much by definition.
But this is only because the concept of chi has been around for thousands of years, and I think if there wasn't something to the idea it would have died out by now.
No. That's an awful line of reasoning. That's like saying obviously there's something to the idea that the earth is flat or is the center of the universe, ideas people believed for thousands of years. Just because people have had the wrong idea for thousands of years doesn't make it right, it makes it a good mind virus. Most old ideas are wrong. Indeed, the older you go, the worse they tend to get.
Chi and similar ideas are old because they're good mind viruses, not because they're true.
Warlocks don't resemble wiccans!
They aren't based on Wiccans, though. They're more or less based on mass hysteria from the middle ages.
Studies have been done in this regard, whereby Reiki masters have done "off the body" energy work, whereby a noticable electro-magnetic energy field was created (and documented scientifically) extending from the reiki practicioner to the patient.
You have been suckered. "Studies" are nothing. What is important is a REAL study. People claim to "study" a lot of things, but then you look at their "studies" and you find they weren't studies at all, just things people called studies to sound scientifically justified. Most people don't understand science, and simply see it as another form of magic.
There is no scientific evidence for ki, nor its manipulation. I'm afraid what you're referring to is the above, the sucker study, the not real study which isn't scientific, but invokes science like a cargo cult attracts goods. It is arguable it is even worse though, as oftentimes it is simply fraud on the people who do not understand science, rather than well-meaning individuals.
While humans do generate bioelectric fields, this is true of all living things with nervous systems. Indeed, this is why many animals have electromechanical sensors - they "feel" the nervous signals of other creatures, so can track them down and munch on them. Examples include platypii.
I might add that there have been a number of studies which showed Reiki to be garbage. Lots of negative results, even when a lot of studies were biased in favor of reiki via poor controls. That speaks very loudly to how it gives you nothing.
Whenever I channel Reiki (or universal life energy), I feel the noticable "buzz" you mention, not only in my hands, but throughout my entire body - and felt most strongest in the hands, head, back, and arms - the direct pathway between one's Crown Chakra to the practicioners hands.
It is very easy to convince yourself you feel it. But it doesn't exist.
Wizards will tell you they can sense magic.
Psychics will tell you they can see auras.
Turns out, not so much.
Cargo cult science is bad, and you can see it rampant in fields such as this.
I do not argue the fact that Reiki (and the other healing arts) are considered pseudo-science, as there is no verifiable proof that these techniques have any temporary, acute or long-term healing potential (I was raised with a medical-background).
There is, in fact, evidence to the contrary - under controlled conditions, no benefits were seen in a number of studies.
Most likely, you'll see a reduction in pain from any treatment, as pain reacts well to placebo effects, but you probably won't see a whole lot else.
With that being said, while we can detect and verify that such energy exchanges can (and do) occur, there is no evidence (one way or another) whether the transmitted energy has the power to heal (studies into the effects of such energy are on-going in the scientific community).
Oh, there's a lot of evidence that it doesn't. You could even say, thousands of years.
I mean, yes, of course we hit each other with electromagnetic waves. We have a temperature above absolute zero, and ergo, we emit blackbody radiation. As our temperature is not all that high, we emit mostly IR and sub-IR wavelengths (mostly IR, though). Everyone knows this.
But this isn't conscious and isn't controllable. You ALWAYS emit blackbody radiation. You may emit more or less of it, but you'll always emit it.
Radiative heat transfer could help a hypothermic patient, but that's due to the fact that hypothermia is caused by being cold. Anything which raises your body temperature will act as treatment, so cuddling up with someone will help because we're quite warm and would help raise their temperature with their body heat.
Beyond obvious things involving body temperature, though, not so much, and the method by which we help hypothermic patients is far from mystical and has nothing to do with magical energies, regardless of what you want to call them. Its because we warm them up. Putting them in body temperature water will have the same effect, and putting them under blankets will help them as well. Electric blankets can be used to heat them. Ect. Its not the fact that we're alive that matters so much as the fact that we're the right temperature.
My point is that since such energy has been proven to exist; that it can be channeled from one individual to another; and that it is believed to be the direct manifestation of Ki/Chi energy - there is sufficient evidence to justify the existance of concussive waves/blasts of electro-magnetic (Ki) force in a ficticious game world.
Uh, no.
Photons exist. They aren't ki, and have nothing to do with ki.
Well Chi/Ki can be measured, they turned some infravision on a Chi-using healer and found his hands glowed to rediculous levels, showing extreme heat. This was also transferred to his patient through touch.
Oh, controlling blood flow consciously is quite possible. Its even possible to control your heart rate conciously, though it is generally easier to control subconsciously and it takes some amount of effort to control consciously.
But this isn't the same thing as ki. This is "controlling blood flow". Ki is magical thinking which has nothing to do with the physical phenomenon.
There are practicioners of various disciplines who are capable of doing ridiculous things. Everyone knows of the feats shaolin monks are capable of. But they aren't capable of these feats due to ki or some magical energy; they're capable of these feats because they train themselves to do so.
Indeed, humans in general are capable of doing a large number of activities which seem implausible. Walking across hot coals without burning your feet can be done with little training, and it isn't even all that hard to do it. Humans are capable of shattering concrete with their hands, because our bones are harder than concrete is, but that takes a lot more doing.
People who assign mystical things to this are not only cheapening what humans are capable of, but limiting their ability to understand how things actually are.
It was the electro-magnetic measuring devices which yielded the most interesting results, as they did not only prove the existance of an Electro-magnetic Field extending from the healers hands to the patients body (which was only present when the Reiki master was consciously channeling the energy, and which could be turned on/off almost on command), but also showed the existance of an electro-magnetic current (aka: a flow of electrons) from the Reiki master to their patient.
Electromagnetic energy =! electrons. Electrons are particles. Electromagnetic energy is electromagnetic radiation, which is a wave with some particulate properties (though to be fair, all matter acts at least a bit like a wave, and all waves act a little bit like energy).
Anytime you see someone claim electrons are a form of electromagnetic energy, you know they're full of it. Electrons can emit EMR by changing energy levels, but they are not energy; they're matter.
So anytime a study uses "electromagnetic energy" and conflates them with "electrons", you know the study is going to be worthless because it shows a basic lack of comprehension of the underlying subject matter. Someone incapable of understanding what EMR is, and what an electron is, is not going to be capable of carrying out such a study.
Just because western science can't explain something doesn't mean one should dismiss it out of hand, doing that is practically using science as a replacement for faith.
I've been staying out of this but you hit one of my pet peeves right there.
Why, oh why, when someone wants to push the existance of the supernatural do they almost inevitably inevitably append the word 'western' to some other word such as science or medicine. Especially when they want their...I'll be nice and call them unproven...ideas to be given the same status as ones that have been subject to the scientific process.
There is no such thing as "western science" or "western medicine", ideas have either been withstood scientific scrutiny or they have not, medicine either has been shown to be effective or it has not. When someone starts talking about 'western science' it amost always an attempt to give non-science the status of science.
Dark matter is a real theoretical energy
I could care less about the dark matter debate... I just like the oxymoron. Real theoretical energy. :D
I'd be pretty happy if the Monk class had a paragon path called Sifu. Or Wong Sifu, as you become closer to mastering the greatness that is Wong Fei Hung.
Personally... I'd rather see a path focused on Tai Kwan Leap.
Personally... I'd rather see a path focused on Tai Kwan Leap.
I'd totally take that Paragon Path.
Of course all the powers in it would be called "Boot to the Head" which would be a bit confusing.
"In the end, the argument here comes down to a far more important linguistic concept, that WORDS, are human creation, thereby meaning nothing without the connotations of the users of the word. Ki and Chi, being very undefined concepts, mean very little in a universal sense, just the same way the god and afterlife are vague concepts."
"Simple and clean, if you refuse to believe that something exists, because science tells you it doesn't, you're a fool. In the same vein, if you believe that something exists definitively because you have faith, you are also a fool. The only real truth here, is that humans are creatures of flaw and EXTREMELY limited knowledge. We are stupid creatures, because we believe ourselves to be ultimately more intelligent than we really are; and because as a species, we attribute human existence to be more valuable than anything else."
"As far as proof goes, you can prove nothing until you can, without a doubt, prove to every human being that we have existed before any given moment in our lives. That any moment we have not been conjured or dreamed into existence with memories and knowledge that has been artificially given to us. You can prove nothing until you can, without a doubt, prove that we truly exist, in more than an illusory sense. You can prove nothing until you can, without a doubt, prove that there is no such thing as fate or destiny. You can prove nothing until you can, without a doubt, prove there is no God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Odin, or Flying Spaghetti Monster..."
"You can, instead, be open-minded, believe what you want, and let other people live their lives as they please. Every one here is only stating what they wish to be fact, and if you believe that you are right, without a doubt, you're a narrow-minded fool. If you NEED to have total faith in a concept like science or religion, to move on with your life, I feel sorry for you..."
Personally... I'd rather see a path focused on Tai Kwan Leap.
That's really more of an Epic Destiny.
Somehow both on topic and off topic, anyone remember that Jet Li movie where he's having a duel and can't touch the ground, so him and his opponent (who are fighting to see who marries a princess or something) are fighting on top of the crowd? That movie was great.
Oh come on... easily 50-60% of the crap posted on these message boards has absolutely nothign to do with D&D.
Yes, but a discussion of katanas vs. western swords is at least close to the mark. This is like comparing apples to Tuesday.
Simple and clean, if you refuse to believe that something exists, because science tells you it doesn't, you're a fool.
No.
Science is our systematic knowledge of the universe and its operations. What you're saying is equivalent to "If you don't believe something exists because our systematic understanding of the universe has shown it dosen't exist, you're an idiot". Which is, well, quite funny, because that is the most rational way to determine what exists and what doesn't.
Of course, if you're using belief in the sense of faith (as in, believing something without evidence), of course its stupid to "believe" science. But science is about evidence, and if it doesn't have evidence, then it isn't science. The idea of "believing" in science is what brought you to your position in the first place.
As far as proof goes, you can prove nothing until you can, without a doubt, prove to every human being that we have existed before any given moment in our lives
Simple. These are all subjective terms, and thus according to our own subjective experiences we existed previously. It doesn't matter what "really" happened, because that's a silly idea in the first place. Our experiences are real. They exist. They may be a computer simulation, they may be butterflies dreaming they are men, they may be brains in jars, it doesn't really matter what the origin of them is. We exist subjectively, and as our existence is subjectively provable, that's all that matters.
The idea that "Oh, we could all be computer simulations, thus this isn't really "real"" is baloney. It doesn't matter what it is. What matters is that it is in some form. It may not be what you think it is, but it doesn't matter that it isn't. Because we observe it, it exists in some form, even if that form is naught but quantum fluctuations within the heart of a hyperadvanced computer.
Thus, we exist, as does everything we observe. It may not exist in the form you think it exists, but it exists in some form.
Sweet zombie Jesus, this thread reminded me why discussing religion is just as bad as discussing politics. Seriously, to all involved, how on earth does this relate to D&D?
Its just like if a random priest wandered onto the boards to gripe about how D&D wasn't treating the divine power source properly, and just as applicable, and it'd probably be about as funny, if not more so.
"Have you heard of Mass Hysteria? Even within our 'provable' reality, there are circumstances where large groups of people all sense or are affected by something which can be proven later to not exist. Yet, on a subjective basis, those people would tell you they do."
"Not to mention that the original point here was the Ki doesn't exist, but if subjectivity is to be taken into account, the OP has 'sensed' Ki, so it exists to him subjectively. Therefore, Ki exists to the OP. Some people also feel that they have spoken to God, so subjectively, God exists as well. So it's not about fate."
"Don't tell me that these things aren't the same as existentialist thinking, because if we are brains in a jar or imaginary beings that only believe they are exist, then it is our belief that creates reality."
Of note, Titanium, that SUBJECTIVITY is not scientific. Does color stop existing for a color-blind person (well, actually, philosophically, it might)? Scientifically, it would not.
You didn't understand my post.
Its not that reality is subjective, its that so long as you experience something, it exists in some form. It doesn't necessarily mean that it takes the form you believe it takes, however.
Have you heard of Mass Hysteria? Even within our 'provable' reality, there are circumstances where large groups of people all sense or are affected by something which can be proven later to not exist. Yet, on a subjective basis, those people would tell you they do.
It exists. It just doesn't "exist" in the sense of being a physical object.
For instance, people believed that people who worshipped satan were sacrificing children in the 1980s. Obviously this never happened, but the idea exists in their heads, even though there was no physical reality to it outside of their own minds.
You can cause people to hallucinate. That doesn't make their hallucinations physical objects outside of their head, but you can measure the chemical and electrical impulses in their brain, so the reaction is "real", even though the stimulii is tricking you into not seeing things as they are.
Not to mention that the original point here was the Ki doesn't exist, but if subjectivity is to be taken into account, the OP has 'sensed' Ki, so it exists to him subjectively. Therefore, Ki exists to the OP. Some people also feel that they have spoken to God, so subjectively, God exists as well. So it's not about fate.
Ki exists in the sense of being an idea. It does not exist in the sense of actually being how the universe works. Same applies to God. We made up God, so he exists, at least in the sense of an idea or ideal, and as biochemical and electrical patterns in people's brains. However, the world was not created by God.
If we were to discover that we're all brains in jars, or that we're in the Matrix, it would change our perception of our reality, but it wouldn't change the fact that our world is real, in a sense; it simply would change our sense of what it really is.
Its not that reality is subjective, its that so long as you experience something, it exists in some form. It doesn't necessarily mean that it takes the form you believe it takes, however.
Exactly. Though for experiences, beliefs, ideas and so on I tend to prefer the term "virtual" - it's still not entirely unambiguous, but I think it's a lot better than "subjective".
And for added clarity, I regard the opposite of "virtual" to be "material" (instead of "actual" or "real", which just muddy the waters). Or, as you put it:
It exists. It just doesn't "exist" in the sense of being a physical object.
To bring this post back to the topic of gaming, there's an interesting difference here between the real world and the D&D world. IRL, the virtual can only affect the material in so far as beliefs, desires etc. can motivate actions, and actions have material consequences. In the game's reality, the virtual can have a much more immediate effect - if you have the right powers, wishing can actually make it so. ;)
-snip-
Metaphysical and Epistemological Skepticism are self-defeating propositions. To post on these boards you have to pretend like the computer is real long enough to type it up. To argue, you have to pretend that logic and the senses work long enough to formulate a counter-point. To refute TD, you have to pretend that he is a living entity long enough to ponder defeating his ideas.
To live you have to pretend that the air your breathing is real, or that its really food that your sticking into your mouth.
In other words my friend, you are a hypocrit, and the only way you can resolve this apparent contradiction is via either silence or suicide. You can't say reality is a big hunch and then pretend it isn't. Pick one, or the other.
I thankfully know I'm real, and I'm pretty sure your another conscious entity trying to communicate with me (albeit indirectly). You could be another person's fabrication, but I don't see the point in it, so my rational conclusion is that your just someone who sadly has bitten onto the worse kind of ideas.
Have fun not knowing anything. I've got some studying to do.
If I have a dream, then say that Cthulu caused it, the effect (having a dream) is not in doubt, but there's no reason to take the proffered cause seriously. What reason is there to believe that Cthulu exists, or even if we assume that as true, to believe he causes dreams? Also, think of a stage magician's trick. We see an effect (a rabbit being pulled out of an 'empty' hat) that has its true cause hidden, instead presenting the illusion that the cause is supernatural.
Same with ki. The buzzing in hands or feet, or feeling of tranquility, are real effects. That doesn't mean a mystical energy source is the cause of them. A more naturalistic reason could be the cause. Scientists do a lot of work in trying to find causes, and they're not always right. But their explanations for effects tend to be a heck of a lot closer to the mark than those which are pulled out of thin air.
"If there is a god or gods, and it is/they are omnipotent, then anything at all is possible. They could control circumstances to cause us to believe that 'if A is true, then B is also true', but then create circumstances in which that is not true, simply to toy with us. You can say it isn't so, but to say that with total conviction is idiocy. You can think you're right, but you can't KNOW you are; so as I said before, if you refuse or cannot reconcile that your belief is in no way 100% provable, then you are a fool."
"My point in all this is not that you are wrong, only that you cannot be completely sure you are right. Subjectively, anything we have not perceived with our own senses is nothing but conjecture. Even realistically, we cannot be sure that history as we know it accurately recounts our past as a species. There are definitely those who would say that at some point in our past, our knowledge of 'Ki' was such that we could perform 'wuxia'-like exploits. You cannot know that this is not true, because you were not there."
"I will make this my last post about this, since this thread has derailed, and simply state that if you cannot accept that you, your species, and what you know are flawed (in the same way that ALL knowledge held by humans is flawed) then you are just one among a plethora of humans who make me sad for our entire planet. I'm sure that matters little to you, but one of my most important philosophies on life is that I must try to enlighten people, and if they refuse to open their minds, then I am the better for trying, and they are the worse for not caring."
"I close with something to attempt to help this thread return to its roots. To the OP, your knowledge (or lack thereof) of Ki is, in the end, irrelevant, because Ki is just a word that Wizards is using to describe a certain element of their world. It is defined as the energy of the soul in their world, so it doesn't really matter what is 'REALLY' is, it only matters what they define it to be. In the end, a power source is simply the primary energy drawn upon to perform the powers granted by each individual class."
"Oh, yeah, in response to the idea that Ki is a tool, like a weapon (so it is not a power source). Technically, Martial, as a power source, encompasses the style and tools (including weaponry) used to become an effective fighter. Iron would be a misnomer anyway, because a fighter could just as easily use a wooden staff, an adamantine or mithral blade, a stone hammer, or (with a little house ruling) a fleshy fist."
Our reality could be anything, meaning that science cannot prove anything until you can prove science...
The proof is in the pudding. Logical thought has solved way more problems then any other approach. Besides, I don't think "prove" means what you think it means...
You can think you're right, but you can't KNOW you are; so as I said before, if you refuse or cannot reconcile that your belief is in no way 100% provable, then you are a fool.
Uh huh. You really have no idea what "science" is, either, do you?
My point in all this is not that you are wrong, only that you cannot be completely sure you are right. Subjectively, anything we have not perceived with our own senses is nothing but conjecture.
You trust your senses? Tch, tch, what would Descartes say about that?
I will make this my last post about this, since this thread has derailed, and simply state that if you cannot accept that you, your species, and what you know are flawed (in the same way that ALL knowledge held by humans is flawed) then you are just one among a plethora of humans who make me sad for our entire planet.
What makes ME sad for the planet is that the Enlightenmenthas stalled out and hasn't reached more people.
I close with something to attempt to help this thread return to its roots. To the OP, your knowledge (or lack thereof) of Ki is, in the end, irrelevant, because Ki is just a word that Wizards is using to describe a certain element of their world.
This, on the other hand, I agree with completely. It doesn't follow from anything else you've said, but it is none the less indubitably true.
To science, it doesn't matter what you believe. It just is. Now, people can be wrong, or lie or cheat or conceal things - and do quite often; there's a very famous example of that going on right now - but that's not science any more.
Fact is, chi was science. At one time. It combined the best available medical knowledge with animistic assumptions. And as such, it was fairly useful - it did have a scientific basis. But science moves on. There have been some positive tests, but none that could be reliably duplicated. And this is a harsh blow for its adherents, because it is something that the tests should have been able to substantiate, if there was anything to it. Instead of acknowledging that their understanding of principles is unsound, they instead insist that there is somehow something wrong with the idea of science.
And that's just sad.
By the way, the tingling that the OP mentioned isn't uncommon, but is incorrectly attributed to chi. I understand that the cause of such tingling is increased blood pressure in the area because of motion and muscle, but don't quote me on that. It is something of that nature, though.
Metaphysical and Epistemological Skepticism are self-defeating propositions. To post on these boards you have to pretend like the computer is real long enough to type it up. To argue, you have to pretend that logic and the senses work long enough to formulate a counter-point. To refute TD, you have to pretend that he is a living entity long enough to ponder defeating his ideas.
To live you have to pretend that the air your breathing is real, or that its really food that your sticking into your mouth.
In other words my friend, you are a hypocrit, and the only way you can resolve this apparent contradiction is via either silence or suicide. You can't say reality is a big hunch and then pretend it isn't. Pick one, or the other.
I thankfully know I'm real, and I'm pretty sure your another conscious entity trying to communicate with me (albeit indirectly). You could be another person's fabrication, but I don't see the point in it, so my rational conclusion is that your just someone who sadly has bitten onto the worse kind of ideas.
Have fun not knowing anything. I've got some studying to do.
"I must recant that my last post be my last, only because I missed this one before I posted it. So as an addendum, let me say that you do not KNOW that you are real, you have no proof except your existence. You can be pretty sure you are, just as I am."
"You assume my arguments make me an existentialist. Which is untrue, I believe I exist, the difference is that I understand that I only believe that, not that it is true. In fact, it is the only thing I can honestly be semi-sure about. I believe what I have experienced, and am skeptical of anything else. The less first hand something is, the less I accept it as true. Not to say that I live my life concerned with it, I merely accept that I will not, and sometimes cannot, know the truth."
"My overall point, as it relates to this thread, is the science, as we can measure it, is flawed. If you'd like to say that science, as a whole, only measures the truth, then fine, my point is that humans cannot accurately measure the truth. We can think we know as much as we like. The truth is, something is not 'scientific' unless its effects, under the conditions prescribed, can be reproduced 100%. Since we cannot measure every event and every molecule at all times, not to mention that even if we could we have no ability to measure the metaphysical (if it does or does not exist does not change our inability to measure it), so none can say that they know the truth."
"Scientifically, we have continuously made assumptions based on limited knowledge. We assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the world was flat, that flight and space travel were impossible, and even on more minute levels, you can't go a day without hearing about a new diet that has some new idea on how food effects our weight and metabolism. Not to mention the plethora of constant doomsday warnings coming from both scientific and religious angles at all times, some of which may be real threats (such as global warming), and some definitively not (such as Y2K)."
"So, in the end, Ki and Chi, are as viable now as the idea that the world was round 500 years ago. The greater truth, in the end, is that belief is a greater power than anyone will ever understand, and if the OP believes that those things exist, no one here can prove him wrong."
Science is, by definition, incomplete. This is true. There are things that we don't know. That doesn't invalidate the things that we do know.
Ohh, hell yeah. ;)
My overall point, as it relates to this thread, is the science, as we can measure it, is flawed.
Well, duh.
The truth is, something is not 'scientific' unless its effects, under the conditions prescribed, can be reproduced 100%. Since we cannot measure every event and every molecule at all times, not to mention that even if we could we have no ability to measure the metaphysical (if it does or does not exist does not change our inability to measure it), so none can say that they know the truth.
Epic fail. This right here is what you don't understand about the scientific mindset. You're right that reproducability is an important rule of thumb in everyday scientific method. But no real scientist expects to gain the 100%, etched in stone, delivered from on high type of certainty. Finding scientific answers is often a matter of trial and error, of approximations and eliminations. What's important is that it's the best answer, given the available evidence at a specific point in time. If more evidence becomes available, you adjust.
If I may digress for a moment, I think the core of misunderstandings like this one lies in a certain double-edged characteristic of science. Namely that it's possible to divorce the practice of science from the philosophy of it, and still get workable results a lot of the time. This has on the one hand meant that science is easy to spread and popularize, but on the other hand it also makes it easy to get the wrong idea about what's actually going on.
The greater truth, in the end, is that belief is a greater power than anyone will ever understand
Psychologically, this seems to be true. It is notoriously hard to convince people their beliefs are false. But that seems to have rather limited bearing on physical science.
and if the OP believes that those things exist, no one here can prove him wrong.
We probably can't prove it to his satisfaction, no. We can, however, demonstrate to anyone with an open mind that the existence of chi as described is very unlikely.
BTW, why is everything you write in quotes? Are you quoting yourself? If not, who?
The OP reminds me of one of those guys you know in like 6th grade who claims to be a ninja in real life, when in reality he just owns a couple ninja turtle videos.
Our reality could be anything, meaning that science cannot prove anything until you can prove science...
Wrong, actually, because science doesn't rely on such things.
It doesn't matter what our reality is. What matters is our observations of it. Science is a systematic way of using our observations of reality to better understand it.
Indeed, if we were to figure out we were a computer program, it'd be via science, most likely.
By which I mean, if we live in the 'Matrix', science is completely fabricated by the computer program.
Wrong. Science exists regardless of the "true nature" of reality. All that changes is what it describes. Science is a process, and that process is valid in any reality.
If there is a god or gods, and it is/they are omnipotent, then anything at all is possible.
The FSM and deity who never interacts with the universe can exist. Nothing else really can, as in the end they just are one or the other.
And neither matters by definition. The FSM can do whatever it wants to, and the deity who never interacts with the universe doesn't matter. In either case, it doesn't matter if they exist, because we never could notice their existance. A deity who doesn't conceal their own existance, if omnipotent, would be glaringly obvious.
You can think you're right, but you can't KNOW you are; so as I said before, if you refuse or cannot reconcile that your belief is in no way 100% provable, then you are a fool.
So you're saying you are a fool?
Proof by contradiction: This is an absolute statement. This absolute statement says you cannot be absolutely certain of anything. But as it is absolute, it means you cannot be absolutely certain of it, either.
Therefore, the sentence is false, because it cannot be true due to self contradiction.
My point in all this is not that you are wrong, only that you cannot be completely sure you are right.
Not really. You can, in fact, be sure you're right. But only about certain things.
Mathematics, for instance, is perfect. You can be sure that 1+1=2.
You can also be certain about things being wrong. I can be certain, for instance, that the Earth is not a 2D plane.
I can be sure I'm right about repeated observations, particularly once I've got many converging lines of evidence (the shape of the Earth is an example).
Fact is, chi was science. At one time. It combined the best available medical knowledge with animistic assumptions.
No, it wasn't. Chi never was science.
Chi was always a religious belief.
People get this confused. Science did not always exist, and the modern scientific method isn't all that old.
People have always attempted to understand the universe, but that isn't science. Religion and philosophy are two examples of things which predate science. Logic also predates science.
I will make this my last post about this, since this thread has derailed, and simply state that if you cannot accept that you, your species, and what you know are flawed (in the same way that ALL knowledge held by humans is flawed) then you are just one among a plethora of humans who make me sad for our entire planet.
You are part of that plethora by this very statement, because claim this is true, yet it must be flawed by its own logic.
Also, you're wrong. Not all knowledge held by humans is flawed. Mathematics are absolute and correct.
My overall point, as it relates to this thread, is the science, as we can measure it, is flawed.
Science is not perfect. No one with any brains thinks it is.
But it gets better over time. It is progressive. It always gets better. That's how science works.
The truth is, something is not 'scientific' unless its effects, under the conditions prescribed, can be reproduced 100%.
You don't understand science. It doesn't have to be 100% reproducible, because, in reality, nothing is 100% reproducible in the real world. What is important is that it does not exceed our bounds beyond chance.
Indeed, we know, for instance, that we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. The more accurately you measure one, the less accurately it is possible to measure the other. Quantum dynamics is built not on 100%, but on probability.
It is in fact possible to pass through "solid" matter. The odds of it happening are remote in the extreme, but it is possible.
Since we cannot measure every event and every molecule at all times, not to mention that even if we could we have no ability to measure the metaphysical (if it does or does not exist does not change our inability to measure it), so none can say that they know the truth
You REALLY don't understand science. You don't need to know how every molecule is moving at all times.
We assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the world was flat, that flight and space travel were impossible, and even on more minute levels, you can't go a day without hearing about a new diet that has some new idea on how food effects our weight and metabolism.
None of this was science. Sorry, but if you don't even understand what science gives us, what science IS, then you have no ability to contribute to such a conversation.
You seem to think this stuff has something to do with science. It doesn't.
No, it wasn't. Chi never was science.
Chi was always a religious belief.
People get this confused. Science did not always exist, and the modern scientific method isn't all that old.
People have always attempted to understand the universe, but that isn't science. Religion and philosophy are two examples of things which predate science. Logic also predates science.
Philosophy, then, of the sort that was science's ancestor. It was experimented with, charted, and applied physically. The "next best thing." If the scientific method was around, it would have been applied.
What I'm trying to say is, 'chi' was never meant to be a religious thing. It wasn't something you were supposed to have faith in. It was supposed to be a fact of existence. Turns out, it was wrong. People turning it into an article of faith is bizarre, and shows a misunderstanding of the concept.
Also, you're wrong. Not all knowledge held by humans is flawed. Mathematics are absolute and correct.
While I agree with pretty much all the points in your post(s) in this thread, it seems to me that mathematical statements such as "1+1=2" are true by definition. That is, while they are significant for descriptions of the world, a resolved mathematical statement is nothing more than a tautology. They are most certainly true, and always reliable because they are definitions, but these aren't metaphysical propositions, in the way that, say, Pythagoreans would have described them. Thus, I don't think they have the same epistemological significance as what you were describing about the nature of experience and reality.
Philosophy, then, of the sort that was science's ancestor. It was experimented with, charted, and applied physically. The "next best thing." If the scientific method was around, it would have been applied.
What I'm trying to say is, 'chi' was never meant to be a religious thing. It wasn't something you were supposed to have faith in. It was supposed to be a fact of existence. Turns out, it was wrong. People turning it into an article of faith is bizarre, and shows a misunderstanding of the concept.
People believed in magic way back when.
Religious belief may not be entirely accurate as a descriptor. It was magical thinking, though, so it is in the same category as religious thought.
While I agree with pretty much all the points in your post(s) in this thread, it seems to me that mathematical statements such as "1+1=2" are true by definition. That is, while they are significant for descriptions of the world, a resolved mathematical statement is nothing more than a tautology. They are most certainly true, and always reliable because they are definitions, but these aren't metaphysical propositions, in the way that, say, Pythagoreans would have described them. Thus, I don't think they have the same epistemological significance as what you were describing about the nature of experience and reality.
Well, it is possible to describe the additive property in terms of other properties, but it isn't possible to generate a mathematical system without making assumptions. However, a system like mathematics can be absolute, and we can be absolutely certain given certain assumptions that certain things are true. So we do have absolute knowledge.
Whether or not mathematics precisely describes the real world doesn't change the fact that it is absolute. It is not science, but rather a related discipline of logical thought.
People believed in magic way back when.
Religious belief may not be entirely accurate as a descriptor. It was magical thinking, though, so it is in the same category as religious thought.
No, it really wasn't. Because traditionally, the 'magic' stuff was magic, and unrelated to chi. The only magic-type thing chi was linked to was Taoist immortality, and it wasn't even the cause of that immortality. It was only relevant because a Taoist immortal had to have a healthy body. It only changed relatively recently.
No, it really wasn't. Because traditionally, the 'magic' stuff was magic, and unrelated to chi.
Yes, it really was. Chi is a form of magical thinking. Just because you distinguish between two things doesn't mean it they don't fall into the same category of things.
Its borderline racism. Chi is similar to vitalism. Just because it wasn't made by white people doesn't mean it is different.
ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!
As a IRL Street Fighter player, I want my monk to play like Ryu.
Ohh, hell yeah. ;)
This. At-will special moves. Encounter EX moves. Daily Super Moves.
Yes, it really was. I'm afraid you don't understand chi or what "magical thinking" is.
That, or I know what chi is better than you do. Considering the amount of experience I've got and research that I've done, I'm not surprised.
'Chi' was basically some misunderstood medical principles. People cultivated strong, healthy chi because that meant that you were a healthy individual overall. Learning to 'channel' it? A matter of muscle and breath control, and application of basic physics.
Some uneducated people may have made it more than that, but that happens fairly regularly, even today. People misunderstand things. The mainstream tradition of 'chi' was basically basic medicine, misinterpreted due to false assumptions.
I've never been able to determine where the hardcore mysticism version of 'chi' came from. Several people I know have tried to figure that one out. It sort of exploded out of nowhere, apparently due to some serious mashing-together of unrelated concepts.
Its borderline racism. Chi is similar to vitalism. Just because it wasn't made by white people doesn't mean it is different.
Preaching to the choir.
In fact, some glaring imperfections have been discovered relating to the golden ratio - and to pythagorian mathamatics in general.
With that being said, while Base-10 mathamatics is not perfect, it is as close to perfect as we have been able to come to date, although flaws (such as the inability to calculate pi) do make certain calculations little more than an approximation only.....
For day to day math, this has no effect - but once you start looking at astrophysics, quantum mechanics, etc those small inconsistancies and variables can result in dramatic and widely variable conclusions.
As I said however, Im not a mathamatician, and barely understand this information, however if anyone is interested - I can pass along an article that an old mathematical acquaintence of mine (by the name of James D. Watt) once wrote on the subject.
Why do I mention this... Since pythagorian math (base 10) is the fundamental building block of our science, and since it has known flaws (flaws that mathamaticians have been aware of for centuries, but have chosen to ignore) - it stands to reason that all of our scientific calculations based upon said are likewise flawed.
The degree to which these flaws impact any specific calculation however, is dependant of course on the degree of accuracy required for any given calculation... When it comes to working with very small (or very large) numbers, an error margin of even 0.000001% can create huge discrepencies in the results.
However, despite these flaws - base-10 pythagorian mathamatics is the best (and only) mathematical model we have to date. With that being said, it is also one of the greatest "Sacred Cows" of the modern world.
While Im no mathamatician, it should be mentioned that (base 10) mathamatics is not as perfect as we believe it....
In fact, some glaring imperfections have been discovered relating to the golden ratio - and to pythagorian mathamatics in general.
With that being said, while Base-10 mathamatics is not perfect, it is as close to perfect as we have been able to come to date, although flaws (such as the inability to calculate pi) do make certain calculations little more than an approximation only.....
For day to day math, this has no effect - but once you start looking at astrophysics, quantum mechanics, etc those small inconsistancies and variables can result in dramatic and widely variable conclusions.
As I said however, Im not a mathamatician, and barely understand this information, however if anyone is interested - I can pass along an article that an old mathematical acquaintence of mine (by the name of James D. Watt) once wrote on the subject.
There's a handful of people who believe base 12 is a superior system to base 10. They have some interesting arguments. Though I don't think you could calculate a rational value for pi in any base.
'Chi' was basically some misunderstood medical principles. People cultivated strong, healthy chi because that meant that you were a healthy individual overall. Learning to 'channel' it? A matter of muscle and breath control, and application of basic physics.
What you just described is magical thinking. They didn't understand how things worked, so they invoked magical energies to do so. That's precisely what magical thinking is - invoking magic to explain things they don't understand. Its exactly the same as chanting a prayer to a god while walking around the field sprinkling water, thinking she is blessing the water and giving the plants life through it.
While Im no mathamatician, it should be mentioned that (base 10) mathamatics is not as perfect as we believe it....
Obviously not, because you're wrong.
Base 10 is irrelevant. Base is completely irrelevant. Math is the same regardless of base. 1+1=10 is the same as 1+1=2. Be it binary, base 10, base 20, or anything, it is all exactly the same.
All base affects is how we write down the numbers; no more, no less.
In fact, some glaring imperfections have been discovered relating to the golden ratio - and to pythagorian mathamatics in general.
...
1) No. The golden ratio isn't actually THAT important. Its interesting, I guess, but far less interesting than a lot of other things. e is far more interesting.
2) There is no such thing as "pythagorian mathematics". There is, say, the pythagorean theorem, but it is true. I guess you could mean the mathematics that Pythagoras knew, but his knowledge is outdated by several millenia, and no one believes that he had a complete understanding of mathematics.
You should be cautious when people feed you information about stuff outside of your understanding, as its easy to swallow something bad.
There is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but that's completely different, is true for all possible systems, and has nothing to do with the golden ratio, nor with Pythagoras.
For day to day math, this has no effect - but once you start looking at astrophysics, quantum mechanics, etc those small inconsistancies and variables can result in dramatic and widely variable conclusions.
You seem to have a lot of stuff mixed up here.
Math works for all of these things just fine and dandy. We have an incomplete understanding of the laws of physics, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics and everything to do with our knowledge of the laws of physics being incomplete.
There's a handful of people who believe base 12 is a superior system to base 10. They have some interesting arguments. Though I don't think you could calculate a rational value for pi in any base.
Its impossible to do so. Indeed, any number which is irrational in any system is irrational in every system. Rationality has nothing to do with the base of the system.
Also, funny thing: every system is base 10 according to itself. To a base 12 system, we'd be base a; to a base 8 system, we're base 12.
What you just described is magical thinking. They didn't understand how things worked, so they invoked magical energies to do so. That's precisely what magical thinking is - invoking magic to explain things they don't understand. Its exactly the same as chanting a prayer to a god while walking around the field sprinkling water, thinking she is blessing the water and giving the plants life through it.
The difference is that they did think they understood. Researched, charted, experimented, etc. There was an active pursuit of knowledge taking place.
By your reasoning, everything that science once held up as true and then found out to be false is 'magical thinking'.
The difference is that they did think they understood. Researched, charted, experimented, etc. There was an active pursuit of knowledge taking place.
By your reasoning, everything that science once held up as true and then found out to be false is 'magical thinking'.
Um, no.
Magical thinking is fundamentally different from science. Something like the aether isn't magical thinking, even though it was the wrong model for the universe.
Further the fact that the circle divides naturally on the secondary level (the primary division is that the compass "walks around the circle" exactly 6 times) into triangles (three sides) and squares, etc (four sided figures) shows that the circle is a base-12 phenomenon.
He has math to support this argument (among others).
Point still remains - there is a logical argument that base-12 mathematics is a better model for calculating (some/all) geometric equasions than base-10, and that this has been a known fact for quite some time.
The fact that most mathematicians and scientists react to Base-12 mathematics as if it were a heretical philosophy, indicates that Science/mathematics is not as "pure" a philosophy as they would have you believe - and that it in fact, holds certain "Sacred Cows" (the least of which includes Pythagorian theorums) to a religious level of importance.
In fact, most mathematicians speak of Pythagorus as if he was some kind of Prophet, and act as if his theorums "came from on high, and should not be questioned".
In fact, so ingrained are these beliefs, that I feel more than a bit heretical just by questioning them.
Science is a religion (or at least - has its religious elements). We just refuse to see it that way, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Its borderline racism. ... Just because it wasn't made by white people doesn't mean it is different.
Oh good God. Someone close this thread already.
Hitler.
There. It's reached it's inevitable conclusion. Although playing the racism card is just about as bad as Godwin's Law...
lol... Yes, James Watt is one of those who subscribes to the belief that Base-12 is a better system than base 10.
He has math to support this argument (among others).
Point still remains - there is a logical argument that base-12 mathematics is a better model for calculating (some/all) geometric equasions than base-10, and that this has been a known fact for quite some time.
All base does is change the numerical representation of the numbers, nothing else.
Thing is, I just use radians anyway. 360 degrees is from a base 60 (IIRC) system, hence why 12 fits into it so well.
Base 12 is only really useful because it makes 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, and 3/4 be pretty fractions (.5, .4, .8, .3, and .9 respectively) and has a pretty regular multiplication table (not sure if you've seen it).
On the downside, whereas in decimal our only ugly sub-10 divisor is 7, theirs has much, much uglier fractions with half a dozen or more repeating digits. Also we have ten fingers. Plus, conversion is a pain.
The fact that most mathematicians and scientists react to Base-12 mathematics as if it were a heretical philosophy, indicates that Science/mathematics is not as "pure" a philosophy as they would have you believe - and that it in fact, holds certain "Sacred Cows" (the least of which includes Pythagorian theorums) to a religious level of importance.
Uh, no.
The reason people don't use base 10 is because all bases are fundamentally the same, and there's no reason to change from base 10 to base 12.
I might also add that both c and g are pretty close to nice, round values in base 10 (300,000 and 10, respectively), whereas they're not nearly so nice in base 12 for doing fast approximations.
There's no good reason to change from base 10 to base 12. Base is entirely arbitrary anyway, so switching is pointless. The only reason we even use other bases is because of computers.
In fact, most mathematicians speak of Pythagorus as if he was some kind of Prophet, and act as if his theorums "came from on high, and should not be questioned".
Uh, no? What are you talking about? I've met a lot more mathematicians than you, most likely. They don't.
Science is a religion (or at least - has its religious elements). We just refuse to see it that way, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who says this doesn't understand science on a very fundamental level. Sorry.
Science is falsifiable. Religion isn't.
EDIT: I might add trying to look up "James Watt" is being not very fruitful, which lends credence to his unimportance. "James D. Watt" doesn't help, nor does adding base 12.
Um, no.
Magical thinking is fundamentally different from science. Something like the aether isn't magical thinking, even though it was the wrong model for the universe.
Exactly. And chi was a part of a bad biological model. That's all it really was. The magical stuff that people are so keen on was never really a part of chi.
Super Position, Wavefront Theory, and research into the Planck Scale provide valid "Scientific" rationales supporting the existance of psychic ability, and a possible method/mechanic by which such abilities manifest.
The leading theory for which goes that all matter exists in a state of super-position, and exists simultaneously as both matter (particles) and waves of potentiality (waves).
It also states that the observer plays an important role in determining the "collapse of the wavefront", or more specifically - how the actual position of any given object/particle is determined, and that without an "observer" the natural state of matter is in fact super-position.
Since matter exists in a state of paradox, and super-position, it thereby stands to reason that we (humans) also exist in a state of super-position, and that as a result, overlap occurs between two (or more) individuals in this state of being.
Based on our (as yet) limited understanding of Super-Position, it has been postulated that psychic abilities are simply the natural by-product of some (as yet unknown) pathway by which information learned/known/experienced by that part of us which exists in a constant state of super-position, is filtered to the conscious mind.
Exactly. And chi was a part of a bad biological model. That's all it really was. The magical stuff that people are so keen on was never really a part of chi.
They believed in something very similar to the vital force of vitalism. The comparison between the two is often made.
Actually, believe it or not - Science (or more specifically - Quantum Mechanics) provides "mathematical" evidence to support the existance of "psychic" abilities.
Super Position, Wavefront Theory, and research into the Planck Scale provide valid "Scientific" rationales supporting the existance of psychic ability, and a possible method/mechanic by which such abilities manifest.
Uh, no. As someone who understands quantum mechanics, I'll tell you that is a load of horsepocky.
People invoke quantum mechanics because most people don't understand it, and therefore, they think they can justify anything with some fancy words and not be called on it. They're usually right, as few people understand anything about quantum mechanics.
The leading theory for which goes that all matter exists in a state of super-position, and exists simultaneously as both matter (particles) and waves of potentiality (waves).
Particle-wave duality has been known for a century. Its not exactly cutting edge. I mean, some of the fancy stuff we've done with it is, but we've known about it for quite some time now.
Since matter exists in a state of paradox, and super-position, it thereby stands to reason that we (humans) also exist in a state of super-position, and that as a result, overlap occurs between two (or more) individuals in this state of being.
No. This is what is known as "not understanding this at all".
Particle-wave duality certainly exists (or at least appears to exist) but humans do not overlap for very obvious reasons, including but not limited to the fact that we behave much, much, much more like particles than waves. This is why we do not pass through solid objects - if we behaved like waves, we would. We don't, though.
Based on our (as yet) limited understanding of Super-Position, it has been postulated that psychic abilities are simply the natural by-product of some (as yet unknown) pathway by which information learned/known/experienced by that part of us which exists (constantly) in a state of super-position, is filtered to the conscious mind.
Cargo cult science is bad, and this stems from a lack of understanding of quantum mechanics.
I can't blame them for using it to sucker people (its probably the best way of doing so, as it is probably the thing the fewest people understand) but its just plain old not true and not how superposition works at all.
Actually, believe it or not - Science (or more specifically - Quantum Mechanics) provides "mathematical" evidence to support the existance of "psychic" abilities.
Super Position, Wavefront Theory, and research into the Planck Scale provide valid "Scientific" rationales supporting the existance of psychic ability, and a possible method/mechanic by which such abilities manifest.
The leading theory for which goes that all matter exists in a state of super-position, and exists simultaneously as both matter (particles) and waves of potentiality (waves).
It also states that the observer plays an important role in determining the "collapse of the wavefront", or more specifically - how the actual position of any given object/particle is determined, and that without an "observer" the natural state of matter is in fact super-position.
Since matter exists in a state of paradox, and super-position, it thereby stands to reason that we (humans) also exist in a state of super-position, and that as a result, overlap occurs between two (or more) individuals in this state of being.
Based on our (as yet) limited understanding of Super-Position, it has been postulated that psychic abilities are simply the natural by-product of some (as yet unknown) pathway by which information learned/known/experienced by that part of us which exists in a constant state of super-position, is filtered to the conscious mind.
Problem is, coming up with ideas about how the universe works, and then using them as rationales to justify how humans might have nifty powers isn't how science works. You have to observe effects before you can develop a hypothesis and figure out how to test it. The very beginning of the scientific process is being left out here. The observation. Before we start looking for exotic causes, we've got to have a reason to suspect that anything is being caused to begin with.
Since the electrons of our sub-atomic structure exist in a state of super-position, therefore we also exist in the same state (at least at that level of our being).
I know that on a conscious level, we (humans) interact primarily with the macrocosmic world, however - this does not change the fact that despite our awareness (or lack there-of), we also interact with the world on a cellular, atomic, and sub-atomic level - and at the sub-atomic level, super-position is a factor.
Scientists still do not understand the mechanics of how super position works, and therefore it is the heigh of arrogance (on your part) to state that I am wrong, when the simple fact of the matter is - neither you or I knows the Truth, as the "known" facts are still being debated.
All we know for a "fact" is that All matter appears to exist in both states simultaneously, and by extension - so do we (macro-cosmic) beings exist in both states simultaneously.
Ironically, the biggest roadblock to finding the answers in this regard is the fact that Scientists are at a loss as how to measure the "observer" element, which appears to play a vital role in the equasion.
They believed in something very similar to the vital force of vitalism. The comparison between the two is often made.
The only point I'm taking issue with is the word 'believe'. You could mean that this was the conclusion they reached, and I agree with that. But in context, I think you mean to suggest that it was an article of faith. It was not. If you could go back in time and hand a scholar of the subject in ancient China a modern medical textbook, he would scrap the whole thing without a second thought.
You miss my point.
Since the electrons of our sub-atomic structure exist in a state of super-position, therefore we also exist in the same state (at least at that level of our being).
No, I understand your point.
I also understand quantum mechanics and chemistry.
You, apparently, do not. You don't even understand what you're talking about, given you're using the wrong term for particle-wave duality. You're saying "superposition", which is completely wrong, and indeed, your claimed mechanism doesn't work.
My electrons and your electrons don't really interact much at all.
Scientists still do not understand the mechanics of how super position works, and therefore it is the heigh of arrogance (on your part) to state that I am wrong, when the simple fact of the matter is - neither you or I knows the Truth, as the "known" facts are still being debated.
No they aren't. I'm sorry you don't understand quantum mechanics, but its simply not the case that it would do this. That's not how it works.
Its not the "height of arrogance" to claim you're wrong. Its reality. Particle-wave duality does not give people psychic powers, and in fact, it could not give people psychic powers. There's no mechanism by which it could do so. Its like claiming that radiation can turn an iguana into Godzilla, but that's overgenerous, because that's much more plausible than this.
All we know for a "fact" is that All matter appears to exist in both states simultaneously, and by extension - so do we (macro-cosmic) beings exist in both states simultaneously.
Uh, we know a great deal more than this for a fact. Again, sorry you don't understand quantum mechanics.
Also, technically speaking, its not so much that we're in both states simultaneously as it is that we exhibit both particle-like and wave-like behavior to differing extents. That said, we do not exhibit much at all in the way of wave-like behavior; things like a human behave like particles.
If you could go back in time and hand a scholar of the subject in ancient China a modern medical textbook, he would scrap the whole thing without a second thought.
That is, only if you make the assumption that said ancient scientist:
a) Understood the principles contained within said medical textbook;
b) Could verify the information contained within it and
c) That he did not see the ideas as being too "radical" to even give it a chance.
Scientists of the modern world are no different... Radical ideas (no matter how accurate they turn out) are always pushed to the fringe of scientific study and are kept at "arms length" by the majority of the scientific community until such times as its adherrents can convince them otherwise.
And thats not counting those scientific advances which are squashed for political reasons (such as the Water-Powered engine designed in the 1970s, whose patent was purchased by Shell Oil and never saw the light of day).
Who's to say what other scientific advances/theories have never been revealed to the general public (or even the larger scientific community) for political reasons.
The simple fact is - we have no idea.
Exactly. And chi was a part of a bad biological model. That's all it really was. The magical stuff that people are so keen on was never really a part of chi.
I think your getting hung up on the word magic in the term "magical thinking", it is a pattern of thinking rather than a belief in magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
It is basically falsely assuming a causation from a correlation.
This is usually done in reference to magic, but it happens to scientists and others as well.
In other words, I believe Titanium Dragon is asking for proof.
I believe that it would be nearly impossible to provide it.
That is, only if you make the assumption that said ancient scientist:
a) Understood the principles contained within said medical textbook;
b) Could verify the information contained within it and
c) That he did not see the ideas as being too "radical" to even give it a chance.
Scientists of the modern world are no different... Radical ideas (no matter how accurate they turn out) are always pushed to the fringe of scientific study and are kept at "arms length" by the majority of the scientific community until such times as its adherrents can convince them otherwise.
And thats not counting those scientific advances which are squashed for political reasons (such as the Water-Powered engine designed in the 1970s, whose patent was purchased by Shell Oil and never saw the light of day).
Who's to say what other scientific advances/theories have never been revealed to the general public (or even the larger scientific community) for political reasons.
The simple fact is - we have no idea.
What you quoted was basically shorthand for 'taught them more advanced medicine.' They had no religious attachment to the idea of chi. It was just the best knowledge they had at the time. That is my point.
And it's true that science isn't always brought to light or applied in the most honest or beneficial manner. That doesn't mean that there's a whole world of crazy stuff out there just waiting to come to light.
With that being said however, while the mathematics of quantum mechanics is beyond me, I am well versed on the subject and have spent the better part of 20 years staying appraised of each new development.
I do however, base my opinion on this subject on the work of Amit Goswani, John Hagelin, Fred Alan Wolf, William A. Tiller, and David Albert, in addition to more obvious persons (eg. Steven Hawkings, Einestine, etc)- all renown experts in the field.
Well I'm not going to say who's right in this, but maybe I can help with a seed bump that is preventing progress.
I think your getting hung up on the word magic in the term "magical thinking", it is a pattern of thinking rather than a belief in magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
It is basically falsely assuming a causation from a correlation.
This is usually done in reference to magic, but it happens to scientists and others as well.
In other words, I believe Titanium Dragon is asking for proof.
I believe that it would be nearly impossible to provide it.
Looking at this, I think we were arguing with each other by rephrasing what the other guy said.
That's what the standpoint of every pseudoscience advocate boils down to, each and every time.
Looking at this, I think we were arguing with each other by rephrasing what the other guy said.
Well hopefully I can help more.
Ki covers a large amount of beliefs, so much that you might as well translate it to "stuff".
You could define you're view of ki and that would help get past to the word to the concept.
Well hopefully I can help more.
Ki covers a large amount of beliefs, so much that you might as well translate it to "stuff".
You could define you're view of ki and that would help get past to the word to the concept.
I'm using the traditional definition, on this occasion. The one that existed before some very sloppy intellectualism crammed a bunch of unrelated concepts in with it. It is, as I've said, a biological model.
Scientists of the modern world are no different... Radical ideas (no matter how accurate they turn out) are always pushed to the fringe of scientific study and are kept at "arms length" by the majority of the scientific community until such times as its adherrents can convince them otherwise.
Um, no. Radical ideas are not "pushed to the fringe". They just aren't accepted without very good evidence for them. Once that evidence manifests itself, you see a paradigm shift when everyone accepts it. And really, a lot of it isn't even pushed out at all; take the accelleration of the universe. That was accepted quite quickly because the data was quite clear. The question usually is "Did the evidence drive the theory" or "Did the theory drive the evidence?" If good data comes out in support of some new theory, that theory is accepted much more rapidly than a theory which they have to collect a lot of data to verify.
Indeed, this is the way things SHOULD work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's why when they observed the solar eclipse and were like "Relativity is right!" it was a big deal.
And thats not counting those scientific advances which are squashed for political reasons (such as the Water-Powered engine designed in the 1970s, whose patent was purchased by Shell Oil and never saw the light of day).
Nice tinfoil hat there.
There's no such thing as a water-powered engine. The idea itself is quite silly, given what water is (namely, THE combustion product). Water isn't a viable fuel source for things which don't rely on nuclear physics.
Incidentally, had there been a patent on it in the 1970s, that patent would have expired by now.
QED it never existed in the first place.
Who's to say what other scientific advances/theories have never been revealed to the general public (or even the larger scientific community) for political reasons.
None, really. Scientists have big mouths.
Take, for example, how to build a nuclear weapon. People fret over "Oh man, will they figure it out?" when you can type in "Nuclear weapon" on Wikipedia and find out how to build one.
Always has mystified me how people think that there is all this secrecy. There is no cure for cancer or anything out there, hidden away in someone's drawer.
There is probably the odd drug which has never been developed for economic reasons (they found the market was too small) but that's not nefarious moustache-twirling and its not like the patents don't expire.
It is, as I've said, a biological model.
It is a biological model based on what amounts to vitalism.
I do however, base my opinion on this subject on the work of John Hagelin, Fred Alan Wolf, William A. Tiller, and David Albert, in addition to more obvious persons (eg. Steven Hawkings, Einestine, etc)- all renown experts in the field.
I wouldn't include a winner of the Ig Nobel Prize (Hagelin) in a list of people you consider experts, and another (William A. Tiller) who won James Randi's Pigasus Award. Just saying.
That and your experts read like a cast list from 'What the Bleep Do We Know' - which if you look at the reviews by actual scientists, it was generally described as a garbled mess of metaphysics and pseudoscience (to his credit, David Albert has savaged the movie for selectively editing his footage, grossly misrepresenting his actual views in the process).
I'm using the traditional definition, on this occasion. The one that existed before some very sloppy intellectualism crammed a bunch of unrelated concepts in with it. It is, as I've said, a biological model.
MMMmmm...
What I've seen of this it does line up with the circulation of blood in the body.
The nervous system does follow the same basic routes as well.
Other parts of ki can describe basic origin functions as well.
However, my experience with such is limited, and that quote is vague.
Another few odd functions I've heard associated to work and have scientific explanation.
For instance conditioning though exercises.
By repeatedly stress bone they become much stronger than a normal persons.
Another was basically how to throw a punch and lines up with kinetic principles.
It is a biological model based on what amounts to vitalism.
Well, yeah. It's very similar to the Western philosophical ancestor of medical science. Useful at the time, eventually debunked at a fundamental level by the progress of knowledge. That's what I've been saying all along.
Unnecessary post!
I think you just summed up this entire thread...
I think you just summed up this entire thread...
Ain't that the truth.
Ki was once a method of understanding the world, or at least human biology. Now it's considered to be the stuff of mystical fantasy. Science is the most current method of understanding the world, but who's to say were it will be in a thousand years time. Perhaps in the same way that Ki and other so called mystical beliefs have given way to science, science will in turn give way to some yet unconceived but more accurate way of understanding the world.
Perhaps in that future forumites will be arguing over weather the "Scientist" is a valid archetype for whatever fantasy game they play.
All the back and forth arguing in this thread is becoming dizzying.
Ki was once a method of understanding the world, or at least human biology. Now it's considered to be the stuff of mystical fantasy. Science is the most current method of understanding the world, but whose to say were it will be in a thousand years time. Perhaps in the same way that Ki and other so called mystical beliefs have given way to science, science will in turn give way to some yet unconceived but more accurate way of understanding the world.
Perhaps in that future forumites will be arguing over weather the "Scientist" is a valid archetype for whatever fantasy game they play.
While the picture is amusing, the analogy is inaccurate, I'm afraid.
The precursors to science have been there all along. They just weren't put together for a long time. But people had parts of it, and it generated advancements.
Science, unlike its predecessors, works, and works rapidly - look at the rate of advancement in the last two centuries, and note that the rate is accellerating rapidly - we're not only improving faster, our advancements are causing us to advance exponentially faster. We've generated a powerful feedback loop which is causing an insane increase in knowledge.
Alchemists caused some improvements with their methodology, as did the philosophers of old, and the monks. But with the scientific method, we began an increase in the rate of advancement which has never slowed down.
It is fundamentally different from what came before.
You can see the threads there in history which lead to today.
While the picture is amusing, the analogy is inaccurate, I'm afraid.
The precursors to science have been there all along. They just weren't put together for a long time. But people had parts of it, and it generated advancements.
Science, unlike its predecessors, works, and works rapidly - look at the rate of advancement in the last two centuries, and note that the rate is accellerating rapidly - we're not only improving faster, our advancements are causing us to advance exponentially faster. We've generated a powerful feedback loop which is causing an insane increase in knowledge.
Alchemists caused some improvements with their methodology, as did the philosophers of old, and the monks. But with the scientific method, we began an increase in the rate of advancement which has never slowed down.
It is fundamentally different from what came before.
You can see the threads there in history which lead to today.
Of course it's easy to see that today. But the Alchemists and Ki masters of old would have rambled of the same spiel about how their methods are based previous partial understandings that have been there all along and only became manifest into what to them was modern thought. They certainly made what for the time were rapid strides in human understanding.
If you don't concede that a more prefect means of understanding the world could come along, rendering modern science as obsolete as alchemy than your only supporting it in the same dogmatic and unenlightened point of view as those you are trying to put down.
I'm not trying to bash science. I fully believe that it is at present the best means we have to understand the world, but I am open to the possibility that a better system might exist even if I have no concept of what such a system might be. After all, if I knew anything about that better hypothetical system then I'd be out changing the world instead of discussing trivialities on a gaming forum.
"I will instead state that further argument with Titanium Dragon is pointless. You see, the issue here is that he refuses to acknowledge misunderstandings, and instead prescribes his own assumptions about anything you say, or simply relates things in the most literal fashion (one or the other, whichever helps condescend better). This is an issue with human arrogance, is that a person who wishes to argue, or condescend, will do so regardless of what you say, no matter how antagonistic or neutral, unless you agree with them."
"You see, he (and others) have attributed my statements to my philosophy, without understanding me, or realizing that unlike most people, I don't only argue for my beliefs. You see, it is possible for some people to be open-minded, which means accepting that I know nothing for sure."
"You see, the another great truth is that there is an exception to every rule (including that rule). There are a few absolutes in the world, most of them relate directly to language. For example, you cannot be faster than the fastest thing in the world (or stronger than the strongest, or smarter than the smartest) simply because by definition, if you are stronger than the strongest, then you are the strongest. The issue is that language deals too often in absolutes. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to understand what I have to say, Titanium Dragon, and others, will simply attribute their own explanations to my words."
"I will apologize, as one flawed human, for one misnomer. In my arguments, I should not downplay science, because by definition, science is too general to deny. So, what I should state, is that my previous arguments relate to our views or knowledge of science. These things are beliefs."
"I say all this because I do not want to be so arrogant that I cannot reiterate or even rescind my arguments. Though, I am not, either conceding my argument."
"Note, that this is now in defense of my actual beliefs as well as my own arguments, and I am not attempting to further this argument. In fact, my greater point here is that arguing with people in this fashion is like arguing with a brick wall (cliched but true)."
"Since I have little interest in arguing or defending myself against arrogance any longer, I now have nothing at all to add to this conversation unless it returns to its original topic."
Of course it's easy to see that today. But the Alchemists and Ki masters of old would have rambled of the same spiel about how their methods are based previous partial understandings that have been there all along and only became manifest into what to them was modern thought. They certainly made what for the time were rapid strides in human understanding.
Not really, no. They didn't make rapid strides at all.
Sure, individuals may have accomplished a fair amount, but if you looked at people's lives, they didn't change. You could see people behind catch up, but you didn't see people's lives completely turn around due to new technology. New technology was very sparse and incremental. It took a very long time to go from Ancient Greek clockwork mechanisms to mideival clocks. It took a very long time to go from bronze to iron.
It took a very long time for technology to actually cause much change within people's lifetimes.
Science works.
If you don't concede that a more prefect means of understanding the world could come along, rendering modern science as obsolete as alchemy than your only supporting it in the same dogmatic and unenlightened point of view as those you are trying to put down.
Incorrect, I'm afraid. You see, you don't understand science at all.
The reason is quite simple. Science is a process. It gets iteratively better over time. The reason it works so well is that it has cut us down to what is necessary for the advancement of knowledge, and we know that it has done so, as we can look at our rate of advancement, as well as the way science itself works and what is necessary for advancement works.
Does this mean our current understanding of the universe is complete? Of course not.
But on the other hand you're making horrendously flawed assumptions about how much we do and do not know.
We know the shape of things. We don't know all the details, but we know the shape.
We know relativity is a decent approximation of objects at certain scales.
We know quantum mechanics is an okay approximation of objects at certain scales.
We know about evolution. We know about genetic material. We know a lot of the general processes, but we don't know all of them. We know the shape of things, but not the details.
We know how certain chemicals should react, thanks to quantum.
We can predict radioactive decay patterns.
We can build ever smaller objects, and image them, and thus build ever smaller ones.
We can thus build ever faster computers.
We know a great deal more about the Earth, and unlike those who preceded us, we know how confident we are in what we know.
You see, science doesn't give us the answers, but it does give us the non-answers. It chips away stuff we know aren't right, and we get iteratively better images of reality.
We know the broad strokes of star formation, but not the details.
We know the broad strokes of how life works, but not the details. Not all of them, anyway.
We know the broad strokes of relitivity, but we don't know why on an even larger scale it seems to fail us.
We know the broad strokes of quantum mechanics, but know they're incomplete, and know why. We're working on improving it, and meanwhile we're looking at the Standard Model and better models.
The difference is that we have data. We can tell whether something meets our expectations or not. Experimentation gives us data that those before didn't have, and computers give us access to far more data than men had before.
And the thing is, we can see through history, when people took similar steps, they got good results. We can see the greeks doing stuff like figuring out the Earth is round from its shadow on the moon, and calculating the distance from the Earth to the Moon, and from the Earth to the Sun, using reasonable methodologies. We can see Galileo and Newton, back in the day. We can see the ancients using mathematics to solve problems. We can see bits and pieces of science in the past, and of logical thought, but people didn't put it together for a long time, and even then, they didn't stick to it well enough.
Thing is, we can be reasonably certain that something better than science won't come along, because of what is necessary for expansion of knowledge, and because science works so much better, and we can see those threads. We aren't the first, either.
The idea that this is ignorance is folly, because in the end, it is based in logic, and the assumptions are not unreasonable because they've been shown empirically time and again - the scientific process works.
I'm not trying to bash science. I fully believe that it is at present the best means we have to understand the world, but I can conceive of the possibility of a better system even if I have no concept of what such a system might be. If I did, then I'd be out changing the world instead of discussing trivialities on a gaming forum.
The problem is you don't understand what science ultimately is. It is a process, it is not an edifice, and it is a self-improving process at that. The future holds more and more science and logical thought and reasoning; it is simply that science will have better tools. Ultimately it will be science though, not something else.
Ultimately, the scientific process: observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing; that's something which works. We observe something, we formulate a hypothesis, we make a prediction from that hypothesis, and we test it in such a way that we can deny our hypothesis - an experiment which does not allow us to discriminate between our hypothesis and the null state is not a useful one. Now, this is an iterative process, and oftentimes you'll be doing some experiment, and then find some unexpected phenomenon and focus on that instead of whatever you were doing originally. You come up with a hypothesis about this novel behavior and then you replicate it in order to confirm that this behavior is real.
Replicability is key to science, and it is key to being able to know what you know. If you can repeat an experiment, and derive that knowledge for yourself, you can know that you know. This is why science will always work. The names of the steps may be different, but ultimately its all about being able to show the same thing over and over again, which matches up with how it "should" work according to your model.
Not really, no. They didn't make rapid strides at all.
It took a very long time for technology to actually cause much change within people's lifetimes.
Rapid is relative. A long time is relative. In the future our current scientific strides may well look like a snails pace.
But on the other hand you're making horrendously flawed assumptions about how much we do and do not know.
We can only ever know what we know and even at that we cannot no with undeniable certainty that what we know is really true or merely apparently true. We can never know how much we don't know, for in order to know how much we don't know we would have to know the things we don't know which would make them known. Sure we can have vague ideas about what we don't know, but we can't know if that's because we just haven't figured it out yet or because there isn't actually anything know in the first place.
We know...
Corection: We think we know.
We can thus build ever faster computers.
And this I think is a far more important point. The scientific method, as it is understood today, can be traced back to the late 10th or early 11th century, depending on which sources one believes. Even accounting for the fact that it didn't become wide spread until the late 17th or early 18th century, the rapid strides you speak of didn't really take hold until the 20th century, and many of them coincide with development of faster more modern computers. It's not science that is to thank for our modern rapid development it's computers. Granted though, science did play major role in the development of said modern computers and it continues to act as a major guiding influence in how those computers are used.
This however is no surprise to any historian, better means of referencing and accumulating cultural knowledge have always coincided with a faster pace of human development. This is why the development of the library is also a major historical milestone.
We know a great deal more about the Earth, and unlike those who preceded us, we know how confident we are in what we know.
I'm sure our forerunners were just as confident in their knowledge. Just as I'm sure that come after us will shake thier heads and pitty our overconfidance.
The difference is that we have data. We can tell whether something meets our expectations or not. Experimentation gives us data that those before didn't have, and computers give us access to far more data than men had before.
Experimentation isn't new. Sure there have always been charlatans who have merely claimed or even deluded them selves into believing that they have magical powers, but that's not how widespread philosophies like ki (that actually worked) spread. People developed techniques to ease suffering and promote good health. They determined these methods work through trial and error. Maybe there reasoning for why their techniques worked, but that doesn't change the fact that the were able to develop functional techniques that even modern science acknowledges even if it does so by demystifying them
Thing is, we can be reasonably certain that something better than science won't come along, because of what is necessary for expansion of knowledge, and because science works so much better, and we can see those threads. We aren't the first, either.
Again, I'm sure our forerunners were cetain that there way of understanding the world was flawless and could never be suplanted.
The problem is you don't understand what science ultimately is. It is a process, it is not an edifice, and it is a self-improving process at that. The future holds more and more science and logical thought and reasoning; it is simply that science will have better tools. Ultimately it will be science though, not something else.
Even if modern science is only ever supplanted by more advanced scientific understanding my point will still stand. The progressive ideas of today will be hocus-pokus-mumbojumbo of tomorrow. What we take for fact in the present will be the stuff of naive fantasy in the future and to the common man the "super scientists" of 20th century pop culture will be just as archaic mystical as a wizard.
If you ignore everything else, please don't ignore that last and most important part. Maybe you see whatever comes next as being a natural extension of scientist, but I have little doubt that an ancient schooler and mathematician would have been able to say the same if they were to see and attempt to interpret our modern science.
Even if modern science is only ever supplanted by more advanced scientific understanding my point will still stand. The progressive ideas of today will be hocus-pokus-mumbojumbo of tomorrow. What we take for fact in the present will be the stuff of naive fantasy in the future and to the common man the "super scientists" of 20th century pop culture will be just as archaic mystical as a wizard.
You're still missing the point. Specific theories might become outdated, but please don't confuse the current state of the art with the process of accumulating knowledge.
If you ignore everything else, please don't ignore that last and most important part. Maybe you see whatever comes next as being a natural extension of scientist, but I have little doubt that an ancient schooler and mathematician would have been able to say the same if they were to see and attempt to interpret our modern science.
If we could revive Aristotle and ask if he thought the hypothetico-deductive method was an extension of his own work, would he say yes? I think he would. Because guess what, it is. We might quibble over at what point in history we can apply the label "science" to something, but what we're ultimately talking about is the application of rational thought. The history of inquiring minds making honest attempts to figure out how the world works and searching for a better explanation than "the gods did it". Gradually, better and better methods have been developed for this purpose. This is a process that took a while to pick up steam (as it were), and there are many reasons for the exponential curve of progress, but that's not really important to this argument. What matters is that rational, metodical thinking is unlikely to be supplanted by anything else.
Unless we as a species mutate and gain new sensory organs that allow us to intuit truth directly, or something...
You're still missing the point. Specific theories might become outdated, but please don't confuse the current state of the art with the process of accumulating knowledge.
I'm not. If anything I'm trying to distinguish it. Maybe I'm doing a poor job of that, but language can sometimes be an imprecise tool for expressing thought.
If we could revive Aristotle and ask if he thought the hypothetico-deductive method was an extension of his own work, would he say yes? I think he would. Because guess what, it is. We might quibble over at what point in history we can apply the label "science" to something, but what we're ultimately talking about is the application of rational thought. The history of inquiring minds making honest attempts to figure out how the world works and searching for a better explanation than "the gods did it". Gradually, better and better methods have been developed for this purpose. This is a process that took a while to pick up steam (as it were), and there are many reasons for the exponential curve of progress, but that's not really important to this argument. What matters is that rational, metodical thinking is unlikely to be supplanted by anything else.
Indeed, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Logic and rational thought are old, possibly as old as human culture. Throughout history people have certainly thought they'd found the one true system to which that logic and rational thought could be applied in a way as to answer the mysteries of the universe. Science is our current method of doing so, but it might not always be. There might be a better system out there, but no one will be able to know whether or not that is the case until some discovers/invents it.
Unless we as a species mutate and gain new sensory organs that allow us to intuit truth directly, or something...
...and what makes you so sure we won't?
Throughout history people have certainly thought they'd found the one true system to which that logic and rational thought could be applied in a way as to answer the mysteries of the universe. Science is our current method of doing so, but it might not always be. There might be a better system out there, but no one will be able to know whether or not that is the case until some discovers/invents it.
I still feel you're trying to pin the label "science" on a small subset of theories and/or methodologies. My point is that whatever new progress humanity makes in the future, we're still going to call our knowledge-gathering process "science", and it will be a refinement of what we do now, not something drastically different.
Belief systems are just ways to explain reality, or at least our perception of it. None are any more valid than others as long as they do the job they need to do, provide an explanation for what IS.
Science at its basic level only explains the HOW not the WHY, and definitely not any philosophical why. That's the role of religion.
Of course many people misunderstand science or religion and that's when they become a belief system based on blinders of faith. The one who follows science insists that if science can't explain the HOW now than it's not real and never was/will be. The relgious one attacks anothers belief in WHY things are the way they are.
Chi as explained to me by someone who lived in Taiwan and who talked with Shaolin and Bhuddist monks and speaks Mandarin is that chi literally means 'breath' and under science would more likely be oxygen. It's by controlling one's own 'breath' in their blood that lets them do things. By medicine that'd be controlling the oxygen level in the blood which if increased to certain muscles would allow them to perform better, allowing theoretically fantastic leaps, powerful strikes, and hotter hands. Heat is a common treatment for various aches and swellings as it increases bloodflow to an area (and therefore cold is used at times to reduce blodflow for similar effects).
So chi practice may not use 'fancy' scientific and medical terminology to describe how it works doesn't mean it's some sort of fake trickery. People need to get past terminology and language fallacies and look at things more in how they relate than how they are different.
Rapid is relative. A long time is relative. In the future our current scientific strides may well look like a snails pace.
A person born in 1880 who died in 2000 would have seen:
Horses replaced by cars
Planes come into existance, and become a major form of transit
Guns improve massively, from semiautomatics to machine guns
Aerial bombing
Rocketry
Nuclear weapons
Electricity
Nuclear power
Massive roads across the entire world
Massive decrease in travel times
Computers
The internet
The modern synthesis of evolution
Understanding of genetics
Telephones
Cell phones
Faxes
Television
Radio
Refridgerators
Microwaves
Sliced bread
Vaccinations
Antibiotics
Dialysis
ect.
In terms of personal stuff, they'd:
Gotten massively different forms of transportation which are much faster than previous forms
Gotten communication methodolgy which went from telegraphs to telephones to "you can call to wherever, from pretty much anywhere"
Radio and television revolutionized entertainment and news
Computers and the internet brought far more information into their home
Their house is electrified and has treated running water
Gained massively better food storage techniques
Gained microwaves, making food preparation easier
Gained much better access to much more food, especially processed foods
Better health thanks to vaccinations, antibiotics, and other modern techniques
These changes were massive, and their consequences were huge. Making a town 60 miles away an hour away rather than several hours by horse makes a big difference, and making a town 60 miles away reachable in seconds by picking up the telephone makes an even bigger difference. You could get to London in less than a day now, whereas previously it'd take weeks if not months.
Its not a matter of "relatively rapid". Cutting travel time by more than an order of magnitude, and contact time by many orders of magnitude, have profound consequences and are really, really important shifts in how the world functions. Its not just "relatively rapid"; it is rapid. Orders of magnitude are significant changes. War is completely different than it was in 1900.
The world changed in a very profound way, and the behavior of people changed as well, as well as what they could do, when they could do it, and how long it could take.
The changes of the 20th century will never be seen as minor.
We can only ever know what we know and even at that we cannot no with undeniable certainty that what we know is really true or merely apparently true.
This is wrong. We can indeed know what we do not know. These are "known unknowns". For instance, we know quantum mechanics is inaccurate. We know that relativity does not describe the movement of galaxies correctly on a macro scale. We know there is matter which is not luminous enough to be seen by our telescopes, or too distant.
We know we don't know what every gene does. We know we don't understand protein folding. We know we haven't characterized every species on earth. We know stronger materials are possible than what we have today, but we haven't made them yet. We know there are undiscovered elements. We know we haven't found what regulates gravity, and we know we haven't found the Higgs Boson. We know the standard model is inaccurate and inelegant.
We know there is a great deal that we don't know, but know we don't know. The idea that you cannot know what you don't know is just plain old wrong. Scientists deal with known unknowns all the time; that's the heart of science! That's how science works - without known unknowns, how could we formulate hypotheses to describe things which are outside of our knowledge base?
We can never know how much we don't know, for in order to know how much we don't know we would have to know the things we don't know which would make them known.
This is actually untrue. We can indeed know how much we don't know; it is possible to gauge the magnitude of unknown unknowns. People come up with estimates for the total number of species on Earth in this way, for instance, and it is possible to gauge what order of precision you've got - for instance, Newtonian mechanics work okay at our scale, but work poorly at extreme velocities, over extreme distances, ect. We know relativity works okay for floating stuff around the solar system, but we know that the motions of galaxies do not match it, and that we're missing something important.
There are many instances in which we can estimate unknown unknowns and put bounds on them.
The scientific method, as it is understood today, can be traced back to the late 10th or early 11th century, depending on which sources one believes.Even accounting for the fact that it didn't become wide spread until the late 17th or early 18th century, the rapid strides you speak of didn't really take hold until the 20th century, and many of them coincide with development of faster more modern computers.
While Alhazen used experiments in 1021, the scientific method really came around in the 1600s, and it wasn't until the 1800s that Peirce came up with the modern form of the scientific method, the hypothesis/testing model.
Not so coincidentally, we saw the accelleration begin in the late 1500s/early 1600s. The geocentric model of the universe, for instance, fell in the 17th century.
And the idea that "many of them coincide with the development of faster, more modern computers" is wrong. Evolution, arguably the most important idea anyone has ever had, originated in the early 19th century. Relativity and quantum mechanics both are from the early 20th century, before computers. Cars and aeroplanes, even nuclear weapons predate the modern computer. Electricity likewise predated the computer, as did trains, steamships, and numerous other technological innovations. Even telephones and telegraphs predate the modern computer.
What computers did was make all of those better, and increase our ability to grind away at problems which are much more laborious. Genetics, for instance, is doable without computers, but computers make our lives massively easier.
It's not science that is to thank for our modern rapid development it's computers. Granted though, science did play major role in the development of said modern computers and it continues to act as a major guiding influence in how those computers are used.
No. Its science. Computers are science. Computers were created by science. It was scientists who built them, just as scientists built the internet, just as scientists built the transistor and electricity.
Heck, Google was basically a thesis.
It is indeed science which is to thank for our modern progress. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what the heck they're talking about.
It was scientists who made it so you don't have smallpox or polio. It was scientists who give you antibiotics. It was scientists who developed the transistor, developed the computer, developed the internet.
Now, you could argue that engineers did many of the improvements, but engineers use science as well. That's why we're so in demand; we have technical skills.
This however is no surprise to any historian, better means of referencing and accumulating cultural knowledge have always coincided with a faster pace of human development. This is why the development of the library is also a major historical milestone.
The printing press was far more important, and changed far more.
I'm sure our forerunners were just as confident in their knowledge. Just as I'm sure that come after us will shake thier heads and pitty our overconfidance.
No. Our forerunners could never have our confidence in their knowledge, because their knowledge, unlike ours, was not based on experimentation.
Its entirely different.
Experimentation isn't new.
Actually, formal experimentation is. Indeed, the modern scientific hypothesis/experiment model wasn't developed until the 19th century, as I said before.
The key isn't "experimentation", but methodological experimentation and falsification.
If your experiment isn't controlled, then what use is it? If it doesn't tell us whether a hypothesis can or cannot be true, what use is it?
They determined these methods work through trial and error.
But they failed. They failed to see that it didn't work. They didn't understand what was going on.
The reason is their experiments were not controlled. If you give something to someone, and ask if they're feeling better, unless you're being very meticulous about your sampling, about your recording, ect. you're going to see bias. And that's precisely what we saw.
People relied on anectdotal evidence. They didn't control things. They didn't try to make sure it was one thing, and not something else. They didn't try to make sure they weren't using a biased sample.
Without these things, your data is worthless. I can give a hundred sick people sugar pills, and then 99 of them get better. "Sugar pills cure disease!" Or maybe they just recovered naturally.
Or I give every patient a sugar pill. Some recover the next day, others don't. I'm much more likely to remember those who recovered than those who didn't.
This is what people didn't understand.
Again, I'm sure our forerunners were cetain that there way of understanding the world was flawless and could never be suplanted.
Our forerunners did not test the world in a manner which warranted confidence.
Even if modern science is only ever supplanted by more advanced scientific understanding my point will still stand.
No. Because it is still science.
The progressive ideas of today will be hocus-pokus-mumbojumbo of tomorrow.
No.
Newtonian mechanics was incomplete and not entirely accurate, but it isn't, and wasn't, hocus-pokus-mumbo-jumbo. It was simply limited.
I know you are shattered that your magical thinking is wrong, but just because you were wrong doesn't mean other people will be, and indeed, your thinking is still broken.
Science isn't the same thing as faith, and things which come out of the scientific method are going to hold up. They may not be entirely accurate, but its more a matter of "yes, but", not "That was completely wrong."
Evolution has been refined into the modern synthesis. Darwin lacked knowledge of genetics, so his theory was incomplete, but he had a lot of important points down.
Newtonian mechanics were refined into relativity and quantum mechanics.
The model of the atom was refined over time.
Particle-wave duality is better understood now than it was previously.
Our understanding of development has gotten better.
Pythagoras came up with his theorem over 2000 years ago. People estimated the distance from the Earth to the Moon and the Earth to the Sun in the same era. Some people even figured out that the Earth was going around the Sun, rather than vice-versa, and figured out that the stars were very far away (though no one really understood how far until we developed telescopes).
When science came along, it killed the geocentric model. Then it killed the heliocentric model as well. Indeed, the heliocentric model itself was pretty obviously wrong by even Galileo's time, who actually mentioned that it just one of the stars (but he'd already annoyed the church enough already, so didn't really press the matter much).
What we take for fact in the present will be the stuff of naive fantasy in the future and to the common man the "super scientists" of 20th century pop culture will be just as archaic mystical as a wizard.
They won't be, because they aren't and never have been the same thing.
If you ignore everything else, please don't ignore that last and most important part. Maybe you see whatever comes next as being a natural extension of scientist, but I have little doubt that an ancient schooler and mathematician would have been able to say the same if they were to see and attempt to interpret our modern science.
No. They'd see it as a huge step forward.
Science at its basic level only explains the HOW not the WHY, and definitely not any philosophical why. That's the role of religion.
Not at all. You see, science tells us something kind of important. There is no philisophical why.
We can come up with random made-up stuff all we want, but that doesn't make it true. Murder isn't inherently wrong, but a society in which murder is wrong is more stable than one in which anyone can murder whomever they feel like. As such, societies with rules which create stability exist on much greater scales than those which do not, but there's nothing "right" or "wrong" about it.
That's why so many fight against science so hard. It destroys them, methodologically, and it shows why they are wrong. Why everything they believe is wrong. Because science isn't founded on belief, science does not require belief, and thus science is beyond belief. When belief meets reality, reality wins. As Feynman once said, nature cannot be fooled.
All this thread has shown is that people have their beliefs, whether it be Eastern Philosophy, religion, science, or anime. People will always defend their belief system over any other and unfortunately tend to discredit another belief system just because it doesn't fully agree with theirs or at the worst (and alas most common) because it uses different terminology to describe the same thing.
This is a major problem with our society today. People call everything a belief system, claiming that their right to believe in whatever is inviolate, and that trying to tell them they are wrong makes you a bad, bad man.
Science is not a belief system. It is a systematic accumulation of knowledge about the world we live in.
Eastern philosophy is not a belief system. It was basically pre-science. Believing in it after knowledge has progressed beyond it is defeating the whole point.
Religion is a belief system. It is not science, and is not intended to replace science. Up until the 1950s, people in America understood that religion was something you believed in to keep you happy and keep you living your life properly, if you choose to do so, while science is what you looked to for facts.
People have a really bizarre sense of entitlement to their ignorance, though.
This is a major problem with our society today. People call everything a belief system, claiming that their right to believe in whatever is inviolate, and that trying to tell them they are wrong makes you a bad, bad man.
Science is not a belief system. It is a systematic accumulation of knowledge about the world we live in.
Eastern philosophy is not a belief system. It was basically pre-science. Believing in it after knowledge has progressed beyond it is defeating the whole point.
Religion is a belief system. It is not science, and is not intended to replace science. Up until the 1950s, people in America understood that religion was something you believed in to keep you happy and keep you living your life properly, if you choose to do so, while science is what you looked to for facts.
People have a really bizarre sense of entitlement to their ignorance, though.
Pure science isn't viewed as a belief system but many people use it as one. Just like a religion isn't a bludgeon for political power but a lot use it as one. I'm not talking about the concepts of Eastern Philosophy or science in their acedemic purities but how they are treated by the common people. It's like how dictionaries have added words that aren't acedemically 'proper' but are in common use.
If someone uses science as something inviolate and unflawed to try to disprove religion or any other structure that is deemed 'a belief system' than it itself is being used as a belief system as it's being used to explain WHY things happen instead of HOW things happen.
No. Our forerunners could never have our confidence in their knowledge, because their knowledge, unlike ours, was not based on experimentation.
Its entirely different.
By modern standards certainly, but by the standards of the time their methods and certainty were perfectly reasonable. You may find their way of understanding thing to be archaic and misguided, but they were doing the best they could with their particular level of understanding.
There may well come a time when some as of yet unconceived notion of understanding overtakes what is considered science by modern standards. In such a possible future our currant certainty of our own modern knowledge could well look just as foolish
Not at all. You see, science tells us something kind of important. There is no philisophical why.
On this we will never agree. If you choose to satisfy yourself with simple easily obtainable answers that's your prerogative, but moder scientific understanding makes such question no less important than they were when the first proto-philosopher asked why. Maybe you satisfied with calculating numbers and running tests to find your truth, but that doesn't mean their still isn't a greater TRUTH out there.
I'm not even going to try and touch upon that whole mammoth block of text. Though for some one claiming to be indisputably correct you sure seem to be going to an awful length to try prove something.
By modern standards certainly, but by the standards of the time their methods and certainty were perfectly reasonable. You may find their way of understanding thing to be archaic and misguided, but they were doing the best they could with their particular level of understanding.
There may well come a time when some as of yet unconceived notion of understanding overtakes what is considered science by modern standards. In such a possible future our currant certainty of our own modern knowledge could well look just as foolish
On this we will never agree. If you choose to satisfy yourself with simple easily obtainable answers that's your prerogative, but moder scientific understanding makes such question no less important than they were when the first proto-philosopher asked why. Maybe you satisfied with calculating numbers and running tests to find your truth, but that doesn't mean their still isn't a greater TRUTH out there.
I agree with you, even early science using the same principles we use now seems 'foolish' to many modern scientist. Humours and vapors and leeching 'bad blood' for every illness and health issue. Things like that.
And science is good at figure out facts but not truths, not at the philosophical level anyway. All data and experimentation get is facts and a basic truth, and explain the how. It takes more than that to get to a fundamental reason of WHY which is TRUTH as you put it.
As cheesy as it was at times Wargames: The Dead Code was a good example of how the 'facts' were easily shown to make the 'truth' that the main character was a terrorist but the real truth was just a set of bad coincidences. That's why statistics are so flawed and my statistics prof in college made sure to educate us on that. All they show is part of the picture, same with facts. It's up to the person collating or reading the collection of facts to interpret the truth of things.
I can't accept the sentiment that today's science will be tomorrow's mumbo-jumbo. Once any form of science gets on the right track and starts delivering useful results, it may be superseded but it'll always be respected. No one will ever call Newton's laws of motion "mumbo jumbo" because they lay the groundwork for future discoveries, like general relativity and quantum mechanics. You can't build a PC with Newtonian mechanics. You can with quantum mechanics (plus other technologies). But without Newtonian mechanics, computers would never have appeared in the first place.
In 2100 scientists may well fully understand quantum gravity and string theory. But they would look back on the scientific discoveries & theories of today not as 'mumbo jumbo', but as important precursors.
Pure science isn't viewed as a belief system but many people use it as one. Just like a religion isn't a bludgeon for political power but a lot use it as one. I'm not talking about the concepts of Eastern Philosophy or science in their acedemic purities but how they are treated by the common people. It's like how dictionaries have added words that aren't acedemically 'proper' but are in common use.
If someone uses science as something inviolate and unflawed to try to disprove religion or any other structure that is deemed 'a belief system' than it itself is being used as a belief system as it's being used to explain WHY things happen instead of HOW things happen.
The fact that people abuse and misunderstand these things is my point.
Science and religion can not invalidate each other. They don't relate to each other. Religion is full of non-falsifiable claims. It can't be tested. While science is either factually true or invalid, that doesn't matter to religion.
Some people think religion should replace science, and feel challenged in science says that that the stories in their holy book aren't 100% true. That's silly. But almost as silly are the ones who use treat science as dogma. Granted, they're more likely to be factually correct, but they're overlooking the fact that science is built on the concept of old ideas being built upon or invalidated as new information comes out.
There's a very popular, widespread idea today. Something of a media darling. The apparent focus of a push to "restore science." Problem is, there's very, very strong evidence against it, and the evidence supporting it is incredibly weak. It's pretty clear that it's a flat-out fiction. However, it's a politically useful fiction, and so it's the focus of most government-funded scientific research today. Any who dare question it are branded enemies of the world and pawns of industry. The leading experts in the field are never asked to discuss it publicly, because it is known that they disagree. This is a good example of abused science that has become dogma.
Science and religion can not invalidate each other. They don't relate to each other. Religion is full of non-falsifiable claims. It can't be tested. While science is either factually true or invalid, that doesn't matter to religion.
Wrong, actually. Science can and often does invalidate religion. People have erected this barrier of doublethink because they are unwilling to acknowledge the reality. That's why religion is so threatened by science; its claims are falsifiable, or at least a very large number of them are. Any religion with a creation myth can have its creation myth falsified by religion. Indeed, people have been kicked out of the Mormon church because human migration patterns and genetics contradict their religious beliefs. Other religions have had similar crises with their various myths, particularly creation myths.
There's a very popular, widespread idea today. Something of a media darling. The apparent focus of a push to "restore science." Problem is, there's very, very strong evidence against it, and the evidence supporting it is incredibly weak. It's pretty clear that it's a flat-out fiction. However, it's a politically useful fiction, and so it's the focus of most government-funded scientific research today. Any who dare question it are branded enemies of the world and pawns of industry. The leading experts in the field are never asked to discuss it publicly, because it is known that they disagree. This is a good example of abused science that has become dogma.
Its fine to teach about religion in the context of mythology and cultural anthropology in public schools, but its not okay for public money to go towards teaching religious dogma in any way, shape, or form.
Wrong, actually. Science can and often does invalidate religion. People have erected this barrier of doublethink because they are unwilling to acknowledge the reality. That's why religion is so threatened by science; its claims are falsifiable, or at least a very large number of them are. Any religion with a creation myth can have its creation myth falsified by religion. Indeed, people have been kicked out of the Mormon church because human migration patterns and genetics contradict their religious beliefs. Other religions have had similar crises with their various myths, particularly creation myths.
Except that the truth of the story isn't actually supposed to matter. Most of the stories in the Old Testament, for instance, were understood to be probably false before they were ever written down thousands of years ago. The factual content isn't supposed to matter. It's all about the message. This is why men of science can still be men of faith.
Its fine to teach about religion in the context of mythology and cultural anthropology in public schools, but its not okay for public money to go towards teaching religious dogma in any way, shape, or form.
Just so. I would go on to say that any dogma, religious in nature or not, is not supposed to be taught in science classrooms. I won't name the example I was using, but it's something you hear about a lot on the news in a scientific context.
In case anyone is wondering, MatthiasKaiser is referring to global warming.
And would appreciate it if the specific subject was not debated in this thread. It's far enough off-topic as it is.
So here's my second attempt at being on-topic (since my post about ki as oxygen and giving scientific application of a philosphy and medititation style didn't go anywhere).
One's views of ki in the RL aside (application, existence, etc.) this is a fantasy game and Ki will be what the devs make it to be. The monk will also be what they base it to be and it'll likely be like most of the other classes, an archetype of a style of character not a direct counterpart to something in RL history/mythology.
Based on the wording we've had ki is about more than 'martial arts magic' and includes the 'soul' and will likely include incarnum in some fashion. We'll see psionic as a power source as well so with ki and martial we'll have the 'trinity' of body, mind, and soul (I'd say spirit but that might confuse things with primal power source) for 'non caster' classes. Interestingly with primal, arcane, and divine we have the same 'trinity' for 'caster' classes.
Guess that means shadow and elemental will be the oddballs and likely be the binding glue that's the foundation of reality. Like in Rokugan how between all the other elements there's Void which despite ones perception of being an empty space is actually the force that holds all other elements together.
This is all theory from an RL amateur philosopher/spiritualist/scientist and RL professional weirdo, so take it or leave it.
Science and religion can not invalidate each other. They don't relate to each other. Religion is full of non-falsifiable claims. It can't be tested. While science is either factually true or invalid, that doesn't matter to religion.
Religions make falsifiable claims all the time. It is theoretically possible to have a completely non falsifiable religion, but its incredibly rare. I can't think of any major world religions that make zero falsifiable claims, especially if we count historical claims.
Religions make falsifiable claims all the time. It is theoretically possible to have a completely non falsifiable religion, but its incredibly rare. I can't think of any major world religions that make zero falsifiable claims, especially if we count historical claims.
The problem is, most people make the mistake of thinking those are supposed to be factual claims. Generally speaking, they are not.
Except that the truth of the story isn't actually supposed to matter.
Of course it matters. The truth of the story does matter. If it is presented as what actually happened (as opposed to, say, a parable), people do in fact care whether or not it actually happened, and if it did not happen, then the whole thing is thrown into question.
There's a reason Galelio was imprisoned by the church. There's a reason so many hate Darwin to this very day. It is because the truth of your holy book does in fact matter. If a book is full of lies, people won't believe it. If the Earth wasn't really created 5,000 years ago, if the exodus never occurred, if Jesus never really claimed to be the son of God, these are all important things to people. The truth value of the stories in holy books goes hand in hand with their validity. Its not something that people take lightly.
There are indeed religious stories which are parables and not meant to be taken literally, but many old religious stories really weren't. The Bible is a narrative history of the tribes of Israel, from creation through basically Jesus. Parts of it are not, but much of it is. Look at Exodus, look at the portrayl of the kings of Israel, look at all that stuff. There's tons in the Bible which was meant to be taken literally.
Between Judaism, Christainity, and Islam, 3/4ths of the world's population has holy books with large segments which were meant to be literal.
Most of the stories in the Old Testament, for instance, were understood to be probably false before they were ever written down thousands of years ago.
The people who made them up probably didn't believe them, but on the other hand, by that point, people probably did believe them. They certainly believed the world wasn't all that old by the time of Christ. People believed in the Exodus. People believed the earth was 5000 years old.
Biblical literalism is nothing new. Literal interpretations of holy texts is ancient.
This is why men of science can still be men of faith.
Except they cannot. Somewhere over 50% of scientists aren't, which is a marked difference from the general population. I've heard among biologists, it tops 90%.
Just so. I would go on to say that any dogma, religious in nature or not, is not supposed to be taught in science classrooms. I won't name the example I was using, but it's something you hear about a lot on the news in a scientific context.
Anthropogenic climate change is real. Deal with it.
Well lets bring it back on topic, though I'm not sure exactly what the topic was. The OP stated an opinion based on personal beliefs which someone took to be unscientific so it evolved into a debate between science and religion, a conflict of idealogies and belief structures.
I think the point of the response was "don't claim to be a wizard on a D&D forum in real life". People are going to laugh at you. We can't stop you from believing you're a wizard or otherwise have magical powers, but if you use it as justification for why WotC is doing something wrong, people are going to tell you that it is you, not WotC, who is in error.
The problem is, most people make the mistake of thinking those are supposed to be factual claims. Generally speaking, they are not.
They are meant to be factual claims. They are meant to be true.
I don't think anyone rational believes in something they know to be false.
Look, I think the community summary is thus:
Believe what you want, but don't complain when WotC uses a magical or mythological idea from the real world and implements it in D&D and act as though it is in fact a "real" thing, because no one is going to take that sort of complaint very seriously. "Wizards don't really work that way IRL" is not going to convince anyone and will only earn you derision.
Of course it matters. The truth of the story does matter. If it is presented as what actually happened (as opposed to, say, a parable), people do in fact care whether or not it actually happened, and if it did not happen, then the whole thing is thrown into question.
The matter of whether or not it really happened is supposed to be immaterial. Unfortunately, sometimes people have a hard tiem drawing the line.
There's a reason Galelio was imprisoned by the church.
Of course there was. He was an amazingly offensive man who antagonized the Church at every opportunity. It had very little, if anything, to do with his science.
There's a reason so many hate Darwin to this very day.
Darwin himself was very devout, and saw no conflict in his work and his faith.
It is because the truth of your holy book does in fact matter. If a book is full of lies, people won't believe it. If the Earth wasn't really created 5,000 years ago, if the exodus never occurred, if Jesus never really claimed to be the son of God, these are all important things to people. The truth value of the stories in holy books goes hand in hand with their validity. Its not something that people take lightly.
That's because they don't understand that most of it was meant to be figurative from the get-go. They were educated incorrectly about it. They don't understand the purpose.
There are indeed religious stories which are parables and not meant to be taken literally, but many old religious stories really weren't. The Bible is a narrative history of the tribes of Israel, from creation through basically Jesus. Parts of it are not, but much of it is. Look at Exodus, look at the portrayl of the kings of Israel, look at all that stuff. There's tons in the Bible which was meant to be taken literally.
Between Judaism, Christainity, and Islam, 3/4ths of the world's population has holy books with large segments which were meant to be literal.
Except how most of them weren't.
The people who made them up probably didn't believe them, but on the other hand, by that point, people probably did believe them. They certainly believed the world wasn't all that old by the time of Christ. People believed in the Exodus. People believed the earth was 5000 years old.
Biblical literalism is nothing new. Literal interpretations of holy texts is ancient.
Not as ancient as you might think. There's a reason why Jesus spoke mainly in parable, and didn't expect to be taken literally when he did.
Except they cannot. Somewhere over 50% of scientists aren't, which is a marked difference from the general population. I've heard among biologists, it tops 90%.
And yet, it does happen. Clearly, not all scientists have faith. But there is room for it, if they wanted it.
Anthropogenic climate change is real. Deal with it.
It's being more and more rapidly recognized as false, as the evidence becomes harder and harder to ignore. The rise and fall of the anthropogenic climate change myth is a fascinating story, really, of the massive perversion of science.
They are meant to be factual claims. They are meant to be true.
I don't think anyone rational believes in something they know to be false.
May I recommend this book. It's pricy, but wow, it's a great read.
Of course there was. He was an amazingly offensive man who antagonized the Church at every opportunity. It had very little, if anything, to do with his science.
No. He antagonized the church by saying the Earth goes around the Sun. Indeed, they forced him to recant. Copernicus didn't publish his works until he was dead for the same reason.
Darwin himself was very devout, and saw no conflict in his work and his faith.
He characterized himself as an agnostic and once said "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God".
Saying he was "very devout" is a bit silly. He was considering going to seminary school at one point, but evolution pretty much derailed him from that entirely. He also declined to join a conference of devout scientists to try and harmonise science and religion as he saw no benefit in it. He also once said that he didn't think science and religion could be kept as separate as people wanted.
More or less, he was never really comfortable with believing in any sort of god, but he never rejected it outright either. He did indeed see conflicts between his work and faith, but he did not see evolution as ruling out a deist deity, as per a letter someone wrote him.
That's because they don't understand that most of it was meant to be figurative from the get-go. They were educated incorrectly about it. They don't understand the purpose.
The books about the exodus, the kingdoms of Israel, ect. were meant to be literal. The stories about Jesus were meant to be literal.
There wasn't a distinction between the mythology and the history. This is true not only in Christianity, but in many places; for example, some Japanese still believe the Emperor is of divine descent.
The idea that they weren't meant to be literal is simply false. They did in fact literally mean that God gave them the lands of Israel via his direct intervention thanks to their faith. The idea that it was meant to be otherwise is far more recent. Indeed, the early Church held holding that the NT was symbolic was heretical.
Not as ancient as you might think. There's a reason why Jesus spoke mainly in parable, and didn't expect to be taken literally when he did.
No, far more ancient than you think. *pats you on the head* I know you've been throughly lied to, but I'll tell you the truth right now: parables and myth as history are both ancient.
Jesus' parables were not meant to be taken literally, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Conversely, his crucifixion on the cross was meant to be literal, as were his miracles.
And yet, it does happen. Clearly, not all scientists have faith. But there is room for it, if they wanted it.
No. They're atheists because they're scientists, not scientists because they're atheists.
It's being more and more rapidly recognized as false
Not at all, I'm afraid. I know you love your Faux, but the reality is that the only group which has falling belief in it is Republicans, who have steadily increased their denial of reality over the last thirty years. They're the same people who don't believe in evolution, its all the same thing ultimately.
The rise and fall of the anthropogenic climate change myth is a fascinating story, really, of the massive perversion of science.
Right: of the Republicans claiming it is false because they don't want to have to deal with the costs of it being true.
Isn't politics interesting? Its amazing how much people will buy into something which is obviously false, because they want to believe it.
Its also funny how much funding the few cranks who don't believe in global warming get... fascinating how strong of a correlation there is, really. Its almost as if they're being paid to say what the oil companies want. Doesn't remind anyone of the tobacco industry, does it?
But this is, unfortunately, throughly off-topic at this point. What you believe and don't believe isn't really relevant, and sad as it is, I think this topic is, more or less, over.
I'm surprised the ORCs haven't closed it already, honestly.
-Global warming is fake. There is a ton of evidence against it. It's an attempt by Liberals(Gore-Pact) to steal your soul.
-Stop Referring to the Bible as if has to be either all true or all fiction. The Bible is not a singular work. It is a collection of works.
-Historical Truth is irrelavent in the case of most of the Book of Genesis, for example. The purpose of the work is to convey a truth that seemed scientific at the time, but was understood primarily as a religious truth.
-Other works in the Bible are historical, however, we need to understand them in a similar way we would read the newspaper. A single event can be twisted by factions in order to give it a political spin. Take the story of Jesus flipping the table at Jerusalem. This is altered slightly in Matthew's gospel in order to comment on the current occupation of the temple by insurrectionists.
-People who claim science falsifies faith will have an eternity in hell to prove it.
-Vote Republican
-Global warming is fake. There is a ton of evidence against it. It's an attempt by Liberals(Gore-Pact) to steal your soul.
Actually, the global warming conspiracy is amazingly bi-partisan. The Democrats do represent the efforts of liberal hippies, attacking capitalism by attacking industrial interests, while their leadership cashes in on alternative energy investments. The Republicans, on the other hand, represent the interests of Big Business, which loves the way the green movement creates barriers to entry for their competitors. They pay a stiff price, but they retain their marketshare.
-Stop Referring to the Bible as if has to be either all true or all fiction. The Bible is not a singular work. It is a collection of works.
A collection of works whose purpose, again, is generally misunderstood by most people in the modern world.
-Historical Truth is irrelavent in the case of most of the Book of Genesis, for example. The purpose of the work is to convey a truth that seemed scientific at the time, but was understood primarily as a religious truth.
Indeed. The truth or falsehood of the story is secondary to the message of the story.
-People who claim science falsifies faith will have an eternity in hell to prove it.
-Vote Republican
This is where it all falls apart, of course. Threatening someone with something they don't believe in lacks a certain something. Some scientists choose to retain a religion. Many do not. Either way, it's good, because the two do not intersect when properly utilized.
Political affiliation doesn't really matter, in this context.
-People who claim science falsifies faith will have an eternity in hell to prove it.
It doesn't falsify faith, but faith-derived claims - that's a different story.
Hell is only hell if the only D&D version available there is 2e Players' Option. :D
Jesus never really claimed to be the son of God,
And why would I? Honestly my message and the details of my parentage really don't have anything to do with each other.
Sorry, but this thread has been seriously lacking a sense of humor so please forgive my jest. It's based only on an inside joke from my playgroup that got started when one of my more religious friends once asked if he could use me to recruit people to his faith based solely on my physical resemblance to iconography. I make no actual claims to divinity, at least not until I find myself another 5 apostles.
No. They're atheists because they're scientists, not scientists because they're atheists.
"Chicken or the egg," TD. Studies have been able to show some degree of correlation between being an atheist and being a scientist, but there's not been any definitive proof which is cause and which is effect.
I'm surprised the ORCs haven't closed it already, honestly.
As am I. I can't even recall there having been any warnings.
The problem is, most people make the mistake of thinking those are supposed to be factual claims. Generally speaking, they are not.
Now THAT brings up an interesting philosophical question, given that its the religious believers who frequently make falsifiable claims about their faiths.
To me, a "religion" is the collection of roughly shared beliefs held by a group of people who believe themselves to be co-religionists and attributed by them to their religion. So if they collectively believe something that's falsifiable, then that's what their religion says. No one gets to come along and tell them that they're doing it wrong- by definition, what they're doing is their religion. They can't do it wrong. Claiming that they are is like claiming that the entire republican party doesn't believe in republicanism. By definition, they do. Whatever shared beliefs they hold are, by definition, republicanism, because "republicanism" means, by definition, the beliefs of the republican party.
Of course, if you believe a particular religion is true, you're kind of committed to disagreeing with me on that, because a believer believes that there really is some objective nature to their faith. So I don't expect this sidenote to go very far. Its probably an irresolvable difference.
Except they cannot. Somewhere over 50% of scientists aren't, which is a marked difference from the general population. I've heard among biologists, it tops 90%.
For what it's worth, I'm a biologist and I'm religious. But in case a creationist gets their hopes up, evolution did, does, and will happen. Heck the Catholic Church just sponsored a conferance at Pontifical Gregorian University on evolution (not intelligent design or creationism). I find little to no friction day to day between the sphere's of faith and science.
Hell is only hell if the only D&D version available there is 2e Players' Option. :D
Don't ever mention that again…still getting over the emotional scars…
For what it's worth, I'm a biologist and I'm religious. But in case a creationist gets their hopes up, evolution did, does, and will happen. Heck the Catholic Church just sponsored a conferance at Pontifical Gregorian University on evolution (not intelligent design or creationism). I find little to no friction day to day between the sphere's of faith and science.
The Catholic Church has given up on fighting science, mostly. They realized that it was futile, and it was better to embrace it and not look like bad guys. Science wins in the end, and they lose in the end if they fight it, so its just not worth it to them anymore. The Catholic Church is slowly liberalizing, which is heartening, as it could make a big difference for people in Central and South America.
It is funny, though, that if you look at the US, you find that where there are a lot of Catholics, there also seem to be a lot of non-religious people. My mother is Catholic (I'd say a lapsed Catholic, but that's practically redundant :P), so I always find this correllation funny.
I'd say something about the religiousity of people in general, but I live in Benton County, the county which (at least at one point) had the lowest church attendance rate in the United States, so its not really particularly representative. We have more PhDs in town than we do people who attend church weekly.
Don't ever mention that again…still getting over the emotional scars…
There, there...
There, there...
Will you…hold me?
Will you…hold me?
Only when the op's done. Till then, it's a comradely pat on the back.
But church attendance doesn't show a lack of religious faith, just of a lack of attending services for said religion.
Many Christians I know never go to church because they embrace Jesus' comments that God and faith are found within ourselves and the world around us, not in the temple and being taught to us by a priest.
Also I'd heard that Darwin was a gnostic, not an agnostic. This means he believed in SOMETHING but didn't follow a particular set of dogma. He'd be like many of the US founding fathers, a deist.
Also there's no reason a Christian can't believe in at least the basics of Genesis and believe in evolution. Just taking into account hte translation error, it wasn't seven days but seven 'periods of time' (epochs). Also to blend in a little intelligent design: why'd life start and why does it evolve the way it does? Science is good at explaining the HOW but not always the WHY.
Personally I'm closer to a 'pagan' than anything else if you MUST have a label for my personal beliefs. I have no problems with evolution and while I can't make claims on any entities motives or thoughts I also won't rule out that some branches in evolution occured out of someting more than pure chance or adaptation.
Again I have no proof but there's also no proof that it didn't happen, mainly because science is better at HOW than WHY for anything historical. With historical data all we can get is facts (and many of them inferred) but there's nothing in them to say one way or another if there wasn't some sort of intelligence (or just influence even accidental by an intelligent entity) in any historical event. Keep in mind also to me that an inetlligent entity means something 'living and mortal' or something existing in a state that 'science' likes to say doesn't exist.
As an example of some of this mental blockage: an episode of ST:TNG. Beverly's family has been 'haunted' by a 'ghost' for centuries. During the episode they decide this 'ghost' is really a phasic being tied to some lantern. Now they use some bizarre logic that because they've explained that this entity is a phasic being it can't be a ghost. They ignore the simple logic that they've just came up with a scientific explanation and 'proof' of the existance of ghosts and what they are.
The issue seems to lie in a deep-rooted mental disconnect between what is 'real' and what is 'supernatural. If something is supernatural it defies explanation because an explanation (other than 'its made up') would make it real. So people will make schisms in their perception of reality because they refuse to accept that something held to be beyond explanation can in actually be explained, losing the 'magic' of what it was. A ghost loses some of its mystery and spookiness if it's suddenly known to just be a phasic being, so rather than accept the explanation they now have phasic beings and 'fictional' ghosts.
It's probably not coming across as clear as I'd like but this is a forum and I'm on the clock so this is written on the fly rather than being carefully thought out with citations, references, and spelling and grammer all neat and orderly.
To sit and say definitively that "the bible was never meant to be literal" and " So-and-so has it wrong" is really quite laughable and shows an amazing arrogance, lack of perspective and a superficial grasp of the subject.
That, or an actual enthusiasm for research on the subject.
To sit and say definitively that "the bible was never meant to be literal" and " So-and-so has it wrong" is really quite laughable and shows an amazing arrogance, lack of perspective and a superficial grasp of the subject.
FYI, I take Theology History Courses (AP). So I kind know that my professor isn't, y'know, lying.
Will you…hold me?
At least it's not F.A.T.A.L.
But church attendance doesn't show a lack of religious faith, just of a lack of attending services for said religion.
There's a pretty strong correllation. If you go to a place wherein people don't attend religious services on a regular basis, that place is very likely to be less religious.
Also I'd heard that Darwin was a gnostic, not an agnostic. This means he believed in SOMETHING but didn't follow a particular set of dogma. He'd be like many of the US founding fathers, a deist.
He said, explicitly, on more than one occaision, that he was agnostic. He lost his faith over time.
Its also interesting to note he actually said once that there was no reason to offend people by calling yourself an atheist, in response to someone pointing out that they're really the same thing. And they are. Agnostics don't believe in God, either, and ergo are atheists. Its just a softer term.
Also to blend in a little intelligent design: why'd life start and why does it evolve the way it does?
Its the same as asking "Why does an apple fall?" There is no philosophical why to it. An apple falls because of gravity's actions on it, and because its ancestors evolved dropping fruit as a means of spreading their seeds. There is no greater purpose to it, no philosophical why. Everything is that way. Life exists because it was at some point energetically favorable for it to exist, and because it was good at replicating itself it spread throughout the world for the same reason. Things evolved because they survived better than other things, reproduced better than other things. There's no philosophical why to it any more than there is to a rock falling down the side of a mountain. Its physics.
FYI, I take Theology History Courses (AP). So I kind know that my professor isn't, y'know, lying.
There's a rule which says no matter how sarcastic you are on the internet, someone will take you at face value.
Just sayin'.
Thread closed.