From: psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell)
Subject: Still more on qi/chi
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:49:57 EST


14-Dec-92 ftit@woundedknee.engin.umich.edu (Sergej Roytman) Re: ki and science

>Most probably.  How would you react to a proposal to spend the
>University's money (it gets harder and harder to sqeeze out of them
>undergrads every year!) to research an intangible phenomenon which
>cannot be detected by any means known to man, but still has many and
>varied wonderful properties?  

Bad argument.  A lot of the world would find most of what *is* being studied
in University's wholly irrelevant.  Not that I agree, but there is a lot of
"research" that is really a load of crap.  Besides, one of the criteria for
conducting research is the volume of anecdotal evidence there is to support an
investigation.  And too, there has been limited honest-to-god research done
by the French concerning Chinese medicine and the notion of meridians (e.g.,
the pathways along which chi travels.  The study I am referring to was posted
in the office of a local MD who uses accupuncture as part of his practice.
The study introduced photoluminescent dye into subjects in both non-meridian
locations and on meridians specified in Chinese treatises.  The study
discovered that the dye stayed clumped in one location when introduced in a
non-meridian location, and moved along a path when introduced into the
meridian, even though the meridians do not correspond to any known anatomical
structure in particular.  The physician's name is Lindsay Jacob, and has his
office here in Pittsburgh on Craig Street (in case anyone would like to call
him on this).  Although I cannot remember the source, it did come from a
prominent French research institute which I am positive he can name for you.

There exists a rich body of evidence to support investigations at least.

> If someone
>can detect some anomolous radiations from sources of chi my guess is
>that Science will become very curious.

I think most scientists lack a truly innovative spirit, too caught up in
orthodoxy.  

>Maybe what you'll find will be nothing new but a known interaction of
>known phenomena.

Fine with me.  For example, in a discipline closer to my training, I believe
there are perfectly acceptable explanations one could develop using the
thinking of cognitive science, that would provide a very good explanation for
"intuition."   My thinking on this is that the mind (brain) is capable of 
assimilating discrete bits of information into impressions at a much faster
rate than is typically characteristic of conscious thought. And so when you 
see someone whom you instantly like or dislike for "no apparent reason," it is
because your brain has assimilated information in the background.


> Why isn't it
>possible to build some primitive equipment to detect the presence of
>chi?  Let's assume that chi is a natural phenomenon.  Let's also assume
>that this phenomenon interacts in some way with other phenomena.  It
>should then be possible to detect and maybe even measure it. 

As stated, it is (probably) possible.

>Perhaps the results will be strange enough to make
>scientists revise their perceptions of something or other.  Maybe you
>will even discover something entirely new.  In any case, just saying it
>exists simply because you felt it isn't going to convince anyone.

Funny, this is about the 5th or 6th example of someone patronizing me because
I have some contempt (skepticism) of the scientific community.  I never
suggested anyone should believe me in any case.  I said it doesn't matter what
the scientific community says.  I don't need their input.  They, on the 
other hand, would be well advised to consider a large body of anecdotal as
well as some (see French study above) scientific data suggesting that the
Chinese/Indians knew something of what they spoke 5000 years ago.
From: rterry@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Ray Terry)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Just Curious...
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino