Do you fear death?

[rktpro]

No I don't, as far as it is not my or beloved one's death.

[MonDie]

It seems like wishful thinking to me as well, but good luck in your search.

 

On a related note i would say that a religion, or any ideology, that propagates the idea of an afterlife does a grave disservice to humanity. It prevents us from truly addressing our fears and concerns around death making the whole process harder than it need be.

Although denial may work for emotional coping, denying a problem can undermine any productive response to that problem. However, people can't always give a productive response to stressors. Unless your the patient's doctor, efforts to prevent an impending death may be futile. Further, intense anxiety can be crippling, although we like to hope with delusional optimism that we'll always be able to respond productively to stressors.

 

 

You can do what you wish, but for me I am not simply satisfied that one day I will die and ave no clue what comes next.

 

Well, prepare to be disappointed.

 

 

Can dirt feel disappointed?

Edited June 24, 2014 by MonDie

[KenBrace]

Although denial may work for emotional coping, denying a problem can undermine any productive response to that problem. However, people can't always give a productive response to stressors. Unless your the patient's doctor, efforts to prevent an impending death may be futile. Further, intense anxiety can be crippling, although we like to hope with delusional optimism that we'll always be able to respond productively to stressors.

 

 

Can dirt feel disappointed?

 

Excellent post. Voted up.

 

Denial is never an option in my opinion. We should always be searching for and open to the truth regardless of how bad it may be.

 

"Can dirt feel disappointed?"

My thoughts exactly. If it turns out that there is not afterlife, then I've lost nothing. If however I was right, I will have gained everything.

Doh!

 

Should I blame some sort of mystic influence for forgetting it the first time?

 

 

(1) He convieniantly forgot to include the part about the metal detector.

 

(2) This guy obviously knows nothing about electricity. In order for a device to be able to build up a static charge there needs to be a ground. There would have to have been an insulator between the ground and Chang's body. The fact that he is barefoot shows that he is not using an ion generator or some other electrical device.

 

 

People,

 

Please do your research before claiming to debunk something. I would also ask that you not "forget" to include valuable aspects of data that show validity (e.g. the metal detector).

Not a lot to do with the topic, but here's a video explaining John Chang's stunts, without needing magic.

 

"Magic" doesn't exist. Energy and physics do. The problem is our current knowledge of the universe. Do you seriously think that science has reached such a high level that we no longer make new and game changing discoveries??? Try explaining black holes, dark matter, and slowing down time to a 15th century scientist. You must admit that the ability to slow time itself would have been considered magic 500 years ago. Yet here we are today with mountains of scientific evidence showing that with enough speed, it is possible.

Edited June 25, 2014 by KenBrace

[Prometheus]

Although denial may work for emotional coping, denying a problem can undermine any productive response to that problem. However, people can't always give a productive response to stressors. Unless your the patient's doctor, efforts to prevent an impending death may be futile. Further, intense anxiety can be crippling, although we like to hope with delusional optimism that we'll always be able to respond productively to stressors.

 

Who's denying what?

 

 

If it turns out that there is not afterlife, then I've lost nothing. If however I was right, I will have gained everything.

 

This is Pascal's wager in another guise. There are many reasons people don't fall for this. One reason i do not take the wager, or watch your video, is that there are perhaps millions of people claiming to have various means of living forever or some such and if i chased every one i would become an old man not having lived at all.

[MonDie]

"Can dirt feel disappointed?"

My thoughts exactly. If it turns out that there is not afterlife, then I've lost nothing. If however I was right, I will have gained everything.

You're investing time and effort. It's a relatively safer investment to hope that humanity continues on forever.

 

---

 

Who's denying what?

Denying that death is the end. I think denial such as this is good if the person cannot confront the problem in a productive way.

[KenBrace]

 

Who's denying what?

 

 

This is <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" s_wager"="">Pascal's wager in another guise. There are many reasons people don't fall for this. One reason i do not take the wager, or watch your video, is that there are perhaps millions of people claiming to have various means of living forever or some such and if i chased every one i would become an old man not having lived at all.

 

This is exactly right. There are millions upon millions of BS claims that people makes anywhere and everywhere, all the time. You hear about a kid coming back from heaven, a guy remembering his past lives, a girl levitating in a Russia, etc. Nothing but absurd, rediculous, completely deluded, newage & occultist non-sense as far as the eye can see.

 

The difference is when someone comes forward and is tested by scientists. This gives them validity imo and makes their claim worth looking in to. The problem is that if it is real and scientific, it's reputation is ruined due to the mountains of garbage everywhere else. No one takes anything of a spiritual nature seriously now days and that's why. It's not really spiritual though. It's as scientific as eating healthy food to live a longer life. Nothing supernatural about it.

 

There are only a few people that have demonstrated their claims under controled conditions. Wim Hof and Tummo Monks are one of the only few examples. Below is an additional study that I think is interesting.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1353653

 

Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan.

 

Detection of extraordinary large bio-magnetic field strength from human hand during external Qi emission.

 

This magnetic field strength was greater than that of normal human bio-magnetism by 1,000 times at least.

You're investing time and effort. It's a relatively safer investment to hope that humanity continues on forever.

 

---

 

 

Denying that death is the end. I think denial such as this is good if the person cannot confront the problem in a productive way.

 

After my life is over, nothing else will matter.

 

Death being the end isn't the problem. It's if death is the beginning.

[Prometheus]

You're investing time and effort. It's a relatively safer investment to hope that humanity continues on forever.

 

 

Denying that death is the end. I think denial such as this is good if the person cannot confront the problem in a productive way.

 

Given the inevitable heat death of the universe , if not other ends to the human race, we will have to confront death at some point.

 

Denial is certainly the coping mechanism of choice in the West, but whether it is the best one is another question. It is some people's job to usher the dying so there is a body of literature around the death process - though due to numerous difficulties in end-of-life research it is inherently poor quality evidence. Here we have discussion about the role of denial in palliative care. This one is interesting as it seems to suggest people with advanced breast cancer in denial live longer though are more anxious and alienated, while those who accept death have shorter lives with more positive moods. I say seems as i can't yet get hold of the full text to give it a proper read through.

 

 

 

This is exactly right. There are millions upon millions of BS claims that people makes anywhere and everywhere, all the time. You hear about a kid coming back from heaven, a guy remembering his past lives, a girl levitating in a Russia, etc. Nothing but absurd, rediculous, completely deluded, newage & occultist non-sense as far as the eye can see.

 

The difference is when someone comes forward and is tested by scientists. This gives them validity imo and makes their claim worth looking in to. The problem is that if it is real and scientific, it's reputation is ruined due to the mountains of garbage everywhere else. No one takes anything of a spiritual nature seriously now days and that's why. It's not really spiritual though. It's as scientific as eating healthy food to live a longer life. Nothing supernatural about it.

 

There are only a few people that have demonstrated their claims under controled conditions. Wim Hof and Tummo Monks are one of the only few examples. Below is an additional study that I think is interesting.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1353653

 

Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan.

 

Detection of extraordinary large bio-magnetic field strength from human hand during external Qi emission.

 

This magnetic field strength was greater than that of normal human bio-magnetism by 1,000 times at least.

 

After my life is over, nothing else will matter.

 

Death being the end isn't the problem. It's if death is the beginning.

 

There are a plethora of people coming forward to say they have been tested by scientists. You can find a 'scientific' journal on just about anything. Someone even tried one for astrology.

 

I won't look into your specific claims for two reasons. I can see nothing to distinguish your claims from hundreds of other 'scientific' claims. Also i have practised kung fu which included chi gong and nei gong. They gave me no reason to explore it further.

[KenBrace]

 

Given the inevitable heat death of the universe , if not other ends to the human race, we will have to confront death at some point.

 

Denial is certainly the coping mechanism of choice in the West, but whether it is the best one is another question. It is some people's job to usher the dying so there is a body of literature around the death process - though due to numerous difficulties in end-of-life research it is inherently poor quality evidence. Here we have discussion about the role of denial in palliative care. This one is interesting as it seems to suggest people with advanced breast cancer in denial live longer though are more anxious and alienated, while those who accept death have shorter lives with more positive moods. I say seems as i can't yet get hold of the full text to give it a proper read through.

 

 

 

There are a plethora of people coming forward to say they have been tested by scientists. You can find a 'scientific' journal on just about anything. Someone even tried one for astrology.

 

I won't look into your specific claims for two reasons. I can see nothing to distinguish your claims from hundreds of other 'scientific' claims. Also i have practised kung fu which included chi gong and nei gong. They gave me no reason to explore it further.

 

Most likely you practiced one of the thousands of bogus neigong/qigong systems that do nothing and go no where. Just a bunch of spiritual entertainment that does absolutely nothing real besides some breathing exercises and useless arm movements.

 

Please provide me with more videos where a man is able to demonstrate abilities while being scrutinised by scientists. I am only aware of a few. There may be lot's of bogus science journals but I provide the creditials for the people that tested Chang (Cathrine N. Cooke, Dr. Roger Nelson, Dr. Gregory Simpson). These people aren't random dumb wads that claim to be scientists. They are real scientsits, professors, medical doctors, etc. that were just as skeptical as you. He was checked with a metal detector and was barefooted which rules out the explanation of him using an electrical device.

 

Given the inevitable heat death of the universe , if not other ends to the human race, we will have to confront death at some point.

 

Denial is certainly the coping mechanism of choice in the West, but whether it is the best one is another question. It is some people's job to usher the dying so there is a body of literature around the death process - though due to numerous difficulties in end-of-life research it is inherently poor quality evidence. Here we have discussion about the role of denial in palliative care. This one is interesting as it seems to suggest people with advanced breast cancer in denial live longer though are more anxious and alienated, while those who accept death have shorter lives with more positive moods. I say seems as i can't yet get hold of the full text to give it a proper read through.

 

 

 

There are a plethora of people coming forward to say they have been tested by scientists. You can find a 'scientific' journal on just about anything. Someone even tried one for astrology.

 

I won't look into your specific claims for two reasons. I can see nothing to distinguish your claims from hundreds of other 'scientific' claims. Also i have practised kung fu which included chi gong and nei gong. They gave me no reason to explore it further.

 

Let me ask you this. What would distinguish a claim from the rest of the other non-sense? A study by Harvard University and an article by Stephen Hawking?

Edited June 26, 2014 by KenBrace

[Prometheus]

 

Most likely you practiced one of the thousands of bogus neigong/qigong systems that do nothing and go no where. Just a bunch of spiritual entertainment that does absolutely nothing real besides some breathing exercises and useless arm movements.

 

Interesting. That's exactly what they said to me too.

 

Please provide me with more videos where a man is able to demonstrate abilities while being scrutinised by scientists. I am only aware of a few. There may be lot's of bogus science journals but I provide the creditials for the people that tested Chang (Cathrine N. Cooke, Dr. Roger Nelson, Dr. Gregory Simpson). These people aren't random dumb wads that claim to be scientists. They are real scientsits, professors, medical doctors, etc. that were just as skeptical as you. He was checked with a metal detector and was barefooted which rules out the explanation of him using an electrical device.

 

Deepak Chopra is a real medical doctor: an endocrinologist and Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

 

Bit off topic, but you might like this paper. Let me know what you think.

 

Let me ask you this. What would distinguish a claim from the rest of the other non-sense? A study by Harvard University and an article by Stephen Hawking?

 

A reasonable question - one theists will often ask of 'too skeptical' atheists. For a great many things i do not have the time to look at the evidence myself and so i rely on the scientific consensus to inform my beliefs. Global warming is a good example - I trust the scientific consensus, though i cannot look at all the evidence. If there was a consensus that the phenomenon you describe were true, then i would believe. There are some issues i do not have to take on trust because i do have the time to look at the evidence myself, and in the future even acquire some evidence myself, but afterlife claims will never be one of them because i have learnt that there is a method for being comfortable with mortality.

[KenBrace]

 

Interesting. That's exactly what they said to me too.

 

 

Deepak Chopra is a real medical doctor: an endocrinologist and Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

 

Bit off topic, but you might like this paper. Let me know what you think.

 

 

A reasonable question - one theists will often ask of 'too skeptical' atheists. For a great many things i do not have the time to look at the evidence myself and so i rely on the scientific consensus to inform my beliefs. Global warming is a good example - I trust the scientific consensus, though i cannot look at all the evidence. If there was a consensus that the phenomenon you describe were true, then i would believe. There are some issues i do not have to take on trust because i do have the time to look at the evidence myself, and in the future even acquire some evidence myself, but afterlife claims will never be one of them because i have learnt that there is a method for being comfortable with mortality.

 

But there is a difference between God and Chang. "God" has never stepped forward and allowed himself to be scrutinised by scientists and checked fraud. In fact God, in the Christian sense, has never stepped forward to even prove his existence period. Chang however was scrutinised by the president of the Mind Science Foundation in Texas, a Physicist from Albert Einstein Univeristy in New York, and a swedish medical doctor.

 

And it's not that you don't have enough time. The fact that you have time to spend commenting on internet forums shows that. It's rather that, like you said, the most popular ideas of the time rule your world view so you are not interested in anything new. Even if it has valid evidence to support it. You are the same as the people that laughed at Galileo, Thomas Edison, Columbus, etc. History has shown that the popular consensus isn't always right.

Edited June 26, 2014 by KenBrace

[Prometheus]

You fail to convince me to spend my time to examine your claims. Why? Because there are hundreds if not thousands of people who sound exactly like you making all sorts of claims. "Yeah, but mine isn't some wishy washy theory - it's backed up with science" and "look at all the scientists that support my idea" and so on. Again borrowing from the climate science argument, there are a plethora of skeptics arguing that the science is on their side, or that such and such respected scientist is on their side and so global warming isn't true.

 

Out of these hundreds i choose to investigate none because most are rubbish. Despite what you think, I don't have the time to investigate all of them, and the case you have so far put forward sounds no different to all the other 'yeah but mine is supported by science' ideas. Doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, just that i judge it not worth my time. I'm not trying to convince you to stop looking into it, just telling you why i don't look into it.

 

Be careful of using the 'people laughed at such and such person', it bears the hallmarks of crackpot arguments, from which i know you wish to disassociate. All the people you mentioned were proven correct as the evidence supported their ideas. If the evidence is on your side the truth will out.

[KenBrace]

You fail to convince me to spend my time to examine your claims. Why? Because there are hundreds if not thousands of people who sound exactly like you making all sorts of claims. "Yeah, but mine isn't some wishy washy theory - it's backed up with science" and "look at all the scientists that support my idea" and so on. Again borrowing from the climate science argument, there are a plethora of skeptics arguing that the science is on their side, or that such and such respected scientist is on their side and so global warming isn't true.

 

Out of these hundreds i choose to investigate none because most are rubbish. Despite what you think, I don't have the time to investigate all of them, and the case you have so far put forward sounds no different to all the other 'yeah but mine is supported by science' ideas. Doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, just that i judge it not worth my time. I'm not trying to convince you to stop looking into it, just telling you why i don't look into it.

 

Be careful of using the 'people laughed at such and such person', it bears the hallmarks of crackpot arguments, from which i know you wish to disassociate. All the people you mentioned were proven correct as the evidence supported their ideas. If the evidence is on your side the truth will out.

 

I don't really know of any other claims besides tummo monks, Wim Hof, and maybe a few others that were recoreded on film, checked with a metal detector, stripped to a shirt, etc. and were still able to perform their feats. Pretty much everything else is just a sea of rumors, hearsay, and claims.

 

You provided an example of a "scientist" that supports a "scientific" astrology research group but nothing solid has been demonstrated, recorded, scrutinized, and come through clean. Just a random PhD that believes in astrology.

 

Keep in mind that the scientists who tested Chang were not interested in researching of such things, had no belief in such ablitiies, and were of the mindset that they would debunk him rather quickly. The PhD that runs the astrology thing believes in astrology and is promoting it. She wasn't skeptical, then after testing found astrology to be legit. Completely different scenario.

 

Could you please provide me with a tiny fraction of the "millions" of people demonstrating Chang like abilities after being tested by a group of scientists? I will reconsider my thoughts if you are able to.

Edited June 27, 2014 by KenBrace

[dimreepr]

I think you protest too much, Ken, as Prometheus said “If the evidence is on your side the truth will out” so why are you trying to convince anyone?

 

Let us suppose for a moment that you’re correct, the first question that comes to mind is so what?

 

What difference will this knowledge make to my life, other than being able to impersonate ‘uncle fester’?

 

And why does this ability mean there’s an afterlife?

[Prometheus]

These are reviews and meta-analyses of randomised-controlled trials - considered the best evidence in healthcare research - of homoeopathy, all claiming beneficial health outcomes.

1.)Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy.

Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–23.

2.) Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects

of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of

placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.

3.) Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality

on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy.

J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.

4.) Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of

clinical efficacy of homeopathy – A meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33.

There are literally hundreds of such articles.

This systematic review claims that distant healing has broadly beneficial health outcomes - it mentions chi gong.

30. Astin JA, Harkness E, Ernst E. The efficacy of “distant healing”: A systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:903–10

It was harder to find clinical research specifically on chi kung, but i found this.

Also this one shows fair amount of evidence showing chi kung to have benefits on things like well-being, balance even blood pressure when compared to groups doing nothing - but when compared to normal gentle exercise there was no extra benefit.

Most research on chi-kung focuses on it as simply an exercise regime which is not quite what you are claiming. So i looked for chi kung in relation to prolonging life in cancer. This review contains articles that purport to show increased life after chi-kung (and conventional treatment of course), though the review itself is unflattering for chi kung.

From a reiki website after having mentioning some 'robust' studies with hard to find links/references so i won't bother chasing them up:

 

Despite these findings and the impressive number of highly reputable hospitals offering Reiki Treatments

to patients, there will be those who continue to deem Reiki and other forms of energy-medicine as being

“nonsensical”.

As recently as 2009, reviews of randomized studies”of Reiki research conducted by Edzard Ernst, M.D.,

Ph.D. and his colleagues at the University of Exeter, concluded that most were poorly designed and

presented insufficient evidence to suggest that Reiki was an effective method for healing any condition.

That same year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops came out with a statement urging

Catholic health-care facilities and clergy not to promote or support Reiki therapy. They issued a statement

emphatically concluding that Reiki cannot be an effective method of healing “within the findings of natural

science or in Christian belief".

One can only look to the future of science and the evolution of scientific testing, evaluation and

responsible reporting which began with The Touchstone Process to alter these perceptions.

Sound familiar?

This one came under the heading of biofield therapies.

I didn't read more than the abstract from most of these, what i want you to notice, and why i have given articles for different phenomenon, is that they all use the same 'scientific' language. The advocates for homoeopathy are just as enthusiastic as you using the vernacular of science to try to convince others. Your claims do not stand out.

[KenBrace]

 

These are reviews and meta-analyses of randomised-controlled trials - considered the best evidence in healthcare research - of homoeopathy, all claiming beneficial health outcomes.

1.)Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy.

Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–23.

2.) Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects

of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of

placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.

3.) Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality

on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy.

J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.

4.) Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of

clinical efficacy of homeopathy – A meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33.

There are literally hundreds of such articles.

This systematic review claims that distant healing has broadly beneficial health outcomes - it mentions chi gong.

30. Astin JA, Harkness E, Ernst E. The efficacy of “distant healing”: A systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:903–10

It was harder to find clinical research specifically on chi kung, but i found this.

Also this one shows fair amount of evidence showing chi kung to have benefits on things like well-being, balance even blood pressure when compared to groups doing nothing - but when compared to normal gentle exercise there was no extra benefit.

Most research on chi-kung focuses on it as simply an exercise regime which is not quite what you are claiming. So i looked for chi kung in relation to prolonging life in cancer. This review contains articles that purport to show increased life after chi-kung (and conventional treatment of course), though the review itself is unflattering for chi kung.

From a reiki website after having mentioning some 'robust' studies with hard to find links/references so i won't bother chasing them up:

Sound familiar?

This one came under the heading of biofield therapies.

I didn't read more than the abstract from most of these, what i want you to notice, and why i have given articles for different phenomenon, is that they all use the same 'scientific' language. The advocates for homoeopathy are just as enthusiastic as you using the vernacular of science to try to convince others. Your claims do not stand out.

 

Fair enough. I think I see where you are coming from.

 

One thing I would like to point out though is that all I saw there were articles by PhDs who were trying to prove the existence of homopathy, rekei, etc. It wasn't a case of an individual claiming certain ablities and a group of skeptics coming in to debunk him. He was checked with a metal detector stripped to a shirt, and bare foot. There is no known way that he could have performed the feats he did while under these conditions. How is this not worth looking in to? Forget the articles, studies, charts, etc. and think of it more like what Randi does. It was a simple case of three skeptics coming in and attempting to debunk a claim. The only known explanation for his feats via trickery were eliminated by their testing. This isn't the same as all of the articles and studies you gave above.

 

The only reson I gave the credintials of the skeptics is so you know who they are. If you look into it you will also find that they are not involved in any other similar studies, websites, organisations, etc. They have nothing to do with any of that. They aren't like the PhDs you listed above who have delved their lives into researching homopathy or whatever. I haven't seen even one article or study posted by any one of the three individuals that scrutinized John Chang.

I think you protest too much, Ken, as Prometheus said “If the evidence is on your side the truth will out” so why are you trying to convince anyone?

 

Let us suppose for a moment that you’re correct, the first question that comes to mind is so what?

 

What difference will this knowledge make to my life, other than being able to impersonate ‘uncle fester’?

 

And why does this ability mean there’s an afterlife?

 

The origianal topic was "Do you fear death?" but then after giving my stance someone asked me what I plan on doing about the situation I'm in. So I answered. Then people started commenting about how it was obviously a hoax, scam, fraud, etc. So I defended my position.

 

The ablilities demonstrated by Chang are a biproduct of the storage and compression of energy within the bio energetic field of humans. According to Chang this "evolution of the spirit" allows one to retain full consciousness, memory, etc. after death rather than becoming an empty, shelled out, husk of what was. Like the black-box flight recorder of an airplane or a shaddow. If you go deep enough into the meditation taught in the first stage of the training, things like this can be witnessed first hand. No faith required. The claim that this is possible via profondly deep meditation isn't very believable though I guess. The only reason I am willing to give it a shot is because of the evidence given for Chang's ablities. Since in my mind he has a lot of validity provided by the scientsits who tested him, his teachings are also worth looking in to. I haven't yet directly experienced the deepest state of meditation that is ideal for real neigong training and is where a glimps into the afterlife can occur, but I have gotten close and know from personal experience that the meditation for the first level of training is indeed valid.

[dimreepr]

How can Chang possibly know what follows death or that he’s glimpsed it, however deep his meditation goes?

 

I don’t want to quash or dispel you’re beliefs and I know that meditation can imbue one with a profound sense of wellbeing and peace; but why search for more than that?

 

Surely a contented, peaceful life is reward enough; why put what comes after, before that?

Edited June 27, 2014 by dimreepr

[KenBrace]

How can Chang possibly know what follows death or that he’s glimpsed it, however deep his meditation goes?

 

I don’t want to quash or dispel you’re beliefs and I know that meditation can imbue one with a profound sense of wellbeing and peace; but why search for more than that?

 

Surely a contented, peaceful life is reward enough; why put what comes after before that?

 

Supposedly during the deepest states of meditation one is able directly experience the yin aspect of reality which is where sprits reside. You can directly see what is left of people after their death and therefore know what is awaiting you after your death.

 

Think about this. The idea is that during a normal waking state you are experiencing your "yang" consciousness. During unconscious sleep you experience yin. However since you are unconscious, you don't really experiencing anything. The idea behind the meditation is that you consciously fall asleep. Or in another way of saying it, you experience the yin aspect of reality with your yang consciousness and vise vera. This is why it is referred to as the "borderline state between waking and sleeping". You are asleep and yet awake at the same time. In essense what happens is your body falls asleep, while your mind remains awakeand alert. The deeper you go the slower your breath, pulse, and brainwave activity become. Eventually it reaches a point that would pretty much be considered 'dead' in a hospital. However even though your body has gone into a comma like state, your mind is still 100% awake and alert. This is where you have a direct connection to both yin and yang aspects of reaity and where real neigong can begin. It's way easier said than done though. I've meditated for longer than 5 hours straight at times and still don't make it deep enough.

This is why most systems of qigong/neigong (not really neigong imo) are a joke. Just a bunch of useless arm movements, breathing exercises, etc. in a normal everyday state of consciousnes. Real training requires an incomprehensibly deep state of meditation where the body's functions slow down to almost death but the mind stays fully alert and awake. At this point you have a direct connection to the atomosphere of yin and yang qi around you and are able to work with it like a tangible physical substance. With pin point, lazer like focus you are able to direct the energy into specific points where it can be stored.

Edited June 27, 2014 by KenBrace

[dimreepr]

The deeper you go the slower your breath, pulse, and brainwave activity become. Eventually it reaches a point that would pretty much be considered 'dead' in a hospital.

 

 

And yet he lives, so again how does he know?

 

It’s your life, but, don’t starve today because you’re promised a banquet tomorrow; eat when you can my friend.

[John Cuthber]

"Supposedly during the deepest states of meditation one is able directly experience the yin aspect of reality which is where sprits reside. You can directly see what is left of people after their death and therefore know what is awaiting you after your death."

By whom is this supposed, and on what basis?

Who came back from after death to verify it?

Is there any actual evidence for yin ?

Is there any evidence for spirits existence?

[KenBrace]

 

 

And yet he lives, so again how does he know?

 

What do you mean?

 

Breathing slows down to less that one breath per minute, pulse goes so low that it can hardly even be detected, and brainwave activity flatlines.

"Supposedly during the deepest states of meditation one is able directly experience the yin aspect of reality which is where sprits reside. You can directly see what is left of people after their death and therefore know what is awaiting you after your death."

By whom is this supposed, and on what basis?

Who came back from after death to verify it?

Is there any actual evidence for yin ?

Is there any evidence for spirits existence?

 

I am going by what was taught by Chang and what I have heard from students.

 

It isn't a matter of coming back from the dead. It's observing the spirits of dead people and what is left of them. Therefore you know what is awaiting you at death since you've seen what happens to others after their death.

 

The only evidence for yin is the fact that Chang demonstrates it and was tested by skeptics which gives him validity. During the beginning meditation you can directly experience yin so you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists.

 

The same goes for spirits.

[John Cuthber]

"I am going by what was taught by Chang..."

A man whose claims have been largely debunked by a conjurer"

 

"It's observing the spirits of dead people"

OK, show me one.

 

"the only evidence for yin is the fact that Chang demonstrates it"

So, no real evidence then.

 

"During the beginning meditation you can directly experience yin so you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists.

The same goes for spirits."

 

What, I can slap someone round the head with i?

I can show the receipt where I paid for it?

Or were you just saying something which is obviously not actually true?

There are words for people who do that.

[KenBrace]

"I am going by what was taught by Chang..."

A man whose claims have been largely debunked by a conjurer"

 

"It's observing the spirits of dead people"

OK, show me one.

 

"the only evidence for yin is the fact that Chang demonstrates it"

So, no real evidence then.

 

"During the beginning meditation you can directly experience yin so you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists.

The same goes for spirits."

 

What, I can slap someone round the head with i?

I can show the receipt where I paid for it?

Or were you just saying something which is obviously not actually true?

There are words for people who do that.

 

You don't seem to have read the previous pages of the thread.

 

A man whose claims have been largely debunked by a conjurer.

WRONG. No one has debunked anything. The best explanation by skeptics is "He's using trickery. We just can't figure it out." Every other rebuttal I've ever heard has shown nothing but ignorance about how electricity and devices work.

 

So, no real evidence then.

I provided evidence. Go back and read it.

 

What, I can slap someone round the head with i?

I can show the receipt where I paid for it?

Or were you just saying something which is obviously not actually true?

There are words for people who do that.

No. It's not something you're proving to someone else. I was talking about personal experience. In the same way that you directly experience your keyboard, you can directly experience yin and yang qi.

[dimreepr]

 

What do you mean?

 

Breathing slows down to less that one breath per minute, pulse goes so low that it can hardly even be detected, and brainwave activity flatlines.

 

 

 

I mean, whatever the appearance he IS still alive.

 

 

I am going by what was taught by Chang and what I have heard from students.

 

 

 

Given that you have yet to actually experience what Chang, and others, say will happen; there’s a chance their not being entirely truthful.

[John Cuthber]

 

You don't seem to have read the previous pages of the thread.

 

A man whose claims have been largely debunked by a conjurer.

WRONG. No one has debunked anything. The best explanation by skeptics is "He's using trickery. We just can't figure it out." Every other rebuttal I've ever heard has shown nothing but ignorance about how electricity and devices work.

 

Keep watching the video until you realise that the conjuror does explain how it's done so "He's using trickery. We just can't figure it out." just isn't a sensible response.

And it turns out that when you said "you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists."

you were flat out wrong.

In addition to the differences I have already pointed out, and which you seem to be pretending are not there, there's another seriously important difference between my keyboard and Qi.

My keyboard works.

[KenBrace]

 

 

 

I mean, whatever the appearance he IS still alive.

 

 

 

 

Given that you have yet to actually experience what Chang, and others, say will happen; there’s a chance their not being entirely truthful.

 

Yes he is definitely still alive. It's just that someone observing him with a EEG, REG, etc. would consider him dead.

 

There is a chance. However I have gotten close and because of what I experienced there's not much doubt left in me.

Keep watching the video until you realise that the conjuror does explain how it's done so "He's using trickery. We just can't figure it out." just isn't a sensible response.

And it turns out that when you said "you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists."

you were flat out wrong.

In addition to the differences I have already pointed out, and which you seem to be pretending are not there, there's another seriously important difference between my keyboard and Qi.

My keyboard works.

 

Once again you missed my point. You directly expereience your keyboard right? So if you directly experience yin and yang qi, then you know it exists for the sam reason you know that your keyboard exists.

 

I've watched that video several times and the guy gives a false rebuttal to Chang's electrical demo. It is obvious that he and you know absolutely nothing about eletricity. Why can't you seem to get this through your head? I've said it several times. THE CLAIM THAT JOHN CHANG COULD HAVE BEEN USING AN ELECTRICAL DEVICE TO GENERATE A STATIC CHARGE AND PERFORM THE ELECTRIC SHOCK DEMO IS COMLETELY FALSE AND ONLY SHOWS IGNORANCE ABOUT ELECTRICITY AND NEGATIVE ION GENERATORS! There is ABSOLUTELY no valid explanation in existence that explans Chang's electrical demo with using trickery. NONE!