Could "luck" increase probability?

[Splorf22]

Science is simply doing what works. If you are anti-science then what you are really saying is that you like to bang your head against the wall.

There are plenty of awesome things that well trained people can do, and I am a big believer in the power of meditation to help heal just by reducing stress - you can google Gabor Mate for some great examples of stress and disease. I have a lot of problems with the science of medicine as I feel it is too reductionist. But I don't feel that it is necessary to posit the existence of hidden forces like chi to explain stuff like a monks body getting hot or cold.

[August]

>.>

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

I attribute my success in the solo artist challenge to a power I call Ji.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well it's been proven that thoughts can affect reality so it could be possible. Another thing to note is that certain zodiac signs are notoriously lucky compared to others. Sagittarius is the luckiest of the signs for sure but any of the fire signs(Aries, Leo's) are also notoriously lucky.

Have links to these studies?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eh the Zodiac couldn't possibly be more accurate. Read a detailed profile for your zodiac sign some time. Most people associate astrology with shitty horoscopes in newspapers when it is actually far deeper then that. Also, as a Sagittarius myself I can attest to the fact that I am far luckier then most people.

p.s. nice post count, I can tell you're doing big things!

Which version of the Zodiac? The original or the revised modern one since it was out of sync?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You speak of Occam's razor like it's an infallible law. There are some things science was just not meant to quantify. I just know from personal experience that things like astrology and karma are real things. I guess some things you have to experience in order to actually understand them.

Occam's Razor isn't a law, it is a principle and is used until a more sophisitcated explanation can be derived from study. What is science not meant to quantify? What are your personal anecdotes that cause you to rely on astrology and karma?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ghFeTlg1o&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WajTafbG7II

Science has no fucking clue how this is possible, yet it still is. Sorry but if you think science is the end all be all of understanding the universe then you're simply a retard, no question about it. Herp derp, there's no such thing as chi guys. Clearly.

What is there besides science to derive understanding of the universe?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

I wouldn't call NatGeo television shows reliable evidence of anything.

This guy lol.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by EchoedTruth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This coming from someone with a Bible verse in their sig? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. I'd prefer not to derail this thread; if you're seeking to engage in substantive dialogue, I'd be happy to oblige you through another medium. I'll simply state that I have concluded that a belief in Christ is rationally supportable, and I'd be happy to share that with you if you're seeking in earnest. Otherwise, consider this tangent addressed.

Originally Posted by Nocturne

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

The human body is capable of numerous feats that are extraordinary but not super natural. I can link you this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19661...perpowers.html and ask: are these all chi masters? Or perhaps there is a fully explainable mechanism from which the abilities stem? Some of what people call chi is simply the ability to put oneself into a specific mental state that produces physical results, that fine, but to claim there exists a manipulable form of energy that performs work upon the physical environment? That is another thing entirely. If you ever attend a seminar on chi, you'll quickly note that much of what they do IS stage magic beginning with selection of the "willing member of the audience". Again, I ask: why has no one ever claimed the Randi Prize (or any of the others) for the demonstration of a supernatural power? Because they can't.

If you want to talk about chi masters, I've met many of the North American "masters." I'm even on a first name basis with one or two. I've always found it interesting how overweight they tend to be. I'll spill it: when I was 17, they had me believing. I drank the Kool-Aid straight up. As I got older, and hopefully wiser, I realized that I've never once seen an single shred of evidence for the existence of chi. As I stated before, the burden is on the claimant.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and so on. You're being criticized not because you propose interest in a fantastic unknown, but because your mysticizing it and demanding recognition of an inconclusive element. An element with no supporting evidence that is not replicable or explainable by some specific theory. I will be the first to admit there is much in this universe we don't understand. And I would love for chi to be real (Hadoken up in here, yo). But the proof simply isn't present.

Is there something specific that enables these people to perform such feats? Obviously. Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.

[Splorf22]

great link xasten! Had a lot of fun watching Machii Isao. That's just crazy.

[fadetree]

All science can say is that there is no evidence of a scientific nature yet of any kind of chi, or psi, or other mysterious abilities/powers. Science really proves nothing; it just reports on the evidence. I've never seen an electron, but the body of evidence in the form of thousands of experiments and several overwhelmingly coherent and explanantory theories leads me to 'believe' in electrons.

There is no such body of scientific evidence for such things as chi being able to actually affect the physical universe. I'd personally like it to be true myself; but so far I see no reason to suppose it is.

[theaetatus]

Otherwise, consider this tangent addressed.

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

[rahmani]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ghFeTlg1o&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WajTafbG7II

Science has no fucking clue how this is possible, yet it still is. Sorry but if you think science is the end all be all of understanding the universe then you're simply a retard, no question about it. Herp derp, there's no such thing as chi guys. Clearly.

Science is the only method by which hypotheses may be developed into theories. If this shit is real, it can be explained scientifically.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by theaetatus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

You haven't even read his reasoning on that point and you have already attributed a massive amount of beliefs to him.