Safety
Posted by: Phillip_H
Safety - 12/31/07 10:08 PM
All,
I've recently come to reading a number of articles of pressure points (martial arts, not medicinal). Can anyone point me to references about safety regarding pressure points. Particularly how to avoid serious or permanent damage to an opponent.
Many thanks for your time.
Posted by: JAMJTX
Re: Safety - 12/31/07 11:09 PM
Learn the "medicinal" side first. Then you'll know more about the results of manipulating these points.
There is no guaranteed safety because of the unknown factors. You have some points that you can attack that will manipulate the bloodpressure, for example. You may think you are taking a safe approach by striking lightly. Then you may find out that person has high blood pressure, but not until after they are dead.
By studying shiatsu you will learn what types of "patients" that you should not give treatment to. These same rules will apply in using them in fighting.
One good book is called TSUBO Vital Points FOr Oriental Therapy. I use it as a text in my classes.
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/01/08 02:40 AM
Opinions differ. Take what you can use and leave the rest. I respect and understand Jim's opinion but I had a better option for myself.
I study with an established curriculum, certified instructors proceeding along a fairly well trod path. Some healing is integrated into this curriculum but it is very little compared to what Jim is probably referring to.
I would not have wanted to pursue hitting people on potentially vital points without guidance hands on from an instructor.
I think now the vison becomes clear about why you learn the pressure points through kata and "through the system" rather than simply teaching "pressure points". I must have warned people 50 or 75 times on the boards that just knowing pressure points can be very damaging to your uke and fellow practitioners... and hitting points still does damage, even if you can do the resucitations.
Interruptions to the blood supply of a vital organ, or creating a nerve impingment takes a lot of time to "right itself", even if you're awake and "doing fine" otherwise. Most of the strikes take some massage or acupuncture to correct.
Think of it this way... if I give you a revolver loaded with six bullets, spin the chamber, and then shoot you with it and it knocks you out... what is resuciation going to do for you? It'll get you awake... it won't cure the bullet hole, the damage to the tissue, or stop the bleeding... those require "further assistance".
Now, if I create a force application to a specific point in your nervous system or blood supply, what's the difference other than the fact that the force is applied with a knuckle or other "karate weapon" and not a bullet? How about if I use a nunchukun to strike the point?
Besides the obvious answers, of knocking the wind out of someone, or breaking a bone on the inside of them, the answer is that the force has to dissipate itself. If it's a "point strike", it's on specifically designated tissue that has a "purpose" in being hit... meaning it causes a specific reaction, or specific damage. Unattended, it continues to be damaged and doing damage, and simply waking someone up isn't "fixing" anything.
That being said, as a martial artist, you NEED to know the pressure point work... but it isn't something to do once a week in class and then come back next week for a repeat. It's an ongoing study, and a very specific training using your kata or art so you understand it's applications. You need to learn how to stop the pressure point damage BEFORE you start hitting points and screwing up your uke's world.
Getting certified in basic first aid is a good start... as well as good for the dojo. Contact sports create all kinds of injuries by themselves, much less with "intent".
Anyway, Please... don't think that pressure points are "a way to fight"... they are simply a tool. They're very effective, but you have to have the skills to use them, and to use them in a combat situation. An attacker isn't going to simply stick out their neck or turn their head to allow you to hit a vital point... they're going to be trying to hit or harm you... and you have to have accuracy and skill under pressure to make them work.
Like shooting, lots of people can kill a paper target at 25 yards, but can't hit the inside of a barn in a combat situation. Having appropriate skills is necessary, but having combat skills is vital... and acquiring them in pressure point work can be a bit dicey. Your attackers aren't going to walk up and let you hit them with their arms extended, or neck "available"... they're going to be fighting, and you have to "work your way in" to them.
While I have all the respect for kyusho-jitsu teachers in the world, their cheese has slid off the cracker. They need to be concentrating on putting those skills into the arts rather than giving the impression that they are an "all in all" super self-defense. Like karate, it used to be taught in a manner that blended the information into training, but now is taught like "basket weaving" as a separate course and represented as an "end all" method of fighting.
It isn't... it's only a tool.
HAPPY NEW YEAR....
Also, I understand messing with a person's pressure point can jam up their ki flow. Wouldn't want that to happen.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/08/08 12:15 AM
Quote:
Also, I understand messing with a person's pressure point can jam up their ki flow. Wouldn't want that to happen.
Cant see how you can understand anything if you deny it exists.
Jude
You don't have to believe in something to know about it. I know a bit about Greek mythology, but I don't believe Zeus ever existed.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/08/08 07:58 PM
Quote:
You don't have to believe in something to know about it. I know a bit about Greek mythology, but I don't believe Zeus ever existed.
Swiftly back to the topic of pressure points.
What are they?
Do they exist?
If so what is their function?
Jude
Pressure points and chi are like discussing science fiction to the "non-believers"... so don't waste your time. It's like people who don't believe hook punches will work until they run into one.
big surprise!
Pressure points are nothing like chi.
Pressure points do exist, and knowledge of them is utilized by everyone from massage therapists to judoka. There is nothing mystical or metaphysical about them. Heck, anyone who has ever been in an armlock has experienced the effects of pressure point manipulation first hand.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Safety - 01/09/08 01:28 AM
Quote:
What are they?
Clusters of nerves, where a nerve ends, where nerves cross, etc. About 700 or more of them located all over the body with different "activations types".
Quote:
Do they exist?
Yes.
Quote:
If so what is their function?
To promote interesting internet forum discussions.
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/09/08 09:53 AM
I think the easiest way to explain pressure points is to mention a few that are fairly universal for people of diverse styles.
Do you use an arm bar? If it is called something else, it is a grappling technique that threatens to break the elbow on a hyperextended arm with pressure either on the middle of the muscle mass on the back of the upper arm, or in the back of the elbow joint at the bottom of the upper bone.
The point on the muscle mass on the upper arm is called Triple Warmer 12. The point in the elbow joint itself is called Triple warmer 11 and 10.
The "why" it works is another post.
Another kind of pressure point would be the mental foramen of the jaw. You can look it up in an anatomy map. It is a hole through which the mentle nerve travels through the skull. It is located on either side of the chin almost under the angle of the lip.
You can strike it down and toward the center line to give someone a bit of a buzz, or you can use it in grappling pressed with your knuckle to encourage someone to turn his head.
Pressure points have explanations which are physiological. No mystical beliefs or chi is necessary to understand how they work.
Does this explanation help at all?
I was talking about the discussions, not equating one with the other. You might as well be talking thermonuclear physics as pressure points to people who discount their validity. It takes a few pushes on the right spots to make believers out of them... and they'll still try to say the effects were caused by something else... solar flares, maybe?
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/09/08 07:36 PM
Yes.
Your input does help but something I will have to come back to at later date.
To BrianS.
To Wrist Twister.
Maybe it takes time but I think some people can change their views. I think fileboy might agree. There again he might not.
Jude
It sounds like what you object to is skepticism. But skepticism is a healthy thing, and in far too short supply in our culture.
I don't object to anybody's perceptions... but the way to solve them is to "bring them too the mats" and test them out. "Altitude adjusts a lot of attitudes"...
I've seen a lot of skepticism go out the window as the skeptic came crashing to the mats or got his lights knocked out. It's hard to block a good right hook with an argument.
While there's a mental aspect to martial arts, in the end, they are physical skills... whether manifested using "training", chi, or whatever, and highly connected to good body mechanics. Skepticism can't block a good Uchi mata, or shiho nage... and the trip to the floor for the skeptic is usually a real "eye opening" experience.
Be skeptical if you like, just don't whine when you get slammed.
But no skeptic would ever doubt the efficacy of a right hook or any other well-executed technique. To suggest they would is to erect a straw man.
What skeptics doubt are things like being able to knock someone down from a distance using chi.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/11/08 11:25 PM
Quote:
But no skeptic would ever doubt the efficacy of a right hook or any other well-executed technique. To suggest they would is to erect a straw man.
What skeptics doubt are things like being able to knock someone down from a distance using chi.
No one( to my knowledge anyhow) on this forum has said that can be done.
So fileboy no one is discussing chi in the use you described.
So can I ask why do you keep bringing it up?
Jude
No one has made that claim specifically--I used it as an example of the kind of claim a skeptic might question.
Equally questionable claims have been made, however. For example, someone once claimed chi could enable a person to plung their hand into boiling water without getting scalded.
Pretty crazy, huh?
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/14/08 03:35 AM
Why work yourself up about unusual bizarre claims that have nothing to do with martial arts? I've never heard of that one, but suppose for the sake of arguement that 3 people in the world could do it. Does it have anything to do with martial arts?
If the claim is not true, is it worth throwing out everything of value in pressure points, because some people make claims to being able to do extraordinary things?
I don't worry myself about those things. I just train the things that have value to me now.
underdog, you are jumping into the middle of a conversation w/o knowing what it is about. A number of posters on here have made fantastic claims, including the one about being able to prevent being scalded by using chi. That is very much related to the martial arts.
Martial arts are so rich in what they offer, and it bugs me to see them discredited because people believe foolish things.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/16/08 12:12 PM
Quote:
underdog, you are jumping into the middle of a conversation w/o knowing what it is about. A number of posters on here have made fantastic claims, including the one about being able to prevent being scalded by using chi. That is very much related to the martial arts.
Martial arts are so rich in what they offer, and it bugs me to see them discredited because people believe foolish things.
Fileboy. I dont think that conversation was connected to claims of chi. If I remember it was someones observation of someone placing their hands in to a boiling fluid and not being scolded.
If the person saw what he saw and described the event then why is that persons belief's at fault? As far as I can gather he didint do the demonstration and make any claims.
Jude's thought out quote on this subject about people's (no one specifically I am just generalising) counter arguments .
A person focusing their inner energy
(the title given to the energy can be at that persons discretion should they not believe in inner energy)
on researching and then finding a good counter argument.
Might then give a better counter argument,
Than another person focusing their energy on negative statements that seem to be based on none thought out conclusions.
Jude
I concur with your points. Pressure points were typically only used by highly skilled individuals because they require a modicum of skill to make them work. You need to be able to fight to hit the points. I think of the points as the sharp edge on a sword. Yes the edge cuts but someone skilled has to swing it.
I also believe that some instructors are just trying to capitalize on this subject for commercial reasons. One instructor even claims to be able to do a no contact knock out to further line his pockets. I think some reality checks are in order. I work in law enforcement and fight in the real world on a regular basis. Too many people train in the dojo and have no real world experience.
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/17/08 04:31 AM
That is precisely why I have no aspirations to train in anything "spectacular". Actually, I am spending more of my training time going back to basics. I need to be able to fight for self defense. I work in a high risk job for someone who is not an LEO or military. I'm a psychiatric nurse and my clients are substance abusers. In addition, every year of my life, I become more vulnerable. That is the "missed" point I was trying to make before. In my world, the ability to be able to do any, in the gammut of extraordinary Kyusho skills, that are not combat ready or combat applicable, be it with boiling water or no touch, is not relevant. These are not things that are going to help me. I just get the best training I can and train at MY OWN LEVEL and leave the exaulted things to others. I don't even worry about them. I detach and mind my own training. No anger, no resentments - just teach me that which will help me.
Fileboy,
that really irritates the **** out of me. I was sitting in the room where that demo happened, so unless you're wanting to call me a liar, or were there and had different information, I'd leave that one alone. A similar phenomenon is carried out all the time all over the world... firewalking. If you want to see it's validity, google-fu that term and you'll get
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-walking ... but I suppose you have "other information" to share on that too.
The zen master that did the demo made no claims other than to demonstrate the power of the mind over his own body. Now water boils at 212 degrees Farenheit... the firewalkers walk on coals over 1000 degrees... and there's plenty of evidence (and films) of that... so why is it "beyond belief" that the zen master could do something as meager as a 114 degree temperature dissipation with his mind?
That has nothing at all to do with pressure points, but it was simply a demo that I
witnessed .
Quote:
Equally questionable claims have been made
I must suppose that the firewalking claims are also "false"... eh?
Just for the record... http://www.pitt.edu/~dwilley/Fire/FireTxt/record.html
by the way... that's a 1715 degree transfer dissipation.
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/18/08 10:17 AM
My teacher and his friends did a fire walk a few years ago. They took photos. It was kind of like a one day retreat. They did some groupy kind of mind preparing things and the evening ended with the fire walk. So I know that not only is it possible, but it doesn't even take decades of preparation.
I'm not trying it though.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/18/08 01:58 PM
Quote:
... but I suppose you have "other information" to share on that too.
I doubt if it will be information based on anything other than negative comments.
I think like with the monks in the experiment (cold) there has to be certain physical adjustments/ aspects to most things done in this way.
The thing I find somewhat off putting is when certain people cant be bothered looking in to how things are done.
Jude
I am not sure why, jude33, but for some reason it is very hard to understand you. Are you a native speaker of English?
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/19/08 08:50 AM
Quote:
I am not sure why, jude33, but for some reason it is very hard to understand you. Are you a native speaker of English?
Seems like we are going off topic again.
So back to the topic
Pressure points
Jude
I was not being sarcastic, jude33. I taught ESL for years and you sometimes form sentences in a way that reminds me of my students.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 12:10 AM
Quote:
I was not being sarcastic, jude33. I taught ESL for years and you sometimes form sentences in a way that reminds me of my students.
It is somewhat irrelevant if I am a native English speaker or not.
If you cant understand something I have written then state what it is you don’t understand.
Generalising after the event doesn’t really have much of a function.
So back again to the topic in question.
Pressure points
Jude
It is relelvant whether you are a native speaker of English. As I read what you write, I see only two possibilites:
1) English is not your native language. If that is the case, it explains why your phrasing comes accross as odd and I have a hard time understanding you.
2) English is your native language and you are being deliberately rude, evasive, and obtuse.
If I don't know what the problem is, I cannot know what attitude to assume towards you.
As for pressure points I have already stated they are real and important to learn about. I knew little about them until I started studying judo, which relies on a knowledge of the bodies pressure points.
I never questioned the truth of the story you told. I questioned your interpretation of it as "evidence" of mind over matter. There is a principle in science called Occum's Razor, which states the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely to be the right one. It seems more likely to me that the hand-in-boiling-water routine was some kind of staged gimmick--why did he happen to have a pot, water, and fire source ready at a martial arts demo, of all things?--and not an example of extraordinary powers.
As far as firewalking goes, you might want to read the following:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dwilley/Fire/FireTxt/fire.htmlThat is another page of the very same source you cited, so please do not dismiss it.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 02:52 AM
people never cease to amaze me...firewalking as evidence of mind over matter? firewalking is not about overcoming physical pain, it's about overcoming psychological fear, then physics does the rest. why do you think they have firewalking available at resorts for tourists around the world? because with proper setup, it's safe. here's a cool resort on Fiji:
https://www.infohub.com/Lodgings/lodging_pages/1322.htmlQuote:
Nearby attractions and activities:
* Massages
* Diving
* Surfing
* Fishing
* Entertainment
* Cultural experience
* Firewalking
* Local Village Tours
* Snorkel
* Kayaking
* Water-skiing
* Hiking to the waterfalls
* Secluded beach picnic
* Play volleyball, horseshoes or croquet
* Bird watching
see? firewalking is as safe as birdwatching. lol
I think one of the misunderstandings when someone automatically believes in the unbelievable is a falure to recognize psychological phenomenon. or perhaps mistranslating the internal psychological into a external paranormal. I gather some are more suceptable than others.
but what has all this got to do with the safety of pressure points?
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 07:18 AM
Quote:
, I cannot know what attitude to assume towards you.
The attitude of sticking to the topic or subjects related to the topic would be a good start.
Quote:
It seems more likely to me that the hand-in-boiling-water routine was some kind of staged gimmick--why did he happen to have a pot, water, and fire source ready at a martial arts demo, of all things?--and not an example of extraordinary powers.
This is what wristtwister stated.
"but it sure as hell got my attention"
He had observed a man putting his hand in to what he assumed was boiling water. In science people observe things all the time.
It got his attention.
Your quote
Quote:
It seems more likely to me that the hand-in-boiling-water routine was some kind of staged gimmick
If it seems to you that was a gimmick then would you like to prove it was a gimmick?.
There is a great deal of information about science in books to assist you.
Quote:
and not an example of extraordinary powers
Can you? Are you? capable of Scientifically proving it wasnt? I am sitting on the fence here.
If you think it was a trick then how was it done?
I am a student. You claim to be a teacher. Teachers surely are capable of doing research?
And seeing as I am a student, I would like to think I will be cross checking your findings.
Jude
Posted by: underdog
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 08:04 AM
Ed you are quite correct as I understand it, about the fire walk. That is how my coach explained it. It has to do with the contact time and other rather unmystical physical explanations. About 5 senior black belts from my school went to that particular one day event and finished the event by actually doing the fire walk.
Quote:
It seems more likely to me that the hand-in-boiling-water routine was some kind of staged gimmick--why did he happen to have a pot, water, and fire source ready at a martial arts demo, of all things?--and not an example of extraordinary powers.
Well, if you had bothered to read my original post about it, you would have read that the Judo master from the Kodokan was accompanied by a Zen priest who performed the demonstration regarding the boiling water. It was a two part seminar, and they were completely unrelated as far as martial arts, simply showing the "mind over matter" psychological power of mental training. The two men were simply travelling companions from Japan doing seminars together.
Quote:
I never questioned the truth of the story you told.
I don't think you can get away with that one. Any time you tell me "you didn't see what you saw", you're questioning my veracity. Simply put, I was there... you weren't... and I know what I saw and what was said at the time. If you have some information about the demo that I don't have, I'd like to see it.
As a point for understanding, when I did pollution abatement work, I did thermal design of piping systems... meaning I dealt with thermal conductivity, heat transfer coefficients, fluid mechanics, etc. involving hot and superheated liquids and gases. If not, I probably wouldn't have been as impressed. The only answer I've ever been able to come up with for the ability of the zen master to keep his hand in the liquid was that the air being released by boiling provided some kind of protection or temperature-gradient break on his skin surface... but this was simply a pot of water on a plug-in burner... very simply put, a pot of boiling water... a conduction medium... not radiant heat.
From the article..."It is true that what temperature the flesh becomes will decide whether any injury is suffered or not, but it will be the amount of heat that is transferred from the coals to the feet that will directly influence that. What temperature the coals are at will be only one of the several factors that will influence how much heat is transferred and by how much the temperature of the soles will consequently rise. So, what I believe happens when one walks on fire is that on each step the foot absorbs relatively little heat from the embers that are cooled, because they are poor conductors, that do not have much internal energy to transmit as heat, and further that the layer of cooled charcoal between the foot and the rest of the hot embers insulates them from the coal's. "
Now, without ash to protect his hand, using a thermal-conduction medium of heat transfer, YOU explain what happened. Then, you might well take on the Tibetan monks and explain their abilities as well.
Quote:
It seems more likely to me that the hand-in-boiling-water routine was some kind of staged gimmick
I'm waiting to see the proof of that.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 01:02 PM
how about common sense? is that proof enough? There are more than a few ways to do the trick.
whenever witnessing a trick such as someone putting their hand in boiling water, the skepticism is a process of elimination. first: did the demonstrator allow YOU to touch the water for yourself, immediately before and after his hand was submerged? if not, then that hardly can serve as any kind of proof that his hand was subjected to any kind of scalding heat...since we know slight of hand, chemistry tricks etc could be used to give the appearance of the feat.
you get the idea - visual witness is not enough in order to 'see' most tricks. in fact, most tricks depend on just visual confirmation.
Quote:
There are more than a few ways to do the trick.
Okay, name them...
Yes, there were a number of people who tested the water to make sure it was boiling. No, I did not personally put my hand in it, but my teacher did, and he verified that it was indeed "hotter than he could deal with"...
Quote:
since we know slight of hand, chemistry tricks etc could be used to give the appearance of the feat.
A pot of water boiling on an electric eye-type burner is hardly sleight of hand or chemistry trickery... When I cook soup on one, is that some kind of trickery too? It was what it was... a pot of boiling hot water.
Quote:
whenever witnessing a trick such as someone putting their hand in boiling water
YOU assume it's a trick and weren't there to witness it... I listened to his lecture, and watched his demonstration .
Being skeptical doesn't automatically make you right... even if you want it to be a scam. Too bad you can't be that skeptical in the global warming debate... but, of course, you want that to be true... so it's true as far as you're concerned. Skepticism seems to come and go according to the issues...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 02:18 PM
I'm not a magician, but my first guess would be: combine the old and well known 'too hot to handle' act with reduced oxygen and you'll have a person that perceives the water is boiling even when touching it when in fact the water can boil at much lower temperatures due to it's reduced oxygen.
how do people do the 'too hot to handle' act and how do you make a contraption to reduce oxygen in water or a chemical to protect your hands? I have no idea...like I said, I'm not a magician.
look it up: the 'too hot to handle' act. and boiling water with reduced heat by reducing the oxygen.
either that, or it IS possible to defy the laws of physics (bare untreated skin not being burned from scalding 212F water).
by the way, since you didn't touch the 'boiling' water yourself, then you can't claim it as witnessed other than visually and taking the participants word for it that they were not contributing members of the magic act.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 02:32 PM
couple more notes...a martial arts class even engaging in demos like that is cause for skepticism of it's whole credability. one can only imagine what the explaination was...was it his superior chi force protecting his skin from the scalding water? "you too can tap into this mysterious power...here's how with our 29.95 DVD showing the ancient secrets...."
like my Father (RIP) used to say: "Mind over matter....got no mind, it don't matter!"
Well, Ed,
I'm sure we were all hypnotized by the Zen Master's interpreter into believing the water, which we all saw them run from the faucet into the pot that was put on the burner, and then given a post-hypnotic suggestion that the water was boiling.
Talk about grabbing for straws...
I guess the Kodokan teacher's demo was all a scam too...
... you can't
really throw people like that...
You could create "boiling water" by putting dry ice into water... but that didn't happen either... but I wanted to give you another option... since I didn't put my own hand in the water. I'll bet all the food I cook on my electric stove is simply a parlor trick... it's really already cooked when I put it on, and I just don't realize it...
You know, being skeptical has a limit too... and you're way past it on this one. You ran out of rope a long way back...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/20/08 03:19 PM
guess we'll never know since nobody is claiming any million-dollar prizes in order to keep these powers a secret.
so you win this one.
on topic, I'm interested in what you wrote earlier (going by memory) how solo kata in and of itself can 'show' where a specific pressure point is. to me, kata shows the general areas - then thru 2-person work, more specific areas can be targeted if applicable. what are people's thoughts on that.
Gee, I hope I didn't say solo kata practice taught pressure points, since you have to "feel" them in practice, usually a two-person set. What you can do is learn "in kata" which pressure points you should be hitting and through solo practice do the reps to get the angles of attack and "depth" of attach correct.
Since blocks can be punches and punches can be blocks, learning exactly where you want to strike is important in pressure point work, and you have to visualize in your kata what you're doing, because your "two-man set" will, just of necessity, be somewhat different... ukes of different heights, etc. .. so you need to practice "getting to the point" with your strike to work pressure points. You sometimes have to "roll around" someone's arm when blocking to strike a point, or slide along their arm or leg to get to a specific place on their body.
Solo kata will allow you to practice different techniques of rolling your arms and changing the blocking angles of the bones in your arms, etc. so you can make those changes in the two-man sets to hit the points. Your kata bunkai should address a lot of this, and if it doesn't, you need bunkai work more than pressure point work.
JMHO.
I did read the post.
You are missing my point, which is that the hand-in-boiling-water demonstration was clearly prepared beforehand and designed to wow observers. I have no doubt you witnessed a man plunge his hand into some clear, burbling liquid and hold it there. I am not questioning what you saw but your INTERPRETATION of what you saw.
Subjective impressions gained from direct experience are extremely persuasive, but they prove nothing. Years ago in Las Vegas, I saw a magician appear to saw a woman in half. It looked 100% real, but I knew it HAD to be a trick. Our own eyes decieve us easily and often.
You seem to think the fact I don't know how the trick was done disqualifies me from suggesting it is a trick. That is nonsense. Let me return to an example I used before:
Penn and Teller appear to shoot loaded guns at each others faces and catch the incoming bullets in their teeth. I have no idea how they do it. But am I wrong to say it is a trick?
Good Lord! IT HAS TO BE A TRICK. People cannot catch bullets in their teeth, and people cannot put their hands into boiling water without getting scalded.
Will you at least admit people cannot ctach bullets in their teeth? That might be a good start.
Wristwister,
Your response to Ed is rude and cowardly. He is giving you exactly what you have been badgering me for--i.e. a plausible expalnation of how the trick you saw may have been done. And what do you do? Dismiss his efforts and insult him!
Clearly, you are just going to believe whatever pleases you. That may make you happy--albeit in an ignorance-is-bliss sort of way--but you will never learn much.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/21/08 07:06 PM
All due respect fileboy and judging by your postings you dont seem to have the research skills to learn anything at all.
You seem to think the fact I don't know how the trick was done disqualifies me from suggesting it is a trick. That is nonsense.
This is exactly my point. Do you think the hands in boiling water was a trick?
You cant work out how a substance can boil at a low temperature. You dont seem to be able to think. Yet you can
call how wristtwister responds. If you say it is a trick then prove it.
Clearly you leave it for someone else to try to work out how things are done. Will you at least admit to avoiding difficult questions?
Or are you going to state you couldnt understand the way they were written?
I asked in one of my postings what substance added to boiling water would make the water cooler?
Your response?
Nothing.
I think you should look at your own faults before you state faults in others. I would have expected a lot more from someone who claims to teach.
If he chooses to believe what he believes then that is his choice. I dont think you have made a decent argument yet.
So perhaps your next posting might be "this is how a person can put their hands in to a boiling substance and not get burned"?
I await in ernest. Please take you time.
Jude
Let's try this logically...
1. Some claim this was a "trick", but were not there to either
observe it or to
see the preparation for it .
2. I
was there, and
saw the demonstration from beginning to end ... from the water being drawn from the sink, to being placed on the electric eye burner, to the zen master plunging his hand into it. My teacher actually went up
and put his hand in the water to insure that it was boiling, which he verified...
3. Now, 45 years later, people who neither observed the seminar and demonstration, nor saw the boiling pot of water, are proffering some idea that they can prove it was a trick rather than a "mind over matter" demonstration. They have no proof that it was not... only their skeptical suppositions, and cynical attitudes about someone they never have seen or met or observed in any way, shape or fashion.
They ignore the firewalking analogy, because it's "different"... but there's a difference between 212 degree boiling water and 1800 degree burning coals... and yet, they persist that him plunging his hand in boiling water can't be done...
Go figure...
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: Safety - 01/22/08 08:05 PM
I don't have dog in this race, but honestly guys:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or something to that effect.
The burden of proof is on the people claiming a guy can put his hand in water without getting scalded, that's how these arguments should work.
Since Ed (or whoever doesn't buy it) has made no claim, it really is kind of silly to ask him to disprove the event you claim happened. This is the only part of the argument that matters, because the results that you are claiming are not reproducable that we know of.
Like so many other things in life, burden of proof is on the claimant.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/22/08 08:15 PM
Hi Wristtwister.
From my point of view if an observation of a demonstration is made.
It is then written down.
People could read it, and then;
1 Agree,
2 Dont care
3 Or disagree with it.
If they disagree then I think bonifide/thought-out reasons of why they disagree should be put forward.
This might include the people who disagree finding alternative way's that the demonstration could have been done and putting those forward for discussion.
Then it becomes a decent argument.
The more I open up my mind the more I see things that happen that even top scientists cant explain.
They can give a theory on some things.
Jude
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Safety - 01/22/08 08:47 PM
Quote:
I don't have dog in this race, but honestly guys:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or something to that effect.
The burden of proof is on the people claiming a guy can put his hand in water without getting scalded, that's how these arguments should work.
Since Ed (or whoever doesn't buy it) has made no claim, it really is kind of silly to ask him to disprove the event you claim happened. This is the only part of the argument that matters, because the results that you are claiming are not reproducable that we know of.
Like so many other things in life, burden of proof is on the claimant.
Zach is exactly right. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
I personally don't believe it.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 07:14 AM
Quote:
Like so many other things in life, burden of proof is on the claimant.
Wristtwister did'nt put his hand in to a boiling substance.
Therefore I dont think he is the claimant of doing the demonstration.
He is the observer of a demonstration.
What he assumed was water from a tap
poured into an empty pot
Heated up untill boiling
Hand immersed.
No damage to hand.
He is reporting on what he saw.
If someone doesnt believe it then they can state that and find reasons how it could be done. Ed did just that.
He looked for reasons and gave an argument.
With out giving reasons the argument becomes
"The person states they dont believe it because it seems it cant be done"
Along the lines of "The Earth isnt flat because books tell the person so but the person couldnt prove it before space flight gave photos. Where as it could have been proven by the person themselves from observations on Earth.
Little attempt to apply logic to the argument.
If a person did the same hand in the water demonstration on TV, (with an audience) then people would say it cant be done , it is a trick. If I were that person I would take bets from the audience. They would have to prove there and then it cant be done with out a repeat performance.
If I were to do the same thing the observer would see the same things as Wristtwister saw.
I think the answer has to be in a persons ability to try to use the brain?
I think it can be done.
Just a footnote to some of you guys that have been on the forum for that bit longer. No disrespect to Zach.
If you think jude is doing a lot of thinking then perhaps that is your fault. If it wasnt for discussions like this and other thought provoking subjects then I wouldnt do much research.
Jude
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 01:52 PM
First, barefoot firewalking on coals does not injure feet. It's a gawddamn tourist attraction. kids and grandparents do it. Even if you walked a duck over the coals and kept them moving, they wouldn't be burned either. Would the duck channel their chi or use their mind to protect them against the laws of physics? it's not a demonstration of 'mind over matter' as wristwister wants you to believe so he can attempt to manufacture a point. It's a matter of overcoming the fear of doing it since your mind psychologically advises you against it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-walkingThe whole 'mind over matter' thing is your mind overcoming ITSELF. not your mind overcoming physics.
With that in mind, consider the average temperature that water has to be in order to give scalding burns.
http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.htmland
Quote:
Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degree water. Even if the temperature is 120 degrees, a five minute exposure could result in third-degree burns.
notice there are no disclaimers saying: "...but if you channel your chi and think happy thoughts, your skin won't be burned."
also notice the chart of damage per temp goes up exponentially. if 150F for 2 sec gives you 3rd degree burns, imagine 212F for 5 seconds on human skin!
now, let's say a guy is paralized from the shoulder in both arms for some reason. the arms are completely dead - no feeling, no pain. If his dead hand touches boiling water, they still get the same damage as someone not feeling any pain. of course it does since their skin is human and made up of the same material as everyone elses....reguardless of what their tolerance to pain is.
If mind over matter is a literal claim, then have that person hold a length of uncooked spagheti into a pot of boiling water - see if they can hold it in and prevent the noodle from cooking.
so the control variables to perform the illusion of boiling your hand at 212F unscathed is:
1. trick them into thinking your hand actually made contact with the scalding water.
or
2. make it look like, or make them think it's boiling at 212F/100C.
either you fake the hand, or you fake the water. but boiling hot water and a bare real human hand - straight up with no tricks WILL always, 100% chance, no exceptions, always, always - scald any human skin on the planet.
WT, it's sortof hard to take your arguments seriously in other threads if you can't see any possible way that you may have been tricked when witnessing this feat. When was this demo, in the 70's? yeah there were alot of supernatural MA claims floating around then. Chinese guys with nominal MA and pretty good magic and acrobatic tricks touring the country post 'Kung Fu' series looking to clean up then go back home.
Posted by: BodhiHuss
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 03:25 PM
Has anyone seen the video of Morihei Ueshiba meditating with his hand on a boiling tea kettle? I couldn't find a link (I can't access youtube from work--maybe someone can find it and post for me), but it appears that his hand is resting on the kettle and you can hear the water boiling. He takes his hand off, and the boiling sound gets quiet. You have to find the clip that has the original sound with it. Very interesting. I still don't know what to make of it.
I'm not taking any sides, just looking for other opinions or comments.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 03:47 PM
Quote:
He is reporting on what he saw.
If someone doesnt believe it then they can state that and find reasons how it could be done. Ed did just that.
He looked for reasons and gave an argument.
With out giving reasons the argument becomes
"The person states they dont believe it because it seems it cant be done"
Jude:
I'm not claiming it did or didn't happen, but since we can't reproduce the results that we know of, i'm skpetical.
However, you and/or wristtwister seem to be claiming it happened, therefore the burden of proof is on you. It really is that simple.
There is no need for a counter argument because you guys have proven absolutely nothing, you've just thrown out some very subjective experiences and opinions and tried to label them as fact, they're not.
For the record, I am fairly open minded about phenomena like this, but I'm certainly not just going to take someone's word for it that it "just happened" anymore than I would someone telling me about sighting the Virgin Mary, it may be possible but the burden of proof is on them, not me.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 07:07 PM
Quote:
Has anyone seen the video of Morihei Ueshiba meditating with his hand on a boiling tea kettle? I couldn't find a link (I can't access youtube from work--maybe someone can find it and post for me), but it appears that his hand is resting on the kettle and you can hear the water boiling. He takes his hand off, and the boiling sound gets quiet. You have to find the clip that has the original sound with it. Very interesting. I still don't know what to make of it.
I'm not taking any sides, just looking for other opinions or comments.
I couldnt say at this moment in time.
Is the adding of chemicals/other fluids to pure water considered a trick?
The point I have been making about what appeared to wristtwister as water boiling is that certain people just dismiss most things with out exploring the subject and finding counter arguments.
I think Ed found a number of good counter arguments.
I believe that wristtwister saw what he saw.
I believe Ed has put forward a good counter argument.
I believe the same thing that wristtwister observed could be repeated using more than likely the same methods that wristtwister saw.
The two questions I ask myself
Can a person put their hands in to what is known as the normal tempreture of boiling water and using mind control not get burned?
Seems most say not.
If it can be done then wristwister reported 100% correctly.
Can the boiling point of pure water be brought down enough to the level a person wouldnt get burned ?
If the answer to last can be found then it isnt a trick.
It is people assuming that the water boiled at normal tempreture.
And wristtwister reported 100% correctly on what he saw.
Still researching the last question.
Just going the opposite direction
The highest boiling point of pure liquid water under normal atmospheric pressure was 200°C. It isnt always 100°C.
There are differences in the tempreture of boiling points depending on what the container consists of where the boiling of water takes place.
Researching further.
Jude
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 09:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmnytr72et4why isn't his hand and the egg steaming after he lifts the egg out?
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/23/08 09:41 PM
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmnytr72et4
why isn't his hand and the egg steaming after he lifts the egg out?
Ed,
I see your point.
That video could be any kind of trick.
It could be any fluid with a lower boiling point.
I can see where your leading to but I am still going to pursue the lower boiling point of water research. Its like this forum. Informative.
Jude
Quote:
WT, it's sortof hard to take your arguments seriously in other threads if you can't see any possible way that you may have been tricked when witnessing this feat. When was this demo, in the 70's? yeah there were alot of supernatural MA claims floating around then. Chinese guys with nominal MA and pretty good magic and acrobatic tricks touring the country post 'Kung Fu' series looking to clean up then go back home.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ed... why not just call me a liar outright, rather than beat around the bush? YOU weren't there, didn't see any of it, and yet are the "expert" disclaiming the demonstration. All I did was report what I saw, and NO, I don't think it was a trick. If you want to see a trick, watch some of the "extreme martial arts" demos... not an old zen master quietly talking to a group of people through an interpreter. I suppose the aescetics who starve themselves for two months in Japan don't do that either... but National Geographic did a special on them once. I think the "record" was 66 days and still survived... of course, that's probably a lie too, so don't pay it any attention.
Not one bit of this has anything to do with the discussion that was the purpose of this thread, which was the safety of practicing pressure points "without training". I haven't made any claims or anything that I could do anything extraordinary... simply that I observed a demonstration... and it went to hell in a handbasket from there.
Most of the students I teach have to get past their "preconceptions" of training to learn anything new. Now, I know why... 
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 07:34 AM
Hi Wristtwister.
I think you (Wristwister) reported 100% correctly what you saw.
I think Ed has made a good counter argument.
I dont think Ed did call you a liar from what I have read more disputing the demonstration. Which from my point of view gives two sides to the argument
From the little research I have done , I think the boiling point of water can be lowered. If so it wasnt a trick.
It can certainly be increased by a vast amount.
Is is people presuming that water only boils at a specific tempreture and look at the reaction it got when reported.
If the guy was a Zen master and this is the case then there might be a lesson about presumption in there as well.
Jude
Still looking in to it.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 08:11 AM
I was ready to put it to rest and the water trick came up again. I believe that you believe what you saw. I don't believe the physics are possible, but I do believe the illusion is possible.
it's connected to this thread since you used it (and firewalking) to make your 'mind over matter' arguments.
let me ask you this - while someone is training, when do they know they are ready to take the plunge into boiling water? They'd have to scald their hand to really know those for sure....it's not like firewalking as you were trying to parallel - with firewalking, everyone is sucessfull on the first attempt.
that kind of thinking is directly related to safty. anyone delusional enough to think they can put their mind over matter and not be burned by 212F water poses a risk to all by spreading that delusion. so it's not about trying to make you out to be a lyer, the argument is about safty in training by not pursuing a delusional path.
getting back to pressure points, heres the fundamental problem with the theory:
First, the agreements - There is no question there are points on the body which hurt alot more than others when hit or pressed. There is also no question that the harder someone is hit ANYWHERE on the body will cause more damage than lighter contact to the same area. no question about strategic leverage points and structural 'fulcrum' points either.
also, I think it's universally accepted that by hours upon years of 2-person practice, a student will gain increasing proficiency and effeciency hitting those key areas reflexively and instictively.
I think any art would agree with those statements - and those statements are independant of personal belief.
The ONLY question in regard to PP theory is the conceptual construct that underlines those various 'points'. but when JUST that aspect is argued by both sides, the other agreed upon aspects are used as observable 'evidence' to make the case for the theory. THAT, by definition, is using false logic by begging it's own question.
about the underlying PP theory - It hinges upon channels of a circulated conceptual force along the pathways thru a conceptual framework of meridians. key points are identified to affect this flow. affecting the flow has various claimed effects.
Accupuncture studies - ALL of them which are not cooked show no difference between accupuncture by a professional or accupuncture from a imitator not knowing which point is which or where. yet both groups of people report to feel better. Thats classic placebo by definition.
Forget about what is or isn't accepted by the medical field - if things are safe enough where they won't be sued, they will 'accept' anything as allowable for treatment, so long as they can make a buck from it.
Putting two and two together, what is more likely: Knowledge of meridian/chi theory enabling a martial artist to effect the opponent more efficiently -or- the hours and years of continued 2-person skill development to effect the opponent efficiently?
my argument is that there wouldn't be a functional difference since both are assumably both doing the hours and years of skill-development. The only difference is their claim of what they attribute it to. If it stood there, then it wouldn't be so much a controversy - everybody has their training method theories. but the meridian folk take it one step further by justification thru the theory. this is when it ceases to be skill and enters the paranormal - there are people claiming that level and many following along it's path in pursuit of a holy grail, but there are none who can demonstrate paranormal ability outside and beyond what someone with many many years experience can also demonstrate.
Thats why I'm saying, following a theory with an unwavering belief that it is infalable and rich with the promises the theory purports, is in need of reality checks now and then.
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 09:20 AM
God, are we still all arguing about the same things? Gotta give you guys 10 out of 10 for dedication...I got bored with all this stuff many many many many many.....many many posts ago. Can't be bothered to read through the whole thread....'ave we discovered anything new????
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 09:53 AM
another point, because logic like this in arguments bugs me:
Quote:
They ignore the firewalking analogy, because it's "different"... but there's a difference between 212 degree boiling water and 1800 degree burning coals... and yet, they persist that him plunging his hand in boiling water can't be done...
Go figure...
so, if someone can invoke enough 'mind over matter' to walk across hot coals, they should have plenty of 'mind over matter' to stick their hand in boiling water? is that your argument that you are having people 'go figure'?
"6-year old walks fire"
http://www.toachieve.com/Pictures.htm
However, if the father had his kid put his hand in boiling water, the father would go to jail for abuse.
how do YOU suppose that figures?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 10:00 AM
thanks for letting us know. maybe we'll see you in another more worthy thread then.
just as an FYI...when conversations are deemed boring, people just stop reading and posting, then the thread dies. I mean, wouldn't it be silly if everyone posted to boring threads saying they have no interest in the conversation?
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 11:14 AM
Quote:
'ave we discovered anything new????
My best guess.
(1)
Positive thought regardless of the reason will work better than negative or no thought on a specific matter.
The following is pure speculation.
(2)
The guy who did the water demonstration was said to be a Zen monk who might or might not have been on a teaching seminar.
Someone stated why would they do this on a M/A
seminar? Zen related to M/A perhaps?
The Zen monk was reported to have had put his hands in to boiling water.
I believe that was seen and correctly reported by Wrist twister.
Certain people presume (presumption) water boils at 100.c and are appalled that someone can believe in what they saw with out giving a constructive argument such as Ed did.
Water can actualy boil up to 200.c
It can also boil at a lower temperature. I think there might be methods that in the scenario Wrist twister reported on the the boiling water might have been at a lower temperature.
Still boiling but not as hot as ""Assumed"" by most people. So it wasnt a trick. It might have been a lesson in Zen?. About presumption?.
Quote from what I believe to be monks at a Zen monastery
In the monastery every occasion for presumption is to be avoided.
It would seem this might be in the teaching of Zen related to truth.
I cant comment any further on this through lack of knowledge about Zen.
Meaning of presumption/ presume
The act of presuming or accepting as true.
Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition
Jude
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 11:33 AM
Cool...have we found any practical use for being able to stick your hands in boiling water? Besides being able to take really hot baths I don't see a lot of use for it. A neat party trick though...could be good for getting the ladies too.
Zen is a very cool path of study BTW!
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 11:59 AM
Quote:
Cool...have we found any practical use for being able to stick your hands in boiling water? Besides being able to take really hot baths I don't see a lot of use for it. A neat party trick though...could be good for getting the ladies too.
Zen is a very cool path of study BTW!
Well it might be that presumption is what this was all about. Or might not be. I dont know anything about Zen.
Perhaps if you have studied Zen you might know of presumption?
The boiling water part might have been part of the lesson?
What is the use of putting hands in to boiling water?
It gets a reaction from people.
More than likely a bigger reaction if the boiling point isnt lowered from any "Joe Public" type person who might be attempting it.
Perhaps to many people assume things and put forward answers with out too much thought ?.
Practical application? I cant think of one. Others more inclined on profit might.
Jude
Ed, you've changed my life!
Since things I observe can't be done, I'm going to have to completely reorganize my thinking. I always thought I lived indoors, but it must be a trick as well... I'm really sitting outside typing on a... whatever. It has words appearing in front of me, but since it has to be a trick... it can't be happening. How'd "they" do that?
I put on a coat when I went out a few minutes ago, but I'm sure that the cold was just an illusion... the 26 degree temperature is really more like 76, so I'm probably sweating instead of shivering. I fixed clam chowder for supper, which was probably chicken, but since it's hot, I probably should eat ice cream to compensate... 76 is entirely too hot to be eating hot soup...
Okay, now Ed, you can tell me... how'd they do the trick? I watched them put the water in the pot, put the pot on the burner, and the zen master stick his hand in it... what did I miss? You can tell me now... I'm mentally and emotionally prepared for your information...
Quote:
so, if someone can invoke enough 'mind over matter' to walk across hot coals, they should have plenty of 'mind over matter' to stick their hand in boiling water?
I already answered that question in stating what I saw done at the demonstration... I'm waiting for the explanation of how they tricked me. Did the zen master have some kind of coating on his hand? Did he hypnotize us? Did he have a hidden air line running into the pot causing it to bubble? How did he dissipate the heat from the burner?
Now that you've convinced me that I didn't see what I saw, you owe me an explanation... at least a plausible theory of how I was tricked. I'd really like to know, so it doesn't happen again.
By the way, Ed... ever go in a steam room?
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 09:14 PM
Wrist,
I don't know how they did it and I'm not going to try and explain it. I do believe that it was a trick. If that makes you feel foolish,sorry.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 09:45 PM
Quote:
I already answered that question in stating what I saw done at the demonstration... I'm waiting for the explanation of how they tricked me. Did the zen master have some kind of coating on his hand? Did he hypnotize us? Did he have a hidden air line running into the pot causing it to bubble? How did he dissipate the heat from the burner?
Now that you've convinced me that I didn't see what I saw, you owe me an explanation... at least a plausible theory of how I was tricked. I'd really like to know, so it doesn't happen again.
By the way, Ed... ever go in a steam room?
Hi Wristtwister.
I know you asked Ed the question but if you allow me to comment.
I dont think it was a trick and I dont think you were tricked. Tricked would mean that it wasnt water or they used a chemical to add for the bubbling and a heat resistance pot. That would seem to me like a complicated set up.
From what I am studying the boiling point of water can be brought down. If it can be brought down enough for a person not to get burnt under the same circumstances as the demonstration you observed, I havent found that yet. Still looking.
It can certainly go up. If it can be brought down then you werent the only person that assumed the demonstration on face value.
So I think everything you saw was true. If the guy was a Zen monk then perhaps the lesson was as I explained. . I am only speculating.
I dont think anybody is doubting what you saw. If you saw it boiling then fine. They are doubting that when he put his hands in to the water it could have been 100 c when boiling.
Jude.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/24/08 09:56 PM
nevermind WT, it was real. defying the laws of physics is possible when you wish upon a star and cross your fingers.
don't cross your big toe though, cuz that will negate the magic.
Brian,
it doesn't make me feel foolish... My take on it is that when you can say that what I saw "didn't happen", then there is an explanation owed to explain it. I certainly don't hold it against anybody that chooses not to believe it... after all, I was there, and they weren't. There are lots of things I can't explain, but I'm sorry... I don't make up stuff just to throw it out there. All I did was report what I saw as a demonstration at a lecture. If somebody wants to refute it, they owe an explanation of how the trick was pulled off.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Safety - 01/25/08 01:07 AM
Quote:
Brian,
it doesn't make me feel foolish... My take on it is that when you can say that what I saw "didn't happen", then there is an explanation owed to explain it. I certainly don't hold it against anybody that chooses not to believe it... after all, I was there, and they weren't. There are lots of things I can't explain, but I'm sorry... I don't make up stuff just to throw it out there. All I did was report what I saw as a demonstration at a lecture. If somebody wants to refute it, they owe an explanation of how the trick was pulled off.
Ever watch David Blaine? How about Chris Angel?
ooooohhhhhh....
Clearly, you and Ed read the classics.
Cicero said "when you have no basis of argument, abuse your opponent".
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/26/08 10:37 PM
I wasn't aware of that quote...but I see you were.
we've traded them back and forth, WT - no sense in trying to take the high road now.
is it ok if we change the subject back to the thread topic now?
I have a question about what was mentioned earlier in regard to 'depth' of a PP strike. can depth (I assume you mean impact penetration) safely be practiced in 2-person drills? The only way I'm familiar is thru impact pad and heavy bagwork training...is there another way to train depth of strikes? Thanks, an no, this isn't a trap - honest question.
Quote:
'depth' of a PP strike
relates to the nerve/blood vessel location in the body and yes, it is an "impact penetration" skill. Some of what I call "area PP" like the carotid sinus merely require a slap to damn near kill somebody, and I don't allow anybody to poke around on people's necks much. That's what the "training Bobs" are for, and you can practice location strikes on them just as well as a living, breathing partner, and get the same results when you actually use the points for real.
You can also practice getting the correct strike angles, etc. without much alarm over hitting the windpipe, etc. by accident when trying to strike throat points. The Japanese systems usually use fists, ippon ken, "phoenix eye", etc. for striking them, but some of the Chinese systems use different "hand orientations", such as "crossed fingers" and "claw" hand striking methods and each one demands skill training in how to penetrate to the target. Since you don't believe in chi, I'll leave it at that. Let's just say that "depth of penetration" is workable using the training Bobs... they just don't give you much feedback. Your ukes will, however, if and when they wake up.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: Safety - 01/27/08 02:40 AM
Quote:
Brian,
it doesn't make me feel foolish... My take on it is that when you can say that what I saw "didn't happen", then there is an explanation owed to explain it. I certainly don't hold it against anybody that chooses not to believe it... after all, I was there, and they weren't. There are lots of things I can't explain, but I'm sorry... I don't make up stuff just to throw it out there. All I did was report what I saw as a demonstration at a lecture. If somebody wants to refute it, they owe an explanation of how the trick was pulled off.
This is the most backwards logic i've ever seen, even on internet forums. It's you that saw and believe in the trick or demo or whatever, therefore it's your responsibility to prove it if you want people to accept bending the laws of physics as reality, why aren't you guys getting this?
It's the same as with anything else, if you are saying "hey believe in this" it is your job to provide a compelling reason why anyone should, and so far you haven't even come close.
No one needs to try and disprove a guy not getting burned by hot water because we could all go put it to the test right now, and guess what i'll bet we'd all come back scalded. But hey, feel free to experiment I guess....
Do we owe people who are convinced that UFO's abducted them an explanation of why they're wrong? NO of course not, it is in their hands to prove that they were abducted.
What about the Jehovah's Witnesses at your door, do you need to disprove their arguments, no; that's why they're at your door, to attempt to prove their arguments to you.
I really am astonished at arguments like this, you are essentially accusing people of being closed minded for not accepting at face value that someone did something which is normally impossible, why on earth would you expect people would feel compelled to believe this?
Quote:
No one needs to try and disprove a guy not getting burned by hot water because we could all go put it to the test right now, and guess what i'll bet we'd all come back scalded. But hey, feel free to experiment I guess....
Zach, the "test of boiling water" was a common test during midievil times, and used as a witchcraft trial. Clearly, there were people who survived it without damage, or they would have been declared witches...
As for backwards logic, let's try this... I was throwing a ball with my dog in the back yard yesterday. When I threw the ball, the dog chased it... but she brought back a squirrel toy that we also throw for her.
Now, all I did was report what happened and what I saw. If you argue "you threw her favorite toy", you'd be wrong. If you argue, "you didn't actually throw a toy", you'd be wrong. If you argue, "she didn't know which toy you threw", you'd be wrong. Those were things I actually participated in... I picked up a toy, and I threw it.
Now, I'm reporting that the dog brought back something different from what I threw. She brought back her favorite toy... but how do I know it's her favorite? I'm guessing.
Now, I could be lying about the whole incident, or I could be accurately reporting what I did and what I saw... which is exactly what I did with the zen demonstration. You begin to argue that the dog actually brought back the toy I threw... or that I didn't actually throw anything... or I never went in the backyard to play with the dog.
Now, in neither case were you there to disprove anything... and in both cases, I accurately reported what I saw. If there was a "trick" involved in it, I have no knowledge of how it was done. It all looked pretty cut and dried to me.
I wouldn't try to tell you what went on at you last family reunion, and when you argue logically you make your case and someone else makes theirs. It's up to the reader to make up their mind who's accurate.
This isn't a "UFO" story... it's simply a demonstration that I observed back in the 1960's. You can believe it or not... I don't really care. I'm not lobbying either way.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/27/08 12:30 PM
Quote:
Zach, the "test of boiling water" was a common test during midievil times, and used as a witchcraft trial. Clearly, there were people who survived it without damage, or they would have been declared witches...
oh boy. you bring up the water ordeal.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/water-ordeal.html
Quote:
Then let the hand that is to be placed in water be washed with soap and let it be carefully examined whether it be sound; and before it is thrust in let the priest say: I adjure thee, O vessel, by the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and by the holy resurection and by the tremendous day of judgement, and by the four evangelists, that is this man is guilty of this crime, either by deed or by consent, let the water boil violently, and do thou O vessel, tuen and swing.
After this let the man who is to be tried plunge in his hand and afterwards let it be immediately sealed up. After the ordeal let him take a drink of holy water. Up to the time of the decision regarding the ordeal [a period of three days was allowed to elapse before the hand was examined] it is good thing to mix salt and holy water with all his food and drink
so now you are saying it's not 'mind over matter' but more a question of your innocence which protects you?
and by the way, have you ever heard of anyone being found 'innocent' during superstitious-led 'trials'? the accusation itself was the trial. the ordeal was the 'proof' to witnesses in order to feel some sort of higher justice was served.
With all due respect, you have got to be kidding me.
I wasn't saying anything Ed, other than the fact that the ordeal of boiling water was once a common practice. I wasn't passing judgement on what it's merits or faults were, or how the "innocent" were protected or the guilty scalded... merely that it was not an "uncommon" practice. The midievil practice was to have a stone or ring retrieved from the pot of water.
I was wondering why you didn't question
their methods? Apparently, if a zen master does it, it's a trick... if it's used as a test for witchcraft, it's okay...
Skepticism at its best...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/27/08 05:54 PM
huh? are you feeling ok? proving mind over matter thru a water ordeal test is no more true than a zen master proving his innocense with the same test.
people weren't expected to pass (unless of course they confessed or converted or otherwise submitted before having to take the test). thats the whole point of it's idiocy: selective discrimination by false methodology based on superstition. crowds didn't show up to see innocent people take a test and set free.
see: Monty Python's Holy Grail for an illustration of the idiocy of this logic. hopefully you'll get the humor. a hint to enjoy it more is to first understand they are being sarcastic in their depiction of medieval justice....but it really wasn't that far off the mark if you read a little about medieval systems of justice. you probably would have been an excellent judge during the 14th century.
question medieval methods? why would I want to do that? they only worked by controling fear and awe of superstitions. it's a wonder they even had the engineering sense to get castles standing by setting blocks on each other.
'trial by water ordeal' as a testament to mind over matter. lol good lord.
you guys can have the rest of the thread. I tried bringing it back on topic twice and failed. btw Grady, thank-you for answering the serious question earlier.
Ed,
When trying to convince a person of something, being right and/or having a strong arguement are relatively unimportant. What matters most is whether the person WANTS to believe you. If they do not, if your idea robs of them of some sacred belief (however irrational or silly), they will simply refuse to believe you.
This is what is happening now with wristtwister.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/27/08 10:20 PM
it's not about that, and it's not personal. it's about refuting irresponsible info/ancedotes and challenging the non-critical thought process.
I realize it is not personal. BTW, I am thrilled to see a fellow skeptical rationalist on this board.
But anyone with a non-rational thought process is, in an odd way, protected by it.
A rationalist cares about what is true; he or she feels compelled to bow to reality.
A non-rationalist only wants to keep believing whatever makes them happy and will go to amazing lengths to resist losing their illusions.
But good luck trying (Lord knows I have!).
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 12:22 AM
skeptical rationalists have a curse: by our own logic we have to always consider the possibility that WE are wrong.
Congratulations... I'm sure only "true thinkers" should be allowed to exist in society... You guys going to be through patting each other on the back sometime soon?
Since you're so proud of being skeptical rationalists, it might help everyone else to see your agenda...
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.htmlWhile it lauds the accomplishments of such skeptics as Darwin and Carl Sagan, even their agenda left open the option to actually see a new idea...
Ed said:
Quote:
skeptical rationalists have a curse: by our own logic we have to always consider the possibility that WE are wrong.
... it just never seems to happen, so you might as well take that out of the equation.
Quote:
But anyone with a non-rational thought process is, in an odd way, protected by it.
Perhaps, it's that people with faith in others doesn't have to see their scars to know they had an injury...
Quote:
A rationalist cares about what is true; he or she feels compelled to bow to reality.
No, they're only interested in "being right"... and will argue until hell freezes over to make themselves appear right... never considering what Ed so clearly understands but never admits (unless done with some snide comment or snarl).
Quote:
A non-rationalist only wants to keep believing whatever makes them happy and will go to amazing lengths to resist losing their illusions.
I think that your operative word in that statement is "illusions"... for nothing in science would ever be discovered if "possibilities" weren't examined... exactly what all you "wonderfully skeptical people" claim to do, but never get around to doing. Even Carl Sagan used to say on his television specials... "consider the possibilities"...
This entire rant by you and Ed is disputing something I said that I observed over 45 years ago. In true skeptical fashion, you clearly think it was a trick. I'm willing to say "fine, tell me how it was done"... because I was there, and you weren't . I saw the whole thing, watched the preparations for it, and listened to the lecture.
Your "proof" is simply stating that "it can't be done"... and then going on to quote all kinds of statistical scientific information that I already knew. You have to have some knowledge of thermodynamics to do high-pressure boiler design, so superheated fluids, and heat transfer are familiar to me. Just to add to your arsenal, water is between 30 and 60 times more conductive than most heat transfer mediums...
So now, tell me how the "trick" was done...
All I did was report what I saw happen... I didn't embellish it, and the only reason I believe it is because I saw it. That's not "irrational"... it's simply reporting what went on.
When you guys get through telling us how smart you are, how about offering me an explanation of how the trick was done... I've been waiting endlessly for that information.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 07:42 AM
Quote:
how about offering me an explanation of how the trick was done...
I've already tried. you want to believe 'mind over matter' in a literal sense - no matter what. evidenced by you citing a firewalking example (which is a psychological task of mind over yourself) to make your case, which tells me you don't see the difference.
the scope of your misunderstanding deepens with the water ordeal. but this thread is a living example of how logic from a medieval justice system could survive for so long by appealing to people's conditioned beliefs and socially instilled superstitions.
try this: imagine a man in a clown suit doing the boiling hot water trick - then after making you your favorite balloon animal. instead of it being a "wise old zen monk" or however the person visiting was built up in your psyche. does the view of what happened change?
you bet it would. a clown does tricks, we learn and are conditioned. A Zen monk, we take seriously - they don't do tricks, our mental conditioning tells us.
so if a clown comes out in a Zen preist's garb and we are told by people we trust that this guy is a Zen preist - we are bound to think of his tricks as something other than tricks.
same exact thing with what the accupuncture test show. take a real accupuncturist and a sham accupunturist - compare their patients feedback and there is no significant difference in the % of people 'feeling better'.
how does that work? perception is people's reality.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 11:07 AM
Quote:
So now, tell me how the "trick" was done...
All I did was report what I saw happen... I didn't embellish it, and the only reason I believe it is because I saw it. That's not "irrational"... it's simply reporting what went on.
Hi
I think that was stated and I agree.
When you guys get through telling us how smart you are, how about offering me an explanation of how the trick was done... I've been waiting endlessly for that information.
Well I think Ed did attempt to explain it. I am still looking in to it. But you are correct. Someone merely stating it cant be done with out some attempt at an explanation doesn't hold much water.
Hot or cold.
Read that the boiling point of water can come down about 7 degrees c from app 100 c. So slowly getting there. Still to hot though.
Jude
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 12:08 PM
Lol...so Ed is supposed to refute this thing you supposedly saw 45 years ago, c'mon man...he doesn't even need to be a skeptic to doubt the weak case you've made so far, he just needs to be less credulous than you.
Seriously where is the mental disconnect here that makes you think someone owes you an explanation for phenomena that only you saw (as far as people involved in the conversation) 45 years ago?
Speculation of how to do the trick or anything else would be ridiculous, we don't have any information other than your (obviously biased) report of an event, it would be nonsense to speculate on that kind of thing.
I really don't understand why this is important anyway, you can't do it, so unless you believe you can train yourself to do it relatively easily, who cares?
Like Ed or someone mentioned, I guess you could take really hot baths.
Quote:
so Ed is supposed to refute this thing you supposedly saw 45 years ago
Oh, no..no..no..no..no... you don't get away with that one.
I reported exactly what I saw, and how the demonstration was prepared. I never offered one bit of "this is how it was done... or anything else other than my observation of the event. You, and Ed and Fileboy are the ones claiming "it was a trick"...
Offering Brian's suggestion "I don't believe it"... is not a proof of anything. Telling me all the tripe you guys have quoted and requoted still isn't any kind of proof to me that you have any more information than I do... and as a matter of fact, are merely making it up as you go along... since you didn't observe anything, know nothing of the demonstration other than what I said, and are parroting your supposed in-depth knowledge of thermodynamics.
I readily admit that I have no idea how the zen master did what he did... but I saw what I saw... and it's been reported accurately. Quote:
he doesn't even need to be a skeptic to doubt the weak case you've made so far, he just needs to be less credulous than you.
So, I'm to assume that his opinion of events he didn't see, has no knowledge of, and is passing judgement on, is more credible than an eyewitness account of the event? That speaks volumes about credibility right there.
Quote:
Speculation of how to do the trick or anything else would be ridiculous, we don't have any information other than your (obviously biased) report of an event, it would be nonsense to speculate on that kind of thing.
That's the first credible thing you've said... but, again, all I'm saying is that I reported accurately what occurred. You seem to think I have some bias about it, but until someone can actually offer a reasonable explanation of how the "trick" was pulled off, I'll take first hand visual experience over supposition every time.
Quote:
I really don't understand why this is important anyway, you can't do it, so unless you believe you can train yourself to do it relatively easily, who cares?
I readily admit that I can't do it... and I readily admit that you or Ed or anyone else has not offered a plausible explanation of how what you claim is a trick was done. The only thing you get right is that it isn't important.
You guys are so hell-bent on being spoilers that you don't see your own faults in reasoning. Reasonable skepticism is a healthy, invigorating pastime... obsessing on it is pretty telling about personality traits.
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 01:11 PM
Quote:
You guys are so hell-bent on being spoilers that you don't see your own faults in reasoning. Reasonable skepticism is a healthy, invigorating pastime... obsessing on it is pretty telling about personality traits.
Oooo you bitch! That is subtle, yet scathing! I like!
Posted by: jude33
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 02:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:
You guys are so hell-bent on being spoilers that you don't see your own faults in reasoning. Reasonable skepticism is a healthy, invigorating pastime... obsessing on it is pretty telling about personality traits.
Oooo you bitch! That is subtle, yet scathing! I like!
Personality traits aside,(thats a science in itself) nobody knows yet if a way of doing it can be found . I think the key word is "yet".
Me-thinks (for anybody who doesnt know what me-thinks means, it is Old English for "I think", or a better explanation "I had a thought" ) this argument wont reach an end.
Quote:
he doesn't even need to be a skeptic to doubt the weak case you've made so far, he just needs to be less credulous than you.
Zach. I dont think wristtwister realy made a case. More of an observation. So to disprove that the water was boiling at 100c ( give or take 7 degrees) might need explaining.
His observations arent to be proved or disproved, so I dont consider that a case. What would happen if water could reach boiling point at a much lower tempreture with the same scenario he observed ?
Jude
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 02:59 PM
and here I was actually starting to feel sorry for you.
I see you are taking on a more semantic argument as oppossed to literally believing 'mind over matter' can make skin impervious to boiling water. I consider that progress. I'm proud of you Grady - you took a big step today...
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: Safety - 01/28/08 05:55 PM
Quote:
You guys are so hell-bent on being spoilers that you don't see your own faults in reasoning. Reasonable skepticism is a healthy, invigorating pastime... obsessing on it is pretty telling about personality traits.
Please, don't change the subject to our/my personalities, you're just making it worse. Do you fancy yourself a psychologist now as well as a philosopher?
Bottom line: you can't prove that someone broke the laws of physics, so none of us needs to prove anything to you, the ball is in your court - and you dropped it.
I wouldn't have even bothered posting in the thread, but I couldn't let it go after I saw you actually claiming that people who don't believe or accept your version of events need to somehow "disprove" you, that is the ridiculous part, and that is the part I take issue with.
If you want to believe he somehow made his hand impervious to injury then you're welcome to believe that.
However certainly don't expect anyone else to believe it without some kind of empirical evidence, which your own subjective memories and opinions most defnitely are not.
I don't know anything about thermodynamics, I don't need to...anyone can see that what you are claiming is at the very least not a repeatable, observable phenomenon and that really is the bottom line.
If you think it is then you prove me wrong. I say that if you stick your hand in boiling water it gets burnt.
You can go test my claim right now and it should have similar results for pretty much everyone trying it, the same cannot be said of somehow avoiding injury with one's hand in boiling water.
I don't need to have special scientific knowledge to doubt what you are saying.
Quote:
Please, don't change the subject to our/my personalities
I wasn't changing the subject, just commenting... how many personalities do you have?
Quote:
Do you fancy yourself a psychologist now as well as a philosopher?
Could be, maybe I'm writing a dissertation on obsessive skepticism.
Quote:
Bottom line: you can't prove that someone broke the laws of physics
Where did I make that claim?
Quote:
If you want to believe he somehow made his hand impervious to injury then you're welcome to believe that.
Where did I say that?
Quote:
I don't know anything about thermodynamics, I don't need to...anyone can see that what you are claiming is at the very least not a repeatable, observable phenomenon and that really is the bottom line.
Where did I say it was?
Quote:
If you think it is then you prove me wrong.
No thanks.
Quote:
I say that if you stick your hand in boiling water it gets burnt.
Highly probable...
Quote:
You can go test my claim right now and it should have similar results for pretty much everyone trying it, the same cannot be said of somehow avoiding injury with one's hand in boiling water.
That's probably true.
Quote:
I don't need to have special scientific knowledge to doubt what you are saying.
Probably not... but it would have been more interesting if you had actually disagreed with what I did say instead of how you chose to interpret it.