Chris McKinley wrote:Conn,
As to how much force is necessary in order to elicit pain, that is not only a separate question, but one for which the answer is not consistent even within a single individual, nevermind over an entire population. IOW, too subjective to answer meaningfully.
Chris McKinley wrote:Again, that force, called the applied force or Fapp in my explanation above, is either sufficiently large enough or it is not.
All this does raise the question then as to why when a push is generated from different areas of the body one (both pushed and pusher) can tell the difference. It is easy to note if someone's push is "army" or coming from elsewhere in their body.
There is also a remarkable difference in the penetrative quality between such strikes done either way.
Chris McKinley wrote:Sorry to burst a bubble, but subjective intent has absolutely no bearing on the physics of the situation in and of itself. We've got to be careful not to mix esoteric metaphors into a discussion of the actual physics. What congruent intent may do is to facilitate the firing of all of the appropriate motor units without either hesitation or antagonistic tension due to incongruent firing. It is the improvement in motor syncrony that produces a more efficient (and therefore potentially slightly more powerful) strike. Intent itself, being a subjective abstract, has no effect. Of course, here's where the lumpkins in the peanut gallery usually introduce pseudo-science into the mix via an erroneous understanding of quantum physics by stating that intent causes quantum phenomena which result very specifically in what can only be called telekinesis. Unfortunately, that's not how it works and telekinesis, to all of our consternation, does not exist.
Interloper wrote:Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of "intent" as it is used in internal body training ... ... [yada yada yada] .
Interloper wrote:
As for what constitutes "insightful information," that is entirely subjective. I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule. Why would anyone want to participate further in such a "discussion"?
Chris McKinley wrote: "Sorry to burst a bubble, but subjective intent has absolutely no bearing on the physics of the situation in and of itself. We've got to be careful not to mix esoteric metaphors into a discussion of the actual physics."
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of "intent" as it is used in internal body training. A lot of research has been ongoing in the past decade on how the brain functions -- and which part(s) -- to translate non-verbal but willful intent into firing neurons and muscular action. It's nothing new.
Intent isn't "visualizing,"....
I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests