Energy

North Cali Sammy said:
Are we nothing more than energy expressing itself as an individual? This goes with the idea that we do not have a life, but are life itself.
Click to expand...

The ancient concept or general category of esoteric "energy" is an item of folk belief systems. It's vastly distinct from the modern meaning of the word as employed in physics. Due to the confusion it generates, a good case can be made that the word "energy" should not even be recruited for English translations of old Western and Eastern spiritual/mystical terms, and contemporary spin-offs of those.

But Greek "energeia" etymologically goes back thousands of years before the advent of truly methodological science, so it's arguably difficult to justify the latter having exclusive proprietorship of the term. At any rate, "esoteric energy" is what it should be referred to in these spiritual, mystical, alternative medicine, New Age, non-Western philosophy contexts. The adjective should not be removed or left off (to avoid misunderstanding).
_
 
Last edited:
North Cali Sammy said:
Sure it is, and the result of the Big Bang, if you believe that theory.
Click to expand...
Energy is not a thing; it is an accounting system - a property of other objects.


C'mon man, none of this is philosophy. This is just stringing words together with "is".

Red is blue. Up is down.

"is" here is a weasel word - a word or phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated ... Using weasel words may allow one to later deny (aka weasel out of) any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place.


Why not post in Free Thoughts? This is what it's for.
 
Last edited:
North Cali Sammy said:
Sounds magical. Who created the "Systems"?
Click to expand...
That’s an entirely different matter and not relevant to the reason why what you wrote is nonsensical.

As I’ve already explained, energy is a property of a system. The universe is a system. As such, the universe can have energy. But it can’t be energy.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Energy is not a thing; it is an accounting system - a property of other objects.


C'mon man, none of this is philosophy. This is just stringing words together with "is".

Red is blue. Up is down.

"is" here is a weasel word - a word or phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated ... Using weasel words may allow one to later deny (aka weasel out of) any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place.


Why not post in Free Thoughts? This is what it's for.
Click to expand...
I think energy is very real.
Atomic-Bomb.jpg
 
exchemist said:
That’s an entirely different matter and not relevant to the reason why what you wrote is nonsensical.

As I’ve already explained, energy is a property of a system. The universe is a system. As such, the universe can have energy. But it can’t be energy.
Click to expand...
Do you consider your consciousness to be matter or energy?
 
North Cali Sammy said:
Do you consider your consciousness to be matter or energy?
Click to expand...
Neither. It is yet another category mistake to treat consciousness as an entity. It is an activity, an activity of the brain. This activity requires energy of course, provided by the metabolic processes of brain cells when supplied with oxygen and nutrients by the blood.
 
North Cali Sammy said:
I think energy is very real.
Atomic-Bomb.jpg
Click to expand...
Oh yes, it’s a real enough property, in the sense we can calculate it and follow its evolution, in a given system. Just like momentum, or mass, or electric charge.

But what you see in that photo is not energy. It is incandescent matter that has a lot of energy, in this case because it is hot.
 
exchemist said:
Neither. It is yet another category mistake to treat consciousness as an entity. It is an activity, an activity of the brain. This activity requires energy of course, provided by the metabolic processes of brain cells when supplied with oxygen and nutrients by the blood.
Click to expand...
That's a very clinical view. The word "activity" doesn't really do it justice, in my opinion.
 
North Cali Sammy said:
That's a very clinical view. The word "activity" doesn't really do it justice, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, what strikes me about consciousness is the parallel with the operating system of a computer. When it is powered up, there is activity in the hardware, due to the programming of the software, taking in informational inputs, processing them and giving outputs. And that is what a conscious brain does. When one is asleep or anaesthetised one's brain doesn't do these things or only a small proportion of them, at a basic level sufficient to sustain life. And a dead brain does none of that at all.

I think a lot of us have grown up cultural prisoners of Cartesan dualism: the idea of a mind-body separation; physical vs mental. It's embedded in the way we tend to think. But actually it is a mistake. To me, thinking of consciousness as an activity of the physical brain makes sense of a lot of issues.

As for it being a clinical view, possibly it is. I had time to reflect on this when my wife was dying in the hospital. It was lovely to think her consciousness might somehow survive. It seemed such a waste, of knowledge, intelligence, humour and love. But frankly, when you watch it happen, the body runs down, the heartbeat slows and stops, flow of oxygenated blood to the brain ceases, and....that's it. So for me, activity is the key insight about consciousness.
 
Last edited:
North Cali Sammy said:
That's a very clinical view. The word "activity" doesn't really do it justice, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
No it is just how words are used in science. Some words carry very specific meaning because they are conveying a very specific concept.
That language involves mathematics because those terms are very specific, not as rigourous as actual Mathematics, physics is in the ball park though.
At least watching from the bleachers.
 
North Cali Sammy said:
What would your response be to the idea that the universe is conscious?
Click to expand...
It reminds me of Carl Sagan's quote, (something to the effect of) "We are the universe's way of trying to understand itself."

Then I would ask what test you would devise to test this hypothesis? And what difference would it make if it was?

For the record, I think Exchemist is correct. Consciousness is an activity of the brain.
 
gmilam said:
It reminds me of Carl Sagan's quote, (something to the effect of) "We are the universe's way of trying to understand itself."

Then I would ask what test you would devise to test this hypothesis? And what difference would it make if it was?

For the record, I think Exchemist is correct. Consciousness is an activity of the brain.
Click to expand...
Carl might have recognized that we are an integral part of the universe. I won't argue exchemist's point. It is clinically correct.
 
gmilam said:
I notice you skipped the second part... How to test this hypothesis, and what difference it makes.
Click to expand...
You don't need to test it. You are the product of the cosmos and you are conscious. Once you realize that, you might be able to recapture the wonder and joy of being alive, as when you were young. The whole point of life is being alive. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top