Spirit vs Energy


by Iacchus32
Tags: energy, spirit
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#1
Apr5-04, 02:00 AM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
From the Dionysus Forums' thread, Spirit vs Energy ...

So what is spirit versus energy, if in fact they're not one and the same? Could it be that spirit is a more subtle form of energy or, does it transcend the realm of energy entirely? It would seem to me that if energy was not immaterial and spirit was, then this is the only option we have available. However, if we understand that spirit does exist, then there must be a means by which it can interact with energy and everything else. In which case I would be inclined to say it was a more subtle form of energy.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
SensaBubble: It's a bubble, but not as we know it (w/ video)
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language
Royce
Royce is offline
#2
Apr5-04, 01:15 PM
P: 1,476
My understanding is that there is spiritual energy as well as physical or material energy. Consciousness as in the Universal Conscious is the interactive interface between the two.
selfAdjoint
selfAdjoint is offline
#3
Apr5-04, 02:45 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
The problem with this is that energy has a well defined meaning in physics and satisfies well established laws like [tex] e^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 [/tex]. But "spiritual energy" is just a vague manner of speaking and has no empirical content at all that I can see. So it's really poor form to use the same term in both cases. Spiritual talkers should use ch'i or some other term that isn't already in use.

confutatis
#4
Apr5-04, 04:02 PM
P: n/a

Spirit vs Energy


Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
The problem with this is that energy has a well defined meaning in physics and satisfies well established laws like [tex] e^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 [/tex]. But "spiritual energy" is just a vague manner of speaking and has no empirical content at all that I can see. So it's really poor form to use the same term in both cases. Spiritual talkers should use ch'i or some other term that isn't already in use.
The word 'energy' existed way before physics was invented, and the meaning has always been vague. Now those physicists come, borrow a word from the common man's vocabulary, change its meaning into something it was never intended, and then accuse the common man of misusing the word. This doesn't sound right; can somebody explain what I'm missing here?
Janitor
Janitor is offline
#5
Apr5-04, 04:43 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,190
The quantum energy of cosmic crystal vibrations in the colon cleanses it of toxins so that we are free to pursue our past lives through the art of rebirthing, reincarnating our souls with the color purple which emanates from the center of the earth, where the number 26 lives and directs our lives.
Atrayo
Atrayo is offline
#6
Apr10-04, 10:41 AM
P: 46
Hello Iacchus32,

Spirit if comprehended as a energy field, would delve more so into the realm of ethereal properties. That which is not, or can not be fully acknowledged by the physical / matter oriented sciences. Thusly those who wield such ethereal energies of Spirit would be the ones to inquire with regarding it's properties.

Such persons are often cast aside as foolishness by the physical scientists more or less on a majority basis. Since physical scientists have yet to quantify the properties of ethereal realities. Unless you consider the earnest probing of parapyschologists into this field of Spirit using methodology of the physical sciences. It is almost akin of forcing a square peg (physicality) into a circle hole (ethereality).

Energy in whatever form that it is harnessed and comprehended has always been in an intangible form. Where through whatever dynamics it is converted into a quasi form for it's usage. Much the same can be said of Spirit.
Dlanorrenrag
Dlanorrenrag is offline
#7
Apr10-04, 11:35 AM
P: 32
Is the string theory many physicists are presently so enamored with physics, or is it aesthetics and philosophy, with overtones about values? If we are just rationalizing aesthetic values, why cannot Occam's Razor be applied just as well to rationalize a sort of interconnected universal membrane to record all categories of phenomenal vibrating of strings that might be supposed to constitute the most fundamental material that comprises our universe?

Why could not strings metaphorically be considered to constitute both the wiring of Nature as well as the synapses of God? If ultimate strings constitute synapses of God, could not the Mind of God have grasped from timeless experience of associative patterns how to appreciate not only a holistic perspective but also the categories of both phenomenal and epiphenomenal perspectives of existence that are experienced by each of us? If our finite brains can pull together, associate, and interpret sensations of categories of phenomenal patterns as epiphenomenal experiences, why not the Mind of God?

Was not Occam’s Razor originally applied by a monk while dealing with spiritual values? In terms of physical aesthetics, how is it any more difficult to believe that there is only one universal infinity of existence accompanied by an infinite, active, cohabiting, self aware mind, rather than that there is an infinity of separate universal infinities driven only by a united but unconscious survivalist function? Is either concept any more approachable by a human mind? Or, at this level of aesthetic consideration, does adoption of one or the other of such approaches simply signal an underlying, unspoken assumption, disposition, or faith?
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#8
Apr11-04, 07:53 AM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
The problem with this is that energy has a well defined meaning in physics and satisfies well established laws like [tex] e^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 [/tex]. But "spiritual energy" is just a vague manner of speaking and has no empirical content at all that I can see. So it's really poor form to use the same term in both cases. Spiritual talkers should use ch'i or some other term that isn't already in use.
Do you realize that if Science didn't allow us to make sense of the natural world, that we would still be very much in the search for the spiritual nature of things? Now I'm not saying Science is necessarily a bad thing but, are you that sure that human beings aren't in fact spiritual by default?
Rader
Rader is offline
#9
Apr11-04, 12:49 PM
P: 739
Quote Quote by selfAdjoint
The problem with this is that energy has a well defined meaning in physics and satisfies well established laws like [tex] e^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 [/tex]. But "spiritual energy" is just a vague manner of speaking and has no empirical content at all that I can see. So it's really poor form to use the same term in both cases. Spiritual talkers should use ch'i or some other term that isn't already in use.
selfAdjoint, stating that spirit vs energy has a isomorphic essence, takes nothing away from either a idealistic or materialistic views. What is then the essence of electromagnetic energy? What is the essence of spiritual energy or ch'i?

Is there really empirical content, of either?
Dlanorrenrag
Dlanorrenrag is offline
#10
Apr11-04, 01:04 PM
P: 32
I do not think there is a problem with science or with a theory of determinacy. I just view existence as being a coin of two sides, neither of which need be inconsistent with the other, simply depending upon the purpose of the perspective at the time.

One side is Nature, science, balanced forces, and determinacy. The other side is God, values, art, and free will. When I want to leverage control over forces, I look to laws of Nature. When I want to make moral choices, I rationalize based on an inspiration of God.

It may well be that logic cannot be applied to prove a necessity for faith, either in God or in moral values. But, is logic able to demonstrate its own inadequacy to disprove generalized faith?

Experience seems to teach both the inevitability and necessity of faith. What value choices can we consistently rationalize, apart from notions that are based on faith---regardless of whether that faith is merely an unarticulated or socialized construct? As to necessity or helpfulness, I would refer to the experience of John Stuart Mill, an astute fellow. Regardless of proof, merely leaving open the possibility that we are connected by grounds for holding moral values might be helpful in fostering a view of the Golden Rule as more a matter of enlightened self interest than a matter of selflessness.

Assuming the universe offsets balancing forces, why suppose that we must lack even vicarious participation in effecting choices? We cannot very well disprove a perspective of synchronized movement, manifested through all matter, including ourselves, as an expression of a higher will in which our expressions are participatory, can we? If not, such a perspective would seem in no way to need to step on science’s toes.
Dayle Record
Dayle Record is offline
#11
Apr14-04, 07:36 PM
P: 464
I think that spirit is energy, after it has been reformatted by individual neurochemistry. I think that energy is basic to all situations, and spirit is an intrinsic characteristic of life. I am sure that we are not aquainted with all forms that life takes, but we are able to manipulate some energies at large for our use, and some energies manipulate us for their use. I see humans as a conglomerate of receptor sites, many of which we have yet to discover. This next set of findings will be Oganophysics, hopefully it won't become a weapons system, or some sort of ecstatic disco toy. There are many who claim that once we have organo-formatted energy for long enough, we have claim to our creation of self, and we will persist in an energetic state, (spirit state) after the human interface ceases to live. Some religions teach that we are body snatchers, that we wait to inhabit the unborn, vie for the unborn, to share a life with a human body. One of my favorite discussions in the works of Carlos Castaneda, dealt with both the impersonal, and predatory nature of the Universe.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
In the spirit of Xmas... General Physics 2
Religion vs. team spirit General Discussion 43
Is there a spirit world? General Discussion 62
So What is Spirit? General Discussion 50
The Nature of Spirit General Discussion 179