Who Can Claim Ownership of the Term Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the various interpretations and claims surrounding the term "energy" across different fields, particularly contrasting scientific definitions with metaphysical and spiritual uses. Participants explore the historical context of the term and its implications in both scientific and philosophical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the term "energy" in science refers specifically to the capacity to do work and serves as a mathematical tool, while others use it in a metaphysical context to describe properties of consciousness and existence.
  • One participant cites Paul Davies, who suggests that the concept of energy has become so ingrained in everyday language that its abstract nature is often overlooked.
  • Historical references are made to Aristotle's concept of energeia, which relates to movement and change, indicating that philosophical interpretations of energy predate scientific ones.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the scientific community does not ascribe causative power to energy, viewing it instead as a bookkeeping tool, contrasting this with metaphysical claims that energy is the source of creation.
  • There is mention of "vis viva," or living force, as a historical concept that some spiritually inclined thinkers equate with life and consciousness, though its relevance in modern science is questioned.
  • One participant shares a personal anecdote illustrating the confusion that can arise when different definitions of energy are conflated in discussions about life and existence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the legitimacy of various definitions of energy, with no consensus on which interpretation should prevail. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions for understanding existence and creation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of definitions and the potential for misunderstanding when different contexts are not clearly distinguished. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the philosophical versus scientific interpretations of energy.

  • #31
Originally posted by Zantra
And what about the subconscious mind? The same concepts do not always apply there, yet it manfests itsself through the conscious mind. Certain things are hard coded into the brain and reside in the subconcious. Certainly base insticts reside there. And does MRI show those responses? As they are hard coded responses and do not require a great deal of "thinking" or electrical activity in the brain, as they are genetic responses to certain things, such as hunger, fear, jealousy, and anger.

these "hard-coded" instincts are still observable in the brain.


What if the base insticts, particularly related to death, were either masked by the higher brain functions in repsonse to death, or so low, that it was practically undetectable?

well, an interesting theory. but flawed in many areas. first, and most obvious, is that no observations would be possible. second, it makes no predictions. third, it describes nothing. (yet, anyways)

but i doubt that this scenerio is possible. our instruments are very sensitive and would pick up almost any activity in the brain. it would have to be incredibly low (or high) for it to be completely undetectable.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I'm back. Alittle disappointed to see this tread only 3 pages long. It must have been later than I realized.

Another thought about life violating the 2nd law. I've read that pound for pound the human body radiates more energy that the sun. Even a blade of grass takes raw disorganized energy in the form of sunlight and CO2 and organizes into incredable complex organizations of matter with high energy levels.
With this in mind and the intuitive sense that the mind is not wholly contained within the electrochemical processes of the physical brain, I cannot help but believe that there is some life force, energy, spirit, soul, or essence that lives on beyound the physical death of the body. Where it goes and what happens to it is uknown and open for everyone to decide what to believe for themselves.
Another question that comes to mind as I write is what is it about a living body that changes or leaves that is becomes once again a "vat" of inert chemicals? Death itself is just as mysterious and unknown as life.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
500
Views
94K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
45K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K