I understand that language is a flexible thing. The same word can mean different things in different contexts. Take the word "energy" (definition from
dictionary.com):
en·er·gy n. pl. en·er·gies 1. The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power. See Synonyms at
strength.
2. a. Exertion of vigor or power: a project requiring a great deal of time and energy.
b. Vitality and intensity of expression: a speech delivered with energy and emotion.
3. a. Usable heat or power: Each year Americans consume a high percentage of the world's energy.
b. A source of usable power, such as petroleum or coal.
4.
Physics. The capacity of a physical system to do work.
I'm fine with any of these usages, and other useful metaphorical or poetic extrapolations as well. What bugs me is this: When people use meanings 1-3, or other related meanings, yet talk as if the same physical laws
which apply only to meaning 4 apply to any usage of the word "energy" they choose to use.
If you're talking about not having the "energy" (as in motivation) to answer an e-mail or to do the laundry, that's not a concept of energy to which strict laws of conservation pertain. If you're talking about "spiritual energy", you're not talking about something within the proper realm of thermodynamics -- you may not even talking about anything more real than a poetic interpretation of certain aspects of human psychology, or even more real, as far as established science is concerned, than wishful thinking.
I can't count the times that I've listened to someone cheerily invoke conservation of energy to explain why we shouldn't have any worries about there being an afterlife because, after all, "we are energy", and energy is conserved, right? :eyes:
If you're going to invoke physical law, then you have to use the definitions of physics and the principles of science. If you want to imagine the human mind or "soul" as some sort of "energy" which obeys conservation principles, then I'm afraid I must inform you that (A) there's not the slightest evidence coming from scientific research to back up such a simplistic view of the human mind, and (B) even if the mind could be characterized as a kind of "energy", the Second Law of Thermodynamics would spell bad news for any energy-interpretation-based hopes for eternal self preservation anyway.
What is a human mind if we restrict ourselves to known science? I'd describe the human mind as a biochemical process occurring within the human brain. There's certainly energy involved in this process -- chemical energy is consumed, waste heat is generated, etc. -- but to say that a process consumes and that it emits energy is not the same as saying that this process
is energy.
Does the fact that computers use electrical energy, and that the ordered states of magnetic media and other media represent small amounts of potential energy, make it make any sense to call computer software a "form of energy"? If you pulverize a computer with a sledge hammer, or zap it hard with a powerful alternating magnetic field, nothing happens which violates conservation of energy. However, does the principle of conservation of energy give you much hope of recovering your personal data after such destructive action? No, not at all.
What makes you uniquely you, from a scientific standpoint, is the particular patterns in which the biochemical energy of your brain flows, the physical ways connections between neurons have grown and arranged themselves in response to stimuli, and other means by which memories might be physically encoded and preserved.
Some fluctuating level of energy is passing through your brain and body all of the time, and that energy is conserved. Whatever energy you take in is either released in another form or held for a time as potential energy, and when you die all of that energy is released or stays locked up in the chemical bonds of your remains. But the other thing that happens when you die is that the all-important patterns that constitute your mind, your unique identity, break down. Cells die. Neural connections degenerate. Chemical compounds break down. The ongoing dance of nerve impulses, out of which consciousness arises as an amazing emergent phenomena, begins to falter, and soon ceases completely.
The fact that the energy once in your body survives, mostly as broadly scattered waste heat, isn't much of a consolation if you're hoping for eternal self-preservation. If you want to put "faith" in some sort of "spiritual energy" which is preserved and lives on, knock yourself out, but please... don't pretend that just because you toss in the word "energy" that the object of your faith is backed by science.
"Spiritual energy", "psychic energy", "healing energy" -- none of these are at all found in or related to anything from modern physics. If I say that, and then you start thinking, "modern physics doesn't know everything", or, "there are some things which are beyond science", fine... as long as you don't pretend that a little loose word association with science gives you any of the luster of proven science, and as long as you understand that the world of the unknown doesn't automatically include all of your favorite pets until someone else proves you wrong.
Take "healing energy". What the hell is that supposed to be? Health is every bit as complicated as anatomy, cellular biology, and biochemistry. There's
no way all health issues, or even most, could ever boil down to something as simplistic as a flow of "qi" or a balance of "positive and negative 'energy'". Just try to imagine a "healing energy" for cars, some type of energy that could somehow fix dents, make the dirt in clogged fuel filters suddenly vanish, adjust timing belts, and pump air into tires, all simply by suffusing cars with this special "energy".
The concept makes no sense. We know that such complex and varied problems require specific directed solutions and specific resources all directly applied to specific places. Nothing rightly called "energy" could handle all of that -- yes, energy is needed to effect such repairs, but energy alone of any type is far from enough.
Isn't the burden of proof on someone who wants to assert that the complex biological machine that is the human body is
easier to repair, not harder, than the relatively vastly more simplistic machine that is an automobile? One could rightly point out that, unlike a car, a human body has built-in mechanisms for self-repair and defense against disease, but the prevalence of human ailments, not to mention the inevitability of eventual death, points to the fact that these built-in mechanisms are far from perfect or adequate for all challenges. There is no evidence, nor even good reason to suppose, that a few simple "imbalances" of some type of "energy" are all that ever stand between the body's built in healing mechanisms and functional perfection.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
