What is energy?

[gnostic]

Medical science cannot measure a patient's energy level. Nevertheless, human beings can definitely detect whenever they are feeling fatigued. (Fatigue is one most common health complaint.)

But this has to do with "spirit", HOW?

Does spirit feel a person's fatigue?

Should spirit that have no body, no brain, no emotion, feel anything?

Human being has brains, like most animals, and they will feel hunger or fatigue, because anything that someone feel will know it. Fatigue is a physical and health situation, not a spiritual one.

You are the one who think spirit is real. Can a spirit detect anything at all, like one's energy level?

 

[gnostic]

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless. It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

As a general point, if any of the things commonly identified as spiritual actually exist, there is no reason for them not to be physical/material, indeed they arguably must be if they're defined as having physical effects upon anything or anyone. I think this kind of question is trying to create a false dichotomy and, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect part of the reason for that is an attempt to avoid the requirement to support "supernatural" claims with "natural" evidence.

I couldn't have said it better.

Different religions and different religious (and spiritual) people have different definitions to spirit, and often not agreeing with one another.

And how do we determine if "spirit" is real or not?

It is based on what people believe in, and nothing more. I don't see how it (spirit) is related to "matters" or "energy".

(Sorry, I had accidentally hit the "save" or "post" button early).

 

[Gambit]

But this has to do with "spirit", HOW?

It's called "feeling awareness." Spirit = consciousness. Duh!

 

[HonestJoe]

The term "physical" has no clear and definitive definition as made evident in my thread entitled "How do you define the physical?"

Did that thread prove there was no clear definition or only that there is no clear definition you're willing to accept?

Quantum fluctuations are one of the most-confirmed events in science. Quantum fluctuations have no physical cause.

How can you say that if the word "physical" has no clear definition? Why couldn't quantum fluctuations fit within a definition of "physical things"?

 

[HonestJoe]

Medical science cannot measure a patient's energy level. Nevertheless, human beings can definitely detect whenever they are feeling fatigued. (Fatigue is one most common health complaint.)

You seem to be making a common mistake of equating what human beings are (currently) capable of and what could, theoretically, be done. Our limitations don't define reality.

 

[Gambit]

Did that thread prove there was no clear definition or only that there is no clear definition you're willing to accept?

You're welcome to furnish us with a clear definition of the term "physical."

How can you say that if the word "physical" has no clear definition? Why couldn't quantum fluctuations fit within a definition of "physical things"?

Because they have no physical cause.

 

[Gambit]

You seem to be making a common mistake of equating what human beings are (currently) capable of and what could, theoretically, be done. Our limitations don't define reality.

I'm simply stating a fact. Medical science cannot measure a patient's energy level.

 

[Bunyip]

That's not the only problem. Members responding to you and before you have not sought any spiritual explanation yet have been almost as misled (and misleading) and arguably as wrong. For example:

Here is a quote by one who has consistently failed to define scientific terms from physics such as energy over and over and over and over again.

You are being ridiculous and dishonest as usual - I have not failed to do so, I have not attempted to. I have not made any argument that requires me to. I have not given a definition of crochet terms for exactly the same reason. You need to grow past posting these endless, pointless accusations.

It is only through such meaningless ignorance that a comparable lack of anything remotely resembling a clear or accurate or definite account of anything related to the physical or spiritual has been and could be spread. Those who rely on popular sciene to defend pseudo-science such as the capacity for consciousness to determine reality are no worse nor better than those who rely on definitions from physics they cannot grasp using an understandkng or langiuage they do not possess.


Indeed.

Mate all of those gripes you have posted a few dozen times before, and to many different members. You may as well just copy paste it every time you post it.

 

[Bunyip]

You're welcome to furnish us with a clear definition of the term "physical."

Sure, here goes: Physical: Pertaining to the material and forces of the physical universe, as distinct from the conceptual.

Because they have no physical cause.

So what, neither does radioactive decay - but it is still physical. Why would they need a physical cause to be physical? What is the logic there?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am coming to realization that you are nothing more than an annoying blowhard.

Maybe, but I'd rather be that and know what I'm talking about than pretend I do and then insult others when they show I don't.

 

[Thief]

Some natural forces combine to form minds that guide other natural forces. It's all just energy and matter though.

ok....but one portion has thought and feeling.....the other portion does not....

 

[Thief]

Exactly. And spirits are undetectable...so they are by definition pure speculation.

But you answer....

Picture yourself as the First....yes you can.
First in mind and heart.
With freshly made substance all around you.

The creation responds to your touch.
It responds to your Voice.
But is does not really....'respond'.

That makes you a bit different....does it not?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is energy? Is it only material? Or, is it also spiritual?

Energy in physics depends upon which type one is talking about. We have dark energy, potential energies (e.g., gravitational, electric, elastic, etc.), electromagnetic energy (or the energy carried by an electromagnetic wave), mechanical energy, potential energy, relativistic energy, thermal energy, Rydberg energy, nuclear energy, etc.

In non-physics usage, it's whatever the hell you want to define it as.

 

[Thief]

Energy in physics depends upon which type one is talking about. We have dark energy, potential energies (e.g., gravitational, electric, elastic, etc.), electromagnetic energy (or the energy carried by an electromagnetic wave), mechanical energy, potential energy, relativistic energy, thermal energy, Rydberg energy, nuclear energy, etc.

In non-physics usage, it's whatever the hell you want to define it as.

and you believe you are non-physical?......
or completely dependent on your chemistry....
and as dependent, subject to death.... permanent.

 

[Gambit]

Sure, here goes: Physical: Pertaining to the material and forces of the physical universe, as distinct from the conceptual.

That's basically defining "physical" in terms of itself.

So what, neither does radioactive decay - but it is still physical. Why would they need a physical cause to be physical? What is the logic there?

The point is that it does not have any physical explanation.

 

[Gambit]

Maybe, but I'd rather be that and know what I'm talking about than pretend I do and then insult others when they show I don't.

:yawn:

 

[Bunyip]

That's basically defining "physical" in terms of itself.

So you intend simply to reject any definition you dislike a-priori?

The point is that it does not have any physical explanation.

So what? Many things are not yet explained - so what?

 

[Gambit]

So you intend simply to reject any definition you dislike a-priori?

I reject that definition because it basically qualifies as a tautology.

So what? Many things are not yet explained - so what?

It doesn't have a cause according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[Bunyip]

I reject that definition because it basically qualifies as a tautology.

How so? It does not read as tautological to me. Seems a pretty simple and straightforward definition. Defining words using synonyms, or by referencing the concept in another way does not invalidate a definition. I don't see why you would think it would. Your objection is like saying that you can not use the word 'orange' to describe the colour of an orange - of course you can. Whyever not?

Anyway - here is a version that addresses your objection perfectly ok?
Physical: Pertaining to the substance and forces of the material universe.
Ok? Same definition just a slight semantic difference.

It doesn't have a cause according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Sure, you have said that - so what if it is uncaused, or of unknown cause?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How so? It does not read as tautological to me. Seems a pretty simple and straightforward definition.

Tautologies are about as simple and straightforward as it gets.

Defining words using synonyms, or by referencing the concept in another way does not invalidate a definition.

That depends upon your motivation for a definition. Dictionaries, for example, don't seek to define words but to give a sense of usage so that when someone is unfamiliar with a word they can look it up and get a sense for what it means (which is why dictionaries frequently give incompatible definitions for the same word, as in common language the same words are used incompatibly).

If you are seeking to define not the word physical but that which is physical (i.e., define "physical" rather than provide common senses in which the word is used), then defining it in terms of physical is the equivalent of A=A. You've defined physical in terms of physical.

When one seeks a real definition (not the dictionary kind), one defines things in terms of the things (e.g., properties) that are required for the definition to apply and (either explicitly or by implication) what things require that the definition not apply. For example, I don't define "motion" as "movement" but perhaps as "the changes in spatial coordinates that occur during some interval of time, requiring that during this interval there be at least one change in coordinates".

Your objection is like saying that you can not use the word 'orange' to describe the colour of an orange

Note that you don't say "define" here but "describe", and also that "orange" the color is unrelated to the fruit. "Physical" in your definition is (as you say) synonymous with material, while "orange' the color is not synonymous with "orange" the fruit".