What is energy?

[HonestJoe]

It does point out....you are more than a lit match.

Sure, in so many different ways though there are ways in which the match is "more" than me too. And if we were to start a fire, I'd need the match to light and the match would need me to light it.

We're still off topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

a caution at this point....

Hold a book in your palm at arms reach....shoulder high.
just hold it.

As your shoulder muscle begins to burn.....you feel like you have to work at it, to hold the book steady.

But by definition.....no work is being performed.
You need a vector for that computation.

No mechanical work.....but chemical work is being done.

 

[Gambit]

The conclusion doesn't follow even granting Merriam-Webster is an adequate source to define materialism and has done so..

We have compelling evidence that all matter reduces to physically-uncaused quantum fluctuations. Therefore, we have compelling evidence that all events cannot "be explained as manifestations or results of matter." IOW, we have compelling evidence to reject the metaphysical theory of materialism (your bloviated response notwithstanding).

We have compelling evidence that the philosophy or metaphysical approach of materialism as expressed in a dictionary is not accurate.

Translation: "I cannot acknowledge that I am wrong."

 

[Bunyip]

That's my point. Concepts are not physical, nevertheless they exist.

No, they don't. They exist AS CONCEPTS, they do not exist as such. You are simply equivocating. No offence, but this seems to be at the heart of you position - simply dropping the 'as concepts' bit from 'they exist as concepts'. You simply change the meaning of 'exists' from referring to physical existence to referring to existing conceptually. As if by dint of equivocation alone you create some sort of immaterial existence, or extra quality of reality. It is just equivocating, not a logical argument.

based on your definition of the physical, you are obligated to acknowledge that "physicalism" (the view that only the physical exists) is not true.

No, not at all. PHYSICALISM, like MATERIALISM are philosophical positions, I am not an adherrent to either of them. You are trying to simply define something into existence with word play.

I have already explained it.



Materialism is a metaphysical theory - a "worldview." And that's what we are discussing here - metaphysics ("worldviews").

No, the topic is 'what is energy', materialism is a seperate issue.[/Quote]

 

[Bunyip]

That's my point. Concepts are not physical, nevertheless they exist.

That reminds me of the old shell game - which shell is the pea under?

You say: Concepts are not physical, nevertheless they exist.

Which is deliberately deceptive - it is the point where a whole extra dimension to reality is snuck in there by a little literary slight of hand.

If you said: Concepts are not physical, so they do not exist physically.

That is far more logical, removes the equivocation and resolves the apparent paradox perfectly.

There is a reason why this topic never gets past semantics.

 

[Gambit]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do. There's nothing more to discuss.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have compelling evidence that all matter reduces to physically-uncaused quantum fluctuations.

We have compelling evidence that you don't know what that even might mean. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however, so tell me, given an electron with the wave-fuction

how is it reduced to "physically-uncaused quantum fluctuations"? Or, consider 2 identical bosons moving along the path described by the harmonic oscillator potential

and interacting according to the equation

Reduce this physical phenomenon to "physically-uncaused quantum fluctuations".

Actually I'd be happy if you could describe the compelling evidence based upon something other than popular science and Wikipedia.

Translation: "I cannot acknowledge that I am wrong."

How tremendous a rebuttal! You used a dictionary to define a philosophical/metaphysical position and then defeated your strawman by asserting things about physics you don't understand (as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and here again as I know you can't answer either of those questions above).

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, they do. There's nothing more to discuss.

They exist - as concepts. That you will not engage on that simple point or discuss it further demonstrates rather inescapably that a simple equivocation is all you are relying on sadly.

Sure, concepts exist as concepts - and you insist on equivocating that to just 'concepts exist'. But that seems to be all you have - a straightforward equivocation.

The real question is; WHY? Why must you equivocate between meanings of 'exists' in different contexts in order to present your view? Why can it not be expressed without such an equivocation, and what are you trying to infer by doing so?

 

[Thief]

No mechanical work.....but chemical work is being done.

Excellent.
Now are we chemical, mechanical...or spiritual?

 

[Revoltingest]

Excellent.
Now are we chemical, mechanical...or spiritual?

All, including electrical & biological.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, they do. There's nothing more to discuss.

Concepts exist but only as a function of conscious minds, which are formed of matter and energy. Concepts didn't exist before there were any conscious minds to develop them.

 

[`mud]

Going back to the analogy of a coin flipping in the air,
both sides are really the same, 'energy' in some form.
It lands on one side or the other, sometimes.
Sometimes it lands on the edge, and goes around and around.
Just like this thread lands, some of the time.
~
Does the mind do something 'mechanical', I think not, unless blood clots matter,
or like clearing toilets and such.
Maybe the 'chemical' ends up being a real blood clot,
screwing up the forming of a 'concept', don't you think ?
~
What are 'concepts' ?...like Honest said...they're mind farts.
It takes a working mind to create them, they are 'energy' of the mind.
~
And of course there are 'spiritual' formations of beliefs,
those 'concepts' brought on by mental training and studying scripture.
I think these factors end up landing in the chemical pile,
maybe being considered 'fears', also 'concepts' of sorts.
~
And of course, as Rev says, there's the 'electrical' and 'biological',
the prime purpose of being a human being, and thinking at all.
~
But what ever they are, they exist in the minds of humans, in thinking minds.
~
Now....."What is energy" ?
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

Excellent.
Now are we chemical, mechanical...or spiritual?

Well I do count spiritual energy as a stand alone item.
I don't believe I will need my carcass after the last breath.

I think of this life as development, leading to something more.

gotta leave the skin behind.

 

[Gambit]

It's contextual of course, but in relation to this thread "Having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature" seems to cover it. There are further discussions to be had on specifics but that's a basic, clear definition as far as I'm concerned.

We can perceive mathematical abstractions (e.g. a perfect circle). But they are nonsensory perceptions. Therefore, we have first-person evidence for the reality and existence of the nonphysical.

The point is that just because we're (currently) incapable of measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist as physical energy or matter. There are rocks on Pluto that we can't measure but they still have the same physical properties as the rocks on Earth that we can.

Until you can measure consciousness, you have no evidence that it exists as physical energy or matter.

 

[Gambit]

Concepts exist but only as a function of conscious minds, which are formed of matter and energy. Concepts didn't exist before there were any conscious minds to develop them.

The point is that concepts exist. And if we define them as nonphysical (which he did), then we obligated by the dictates of intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the nonphysical exists.

 

[`mud]

Now that was a twist and half, wasn't it !?
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We can perceive mathematical abstractions (e.g. a perfect circle). But they are nonsensory perceptions..

1) You can conceive of such abstractions only because you have perceived physical instantiations. Without having seen circles you could not conceive of them.
2) Abstractions are rooted in sensorimotor experiences and require sensorimotor brain regions to process.
3) If you think you can actually conceive of mathematical abstractions that don't have ready physical analogues, try imagining the angle between two basis vectors in a complex, infinite-dimensional space (by "infinite-dimensional, I don't mean it extends infinitely as 1D space extends infinitely; I mean it extends infinitely along infinitely many "directions"). Or just picture how one can rotate a line segment in 10 dimensional space vs. 1000. When mathematics gets abstract, it really gets abstract. One cannot readily picture algebraic structures (and I mean real algebra not high school stuff), and to the extent one can it is by virtue of our ability to think about them in terms of geometrical structures that have physical analogues.
4) Nonsensory perception is an oxymoron. Perception is sensory.

Therefore, we have first-person evidence for the reality and existence of the nonphysical.

We have evidence that had you used "conceive" instead of "perceive" that we can conceive of things independently of specific instantations. Despite Hamlet's mind's eye, this hasn't persuaded really anybody that conception must be nonphysical in the sense that mental images or thoughts somehow must be distinct from physical processes.

Until you can measure consciousness, you have no evidence that it exists as physical energy or matter.

We do. My favorite example (which I think I mentioned to you before) is that of the "severed" corpus callosum or "split brain" phenomena. We've shown experimentally that, if we stop biochemical signals from crossing from one hemisphere to another, we can make participants process information such as visual commands (e.g., a screen with the command "Please stand up") and, by ensuring it only enters one eye that the individual will both obey the command and not be conscious of the reasons for doing so. When asked why they did what was commanded, they don't know the answer but because they are conscious of having done what was commanded they make-up reasons they believe to be true to explain why they consciously did something because of information processed unconsciously.

Simply put, by ensuring certain information is processed in only one part of the brain, we an make you consciously perform an action but prevent you from knowing why. When we enable full "communication", you will stop making up reasons for your conscious actions and simply state that you did what you did because you were asked to.

We can also stimulate conscious experiences, sensations, etc.,by sending electrical signals directly to the brain.

Now, while this and other findings are evidence that consciousness is physical (or that it is the property/product of the brain), it is true that we have not demonstrated either that non-physical things like a soul are necessarily involved in consciousness or that consciousness can be completely reduced to processes in the brain. That's not the same as saying we have "no evidence".

 

[`mud]

Easy for you to say !
~
'mud

 

[Goblin]

"energy" is something that is never created and can never be destroyed...

"energy" is like a circle, but its center is everywhere, and its circumference its no where.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"energy" is something that is never created and can never be destroyed...

Energy is constantly created and destroyed.