Science or Philosophy?

Mister Sister said:

I don't think science needs to change anything necessarily. I just believe the other half of the equation - the irrational - is just as important. I am saying that the symbolism in the artwork etc. is telling us that.

Click to expand...

Science is not part of an equation, in the words of James randi, "Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence."

A belief is trust that a proposition says something accurate about the world. Beliefs are principals of action. The reason we evolved a belief system is to separate good information from bad. The whole concept of having beliefs means that there is some information which should be ignored. We don't accept every proposition we hear. If I tell you an old sea hag comes and fills my socks with blue cottage cheese every Tuesday, it's nonsense, and your brain doesn't need to involve itself with it. To pay attention to the irrational is to undermine the entire reason beliefs exist. Now, I am not saying your propositions are irrational by default, but to defend them by trumpeting irrationality is not very encouraging.

I suspect what you mean is that we should not discount something simply because it's weird or seems to contradict science. If so, then I must agree, and science does as well. Science does not box itself in by being biased against new information, but it does rigorously scrutinize and evaluate.

Thanks again, I am learning a lot through this experience. It's funny because I wanted to use this information to teach others, and I am the one doing the most learning.

Click to expand...

I am glad you like learning new things. Perhaps you would be interested to know the left-brain right-brain dichotomy has been all but abandoned. This link explains it. Doesn't negate your hypothesis but it sheds some light.

Now lets think about the word energy. When we use the word in a scientific context, as a way to explain something, or to support a theory, we must use the scientific definition and not the slang usage. Energy is the science word for "the ability to do work", or, a measurable work potential. When we talk about Chi, life energy, it doesn't make sense, life ability to do work? It is not conveying anything meaningful. It may sound nifty and intuitively seem to 'click', but it isn't helping us to understand actual knowledge. So again, mis-using a word like energy when describing the mechanism of Chi is not very encouraging.

Here is a thread where we discuss the word energy and it's proper use.

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/388385-correct-use-word-energy.html

Mister Sister said:

I will admit that I have no way of proving this. I'm not trying to. Both of us are equally right and wrong in my eyes.

Click to expand...

I am not asking you to prove it, but I'd like to see a bit of meat linking premise to conclusion. I am tired of the evocative and otherwise ambiguous.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that there is more to life and mind than pure reason. However, even for my nonrational suspicions and beliefs, I like for there to be some reason blended in. Naked reason doesn't get one very far, but outright unreason is worse in my opinion. The nonrational needn't be subordinated to the rational, but when they contradict, I'm no longer on board.
Mind you, I'm not accusing you of contradiction. My position here is nonhostile. cn

Skuxx said:

Everything that exists in the physical realm requires energy to simply exist. So, it's not so easy to use the word improperly.. since anything that you know, is energy in some form..... Also, Chi makes perfect sense. I don't see how it doesn't make sense to you. I would like to see you go into more detail. Energy is a mysterious thing to me.

Click to expand...

How does a rock require energy to exist? Place it in a cold dark place and, as long as its protons hold out, it stays a rock. With apologies ... this is just the sort of incorrect use of the term that makes me itch. To say that mass equals energy is a misread of physics. They are interconvertible, but the act is ... spectacular; they are not the same. Imo it is very worthwhile to sidestep such ambiguities.

Whether or not chi makes sense to me isn't the important thing. I don't assume it requires my awareness or participation for it to act. If it did, I'd be very suspicious about subjective effects, with placebo being the paradigm for those. Simply ruling out a placebo effect is remarkably difficult. The proposition is further complicated by there being no known sensor for chi, which makes measurement an unavailable option. I'm a big fan of removing the subjective from a test protocol. cn

cannabineer said:

How does a rock require energy to exist? Place it in a cold dark place and, as long as its protons hold out, it stays a rock. With apologies ... this is just the sort of incorrect use of the term that makes me itch. To say that mass equals energy is a misread of physics. They are interconvertible, but the act is ... spectacular; they are not the same. Imo it is very worthwhile to sidestep such ambiguities.

Whether or not chi makes sense to me isn't the important thing. I don't assume it requires my awareness or participation for it to act. If it did, I'd be very suspicious about subjective effects, with placebo being the paradigm for those. Simply ruling out a placebo effect is remarkably difficult. The proposition is further complicated by there being no known sensor for chi, which makes measurement an unavailable option. I'm a big fan of removing the subjective from a test protocol. cn

Click to expand...

well see I could be wrong and I actually deleted my post because it is not important to me. But, as far as I think I know.... a rock requires atoms to exist. Atoms require energy to exist. so it leads me to conclude that everything physical IS energy.

If energy and mass are different, then what causes anything to stay in tact???

Christ final answer

Skuxx said:

well see I could be wrong and I actually deleted my post because it is not important to me. But, as far as I think I know.... a rock requires atoms to exist. Atoms require energy to exist. so it leads me to conclude that everything physical IS energy.

If energy and mass are different, then what causes anything to stay intact???

Click to expand...

Their being different, and the extremely high "energy of activation" involved in going from one state to the other.

My understanding is that atoms (nuclei, really) exist at the bottom of a deep, deep potential well. The small, light ones can be induced to fuse at high temperatures and pressures. The large, heavy ones are sometimes radioactive or fissile.
But aside from those oddities, atoms require energy to make (so much, in fact, that we can't)but not for their continued existence ... unless/until they are exposed to extreme temps and pressures.

I recognize that this is not central to what you're saying. I hope you'll put up with me tilting at the windmills of definition. cn

love the simpson references

Skuxx said:

Atoms require energy to exist. so it leads me to conclude that everything physical IS energy.

If energy and mass are different, then what causes anything to stay in tact???

Click to expand...

So because A needs B to exist, A is B? That doesn't follow...

Just a question -

If everything vibrates or moves..doesn't it contain some amount of 'energy' (or ability to do work).

Another question -

If a rock has consciousness, albeit a different form than human, does that consciousness contain energy even if we cannot see, feel, hear, taste, or smell it?

What are your opinions?

Oh and thanks for the article Heisenberg. What I'm learning is that I need to re-evaluate or hone in my idea before it is complete. Everyone's responses and critiques are helping me accomplish this like I never would have imagined!

Mister Sister said:

Just a question -

If everything vibrates or moves..doesn't it contain some amount of 'energy' (or ability to do work).

Another question -

If a rock has consciousness, albeit a different form than human, does that consciousness contain energy even if we cannot see, feel, hear, taste, or smell it?

What are your opinions?

Oh and thanks for the article Heisenberg. What I'm learning is that I need to re-evaluate or hone in my idea before it is complete. Everyone's responses and critiques are helping me accomplish this like I never would have imagined!

Click to expand...

My thoughts on your two questions.

1) Yes, but "ability to do work" may be absent if the vibrations are only heat. Converting heat to work can only be done across a gradient, and that inefficiently.
But most importantly, we can characterize heat and other physical energies by two key features: amplitude (and amplitude spectrum) and frequency (or its spectrum). If you cannot measure and specify both amplitude and frequency, it cannot properly be called a vibration.

2) Anything that we cannot sense, we're best off not assigning reality. The sensation need not be direct ... it can be of very indirect consequences. but nobody has ever determined an effect or other signal suggesting a consciousness in rocks. The time to contemplate such a complexity is if it has explanatory power for something that is detectable. Jmo. cn

Mister Sister said:

Oh and thanks for the article Heisenberg. What I'm learning is that I need to re-evaluate or hone in my idea before it is complete. Everyone's responses and critiques are helping me accomplish this like I never would have imagined!

Click to expand...

No problem. IMO you may also want to learn about the concept of pattern recognition and how humans are compelled to assign meaning to patters, and also confirmation bias. And of course brush up on Occam's Razor, seems your theory needs to account for these things.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hyperactive-pattern-recognition/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony