Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci Subject: Re: Energy (originally Mind and Brain) Message-ID: <3496@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 30-Jul-84 02:17:02 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3496 Posted: Mon Jul 30 02:17:02 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 19:45:23 EDT Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 38 All right, time to get a few things straight. I can see how if you believe that words and concepts denote nothing and are arbitrary constructs of the human mind then you would grant equal validity to anyone's use of a word. Or, if you believe that meaning comes from a process of social agreement, then you might decide that the usage with the most adherents wins the vote. However, if one believes that concepts are man's means of organizing his perceptions of an objective reality, then words (labels for concepts) must not be arbitrary. The concept of "energy" has been made precise by those who are tasked with investigating physical phenomena, the physicists. This is not to say that physics "has all the answers", or is infallible, or will not further refine its concepts. Indeed, regular readers of net.physics are aware that I am rather critical of many current trends in physics. However, knowledge is possible in spite of lack of absolute certainty; how this is possible is a central question of epistemology, to which only one philosopher has given a satisfactory answer so far as I am aware. (Most give up when they realize that absolute certainty about the physical world is unrealizable.) The important point with regard to the concept of "energy" is that the physicists have made its (originally fuzzy) meaning much more precise and powerful, while the mystics have contributed nothing of the sort to the concept. If one of the counter-arguers demonstrates that the mystical idea denoted by their use of the word "energy" has a strong enough meaning to be really useful in dealing with experience, then that will enhance the validity of their concept. In which case, if their "energy" does not denote the same thing as the physicists', indeed separate words are needed for these separate concepts. I strongly suspect, however, given the past dismal performance of the field of philosophy, that they really have nothing specific in mind when they talk about "spiritual energy", "psi energy", and so forth. My original objection against Shirley Maclaine's use of the term was that it smacks of an attempt to borrow legitimacy from a proper use of the concept in order to enhance the prestige of her vague ideas. Well, guys, you aren't getting away with it. Comes the revolution!