Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Energy (originally Mind and Brain)
Message-ID: <2990@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 11:15:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2990
Posted: Tue Jul 24 11:15:13 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 02:09:18 EDT
References: brl-tgr.3496
Lines: 27

<>
   Quoting ...
>From: gwyn@brl-tgr.UUCP Mon Jul 23 23:17:02 1984
>......  In which case, if
>their "energy" does not denote the same thing as the physicists',
>indeed separate words are needed for these separate concepts.

This sounds like a good idea, but a lot to ask from English.  Consider
the word "force."  Are we going to do away with "armed force," "force of
will," "force the door open," and so on, retaining only "time rate of
change of momentum" as a definition?  What about "integrate" and
"differentiate"?  Perhaps in an ideal language (like the one proposed
by Descartes) such ambiguities would not arise.  For me, I'm willing to
say "I feel full of energy today" without a twinge of guilt.  And I'm
willing to concede to mystics the right to use these terms as they will,
so long as it is made clear that their "energy" and the term as used in
physics are really different concepts; i.e. if we avoid the error of
equivocation.  As you say (and I completely agree):

>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.

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary