Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!rti!rti-sel!crm
From: crm@rti-sel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <1137@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jul-84 13:14:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.1137
Posted: Wed Jul 18 13:14:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 02:41:40 EDT
Lines: 29

The argument-like sentance "surely, in any rational epistomology, the
physicist's definition would prevail", is cute but not very strong.

First of all, "energy" has a fuzzy meaning BOTH in physics and in mystical
stuff -- can you tell me *what* energy is -- that is, what is this energy
thing?  Can you *point* to it?  If  not, your whole argument for your
definition is based on your description of its characteristics -- as is the
"mystical" definition.

Further, the "mystical" form of energy *can be directly perceived* so long
as one is willing to undergo the needed training (for example, Aikido.)

This "mystical" form of energy, since it may be directly perceived, starts
out with a *prima facia* (excuse my spelling if incorrect, please, all you
Latin-ists) better claim to 'truth' in most epistomological systems.

Also, (again consider Aikido as an example) there is predictive value to the
"mystical energy" description -- if one believes in the energy of *ki*, it
will be easier to learn Aikido, and one's techniques will work better
during the time in which the perception of the flowing of *ki* energy is
happening.

Since the "energy" is both perceivable and predictively usable, it seems
to have a strong claim.

Your statement might perhaps be better stated as "... in a MATERIALIST
epistomology" which is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether.

Charlie Martin