Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1.1 9/4/83; site scc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!scc!steiny From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc Subject: Re: Mind and Brain Message-ID: <252@scc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 19:15:06 EDT Article-I.D.: scc.252 Posted: Sat Jul 21 19:15:06 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 01:36:50 EDT References: brl-vgr.507 <569@ihuxj.UUCP>, <93@mouton.UUCP>, <1135@rti-sel.UUCP> <3328@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1556@sun.uuRe: Mind and Brain Organization: Santa Cruz Computer, Aptos, Calif. Lines: 94 *** Energy is not a "thing" in the sense of a table. We use the Energy is an "organizing principle" and a description. My wife is an apprentice acupuncturist. Her teacher (our family acupuncturist) has 15 years experience mostly in mainland China where her father and grandfather were doctors of Chinese medicine. I was sold after she cured a terrible headache I had that my regular doctor said would go away eventually. I read a book called "The Web That Has No Weaver", which is about Chinese medicine. The book made a fascinating point about "yin" and "yang" that I think bears strongly on this discussion. The book points out that "yin" and "yang" are not material things like shoes and socks. But it stresses strongly that they are also not trancendental. They are *descriptive*. They reflect distinctions about the world that the Chinese people make and that we do not make. This is in line with the hypothesis that language shapes our world-view. The example in intro to linguistics books is that some eskimos have many different words for snow. They make distinctions that we do not make. Likewise, energy is neither material nor transcendental. It is a generalization we make about the behavior of the universe around us. If the universes can be different, the things in them can be too. A good essay about energy in Western thought is by Thomas Kuhn. It is called "the Simultanious Discovery of Energy Conservation". It is available in *The Essential Tension*, which is a book of his essays. He says that in Europe 5 papers were published proposing the law of conservation of energy within two years. Only one of the authors knew about the work of the others. The reason is that the way the word "energy" was being used was changing. Until Europe in the 18th century, it never occurred to anyone that the heat causes by the friction of a plowblade and lightning were somehow the same thing. Once the various events we ascribe to energy were all linked, the law of conservation of energy logically followed. "Energy", then, is a generalization about events. Over history and across cultures other generalizations have been made and called "energy." Each society has things that are important to them. They have events that are worthwhile making generalizations about. If we accept the notion that societies may be different, but that there is no way to say that any are better or worse, we must accept that each societies use of the words or concepts we translate "energy" is as valid as another's. We could "prove" that the Japanese could not be talking about "real energy" when they talk about "ki", and still be flattened by an Akido master. We could "prove" that "chi" is not "real energy", and still be cured of an illness by Chinese medicine. Energy means different things to different people. It is a generalization about the world. Different societies find it useful to make different generalizations. The specialized use of the word "energy" made by scientists is no more or less vaild than the use as in "I don't have any energy today." The "nature of energy" is entirely subjective. The statement: "we know now that the earth goes around the sun" is misleading. What is meant by "know?" How, specifically, do we "know?" A better way to state what we "know" about the motions of the sun and the earth is to say that "if we adopt the model that that the earth goes around the sun we can explain more things with fewer principles." The criteria for selection of a model is *usefulness.* When Newton introduced gravity as an axiom in his system the reaction (according to Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolution), was that he was being inelagant. Most people did not believe that gravity explained anything at all. They felt he was begging the question. If someone claims that apples fall by a different principle than frozen ducks fall and explains each event with its own laws they must be missing useful generalizations. His claim that adding gravity as an axiom to the system would make a more useful system proved to be true, so much of his system survives, as does the notion of "gravity." The question of "PSI energy" is a muddle of langauge. Since "energy" is a generalization about events in the world, "PSI energy" must also be a generalization about events in the world. Which events? More importantly, if we classify some events in the world as "PSI energy" will that benefit us in some way that will make us want to choose this generalization over one we are already using? Don Steiny Personetics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta!scc!steiny harpo!fortune!idsvax!scc!steiny ucbvax!twg!scc!steiny