I don't believe in New Age term: "Energy"

[Davin Raincloud]

Help me out guys. I feel quite alone in the world on this topic.
Whenever someone uses the term 'energy' my intuition bells go into overdrive telling me it's BS.

Look what I found:

http://www.skepdic.com/energy.html

In physics, the basic idea of energy is the capacity of a physical system to do "work," the product of a force times the distance through which that force acts. In physics, energy is a term to express the power to move things, either potential or actual. Energy is not a thing itself, but an attribute of something (Krieg).

When people use that term 'energy', I can't help but think of the fictional 'energon' from the transformers cartoon.
http://youtu.be/_EBUXVZcb2M

My belief: I think the word Energy is being misused and causing a lot of delusion about things. I am not against spiritual things, rituals or magickal type practices.....I just don't believe we should as humans be dealing in 'make believe'.

Thoughts?

[Lily]

"Energy" is one of the terms people use who are "vitalists" - they believe in a form of innate, subtle, "life force".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Other terms are
Prana
Chi
Nwyvre
Orgone

and in organic chemistry, before vitalism was dismissed, phlogistone.

none of these have been proven to exist....

[Bart]

The trouble is that the physics of energy is not as firm as you want. E=mcE2 tells you that matter is energy and vice versa. Than you have your quarks etc. which can also be seen as energy. For instance look at the string theory, matter as energy hick ups.

The modern physics leaves open a lot of open questions, either to be philosophized by new age or by scientific dreamers. Depending on your take you will either believe the one or the other.

Steering chi towards the other end of the world is probably more clear. Although radio waves can also be seen as energy, short wave or long waves.

Basically, I don't know and probably will find out at the end.

[Lily]

Bart,

I think vitalism does not argue in terms of subatomic particles (quarks or electromagnetic (radio) waves) - "energy" is even more "subtle" (in German they say "Feinstofflich") - although the terminology of modern physics, if taken out of context, offers myriad options to try and explain it...


I'd love if someone gave "the Tao of Physics" a sound rebuttal....

[Davin Raincloud]

none of these have been proven to exist....

Thanks.



I have no problem with working with them as a theory, but people try and ascribe all sorts of properties to it.

Like someone on the other side of the world saying: "Send me positive energies".

HOW?

[Muddy Fox]

To be honest Davin it doesn't matter whether you believe in the term energy or not. As I see it, it is just another word used in an attempt to descibe or ascribe a phenomena that some people feel/sense on the physical level.
For those that sense/feel "energy" it is a good as word as any. Through experience I have found it a pointless exercise to try and convince those who do not sense/feel such phenomena of it's existence. A bit like banging your head against a brick wall. So I leave such matters in the hands of spirit. And spirit will blow wherest spirit chooses and if people want to have closed minds and ridicule those that have open minds and many experiences. So be it.

[Heddwen]

Just being curious but I'd like to know how skeptics consider the concept of nwyfre and awen for the purpose of the OBOD course i.e. how do you live with something that you do not believe exists? or has not been proven to exist as yet. Perhaps this (the proof) does not matter so much anyway

[Lily]

well,

awen - the spark of inspiration - I'm a creative person (no one needs to like what I create, their problem) - so I have it. Could be some neurons firing in a novel way in my brain, I'm ok with that.
I enjoy the "flow" state my brain goes into when creating "art"( ), making or enjoying music... Could be awen, could be some neurons firing in a particular way in my brain, I'm ok with that.

nwyvre - the light body exercise etc.... it makes me feel good, relaxes, focuses, puts me in the right mood for ritual work, to be receptive for another spark of awen... (ritual is an entire new topic on its own)... works for me. Could be some neurons firing in a particular way in my brain, I'm ok with that (didn't we just have that - ? ).
I admit some of the later exercises don't really do much for me in addition.

oh p.s. read my sig line

[DJ Droood]

My belief: I think the word Energy is being misused and causing a lot of delusion about things. I am not against spiritual things, rituals or magickal type practices.....I just don't believe we should as humans be dealing in 'make believe'.

Thoughts?

I don't have a problem with 'make-believe'...allegory and metaphore..."energy", in the way you mention it here, is for me a figure of speech to describe the feelings you associate with a person, place or time..."I feel positive energy here" (I am on vacation and visitng a stone circle...I feel great!) or "That woman has bad energy." (She looks a bit like my ex-gf...the way she scowls...) or as an imagination tool to focus and calm the mind in meditation...visualizing "energy", etc.....I don't think you have to be a True Believer to use the concept of 'energy'.

[Heddwen]

Thank you Lily for the explanation I'd always wondered and I agree.

DJ Droood, sometimes its enough to let things just, well happen. Belief is another issue, sometimes it is because it is.

[DJ Droood]

DJ Droood, sometimes its enough to let things just, well happen. Belief is another issue, sometimes it is because it is.

Whatever spins your wheel!

[celticvoice]

I have been struggling with the whole energies thing as I have just joined OBOD, only because as I newbie when reading treads I never know if people mean the energy of physics or spiritual energies. It's such a sciencie sounding word, where god/goddess, spirit, soul is just spiritual.

I have read up on the net about qi, prana life force etc and from the bits I have read my intuition just says no, even if I did have an open mind towards it. I prefer focusing on the suns energy and what it does for life on this planet and I find it more beautiful, it makes me feel so much more connected.

[Bart]

Bart,

I think vitalism does not argue in terms of subatomic particles (quarks or electromagnetic (radio) waves) - "energy" is even more "subtle" (in German they say "Feinstofflich") - although the terminology of modern physics, if taken out of context, offers myriad options to try and explain it...


I'd love if someone gave "the Tao of Physics" a sound rebuttal....

I think the modern physics offers magic of its own. I'm trying to work through it, but the assumptions are sometimes more imaginitive than any god(ess) would offer.
Than there is also consciousness, no one can really explain how it pops up. I have read D. Dennet and i'm sorry, I think he is short sighted. Explaining the wiring does nothing for the comprehension of the system. It's like shouting out a telephone book and claiming you just described city life.

There are things I cannot explain and if I read the "experts" I don't think they can either (and it's not that I do not understand them, I do understand what they describe). On the other hand I do agree that to often clear solutions are wrongly used, just to explain something in the fluffy way.

I know I know nothing. I still think its the best way to adress any issue. But also, if it quarks like a duck and the photons look like a duck, the observer is probably looking at a duck.

[Lily]

Well, Bart, I haven't read all those books so I can't comment....

If you shoot at a duck and you miss by one foot to the left, shoot again and miss by one foot on the right, statistically speaking, the duck is dead.

[Aengus]

Only reading through half of the posts, I thought Id add my 2 cents. The great thing about OBOD as a mystery school or even as a tradition leaves us as individuals to make up our own minds in what we choose to believe in. That being said, some may not believe in using the term "energy" and that's just fine. Do what ever works for you. You were free to believe what you wish from the moment of birth.

Do I believe in "energy"? Yes
Does that make me right and the person who does not believe in it wrong (or vise versa) ? NO

Debates on differing views are great and stimulating to the mind. Just be careful to not get caught up in your own beliefs that you completely shut off the possibilities to different points of view.

[Heddwen]

Maybe we are looking at the difference between belief and experience. As in vibrational energy healing, participants claim to experience tingling sensations and feelings of calm and peacefulness yet they may believe that the channeled energy may or may not come from a higher source.

[Tynan Elder Oak]

what an interesting series of posts.

I don't belive in calories either but something makes me fat! More serious now....... energy is a force, the energy of a wave for instance. It is generally considered to be measurable.

Some may argue, using conventional science that what we describe as life force, chi, nwfre, or energy is not measuarable or defineable. However, there is some VERY interesting stuff out there that is replicableand measuarable.

Take for instance the experiments of Rein and Mc Craty on DNA. They analaysied DNA chemically and visually before and after it was subjected to the 'force' of coherent emotion, and found a statistically meausreable difference.

Dr Backster designed an experiment in which DNA was taken into a different room, and the subject in the originonal room was subjected to a range of graphic images covering a wide range of emotions. The DNA was simultaneously measured and monitored and the results conclusively demonstrtated that the DNA responded to the emotional experiences of the donor while sepearated from him/her. Even when the DNA was seperated by 300 miles there was still a measuarble, statistically significant response. What powerful implications this has for healing and communication. They don't know what o tcall that force yet, but I suggest that many involved in healing would call it chi or energy. Love is a force that can not be measured or verified scientifically, but the absence of it IS measuarable in the emotional abuse and turmoil of children who have grown up with out it. Maybe we could call 'energy' love.

[Bart]

I'm reading the article, But I miss the number of samples included in the analysis. http://www.vitality-living.com/resource ... of_DNA.pdf
It looks interesting, but it can very well be one test person exhibiting results (while the rest do nothing) More and clearer data will help.

[Lily]

I'm reading it too. I don't buy it but I cannot put my finger on it.
By the way this is not from a peer-reviewed journal. It is from their own press.
Sample size: they had 10 "trained" and 18 "untrained" subjects; the numbers are too small for my taste.
I couldn't figure out the correct statistic to find out how large the sample size should be.

What I am missing is the variance. they only give a p value, but they do not give a confidence interval.
I am seeing 10% average vs 1%, but in the active group it went up to 25% - no error bars.
They do not state what statistical test they used. I'd really like to see the data.

They even managed to shift the absorption spectrum of DNA (off from 260) by handing it to a particularly frustrated individual.
This experiment should be repeated - could get them a Nobel prize, as that would mean they did chemistry on that dna.

Their one particularly well-trained individual is the inventor of all of this.

They say this could be an explanation to the well-known but poorly studied efficacy of prayer. Which coincidentally, has been shown not to exist. I also know that spontaneous remission in cancer cannot be explained through conformational changes in DNA...


edit: I was going to do another couple calculations of the possible power of their study. I was to input the measurements before and after. Then I notice in two graphs they do not even give a scale, which is less than acceptable scientific practice.
in one figure they give a scale, which indicates they are measuring outside of the linear range of the instrument they use (should be between 0.2 and 0.8, optimally) I give it to them the next figure is in the adequate range, but I don't believe their measurements are valid, why would they have given the one subject a solution containing less DNA than the other?
Now I am really not good at statistics but if someone could help me out here. I think in the range they are measuring, to detect a 10% difference in signal, I think the sample size should be more in the range of 100 subjects. This study would therefore be severely underpowered and hence worthless (not that that's a surprise).

[mark the compost elf]

would it help to boil it down to a concept? Think of energy as intent and then look at ideas like those that suggest our perceptions create our reality.

Perhaps energy is a form of divine essence, and as divitiy is a constant through out creation, perhaps measuring it 'scierntifically' would creat a null result.

@energy, as in cosmic ordering and the loossley applied form it often takes is something i struggle not to merely shout 'fluffy bo####ks' at, but then that is the difference between a vague comment, and a well thought out phrase.