Energy and how it applies to how we understand life as physical beings

[Balthazzar]

Is energy a mental construct, or is our mental awareness a by-product of energy as it exists? If a mental construct, then how can the God concept be ruled out? If our mental awareness is a by-product of energy as it exists, then intelligence must be a random occurrence. I lean towards energy being mental by nature, and existing in many forms, connected to a greater intelligence or mind.

For example: dead white blood cells (hair, toe nails, dead skin, etc) would be by-products of a larger mental and living entity. Based on what we know about life, why is it difficult for some to grasp the concept of things like plants, trees, etc. being similar as they relate to this egg (cell) we call earth, and the earth connected in similar manner to an even greater source of intelligence?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I lean towards energy being mental by nature, and existing in many forms, connected to a greater intelligence or mind.

Is the lightbulb in my lamp "slightly conscious" then?

Or are we only talking "biological" energy?

 

[Balthazzar]

Is the lightbulb in my lamp "slightly conscious" then?

Or are we only talking "biological" energy?

I don't know. Electricity and energy are different. If it is, I would wonder the same about pitch darkness.

 

[ChristineM]

E=MC2

 

[Balthazzar]

E=MC2

Are you validating my thoughts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is energy a mental construct, or is our mental awareness a by-product of energy as it exists? If a mental construct, then how can the God concept be ruled out? If our mental awareness is a by-product of energy as it exists, then intelligence must be a random occurrence. I lean towards energy being mental by nature, and existing in many forms, connected to a greater intelligence or mind.

For example: dead white blood cells (hair, toe nails, dead skin, etc) would be by-products of a larger mental and living entity. Based on what we know about life, why is it difficult for some to grasp the concept of things like plants, trees, etc. being similar as they relate to this egg (cell) we call earth, and the earth connected in similar manner to an even greater source of intelligence?

If you are talking about any sort of physical energy that concept is well defined. If you are going into the weeds with a woo woo definition of energy, then not so much. And in the case of the latter the concept is all but useless since no one can properly define it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't know. Electricity and energy are different. If it is, I would wonder the same about pitch darkness.

Well, light itself is electromagnetic energy. But we could talk about kinetic energy or anything else.

I feel like, unless we precisely define energy here, we won't be able to produce any significant answers to your questions.

 

[ChristineM]

Are you validating my thoughts?

No,i am stating that energy is not a mental construct. It existed since day one of the universe a long, long time before there was mental anything to think about it

And... A big welcome to RF

 

[Balthazzar]

If you are talking about any sort of physical energy that concept is well defined. If you are going into the weeds with a woo woo definition of energy, then not so much. And in the case of the latter the concept is all but useless since no one can properly define it.

It's all physical isn't it? Ethereal (spiritual/emotional) elements exist, but even they would be considered physical with the appropriate tools to identify them via our human ability to see. I guess at quantum levels, it's difficult to understand the physical nature of energy ... at least it was before quantum physics became a legitimate science.

 

[Balthazzar]

No,i am stating that energy is not a mental construct. It existed since day one of the universe a long, long time before there was mental anything to think about it

And... A big welcome to RF

Thanks for the big welcome

ok, the comment wasn't a validation ... I was thinking otherwise, given the content and implication of my op. For every action, there's an equal or opposite reaction. I thought you were applying that to hair, toe nails, trees, and the earth as the inquiry relates to the concept of mind and universe...unless you were just speaking about your own time here as a mentally aware being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's all physical isn't it? Ethereal (spiritual/emotional) elements exist, but even they would be considered physical with the appropriate tools to identify them via our human ability to see. I guess at quantum levels, it's difficult to understand the physical nature of energy ... at least it was before quantum physics became a legitimate science.

No, when you start the woo woo ethereal nonsense that has never shown to be physical or real in any manner at all. And please, don't use the word "quantum" because that does not help you either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the big welcome

ok, the comment wasn't a validation ... I was thinking otherwise, given the content and implication of my op. For every action, there's an equal or opposite reaction. I thought you were applying that to hair, toe nails, trees, and the earth as the inquiry relates to the concept of mind and universe...unless you were just speaking about your own time here as a mentally aware being.

No, that law only applies to inertia. Misapplying science is merely woo woo and easily dismissed out of hand because no one can seem to provide any evidence for it.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks for the big welcome

ok, the comment wasn't a validation ... I was thinking otherwise, given the content and implication of my op. For every action, there's an equal or opposite reaction. I thought you were applying that to hair, toe nails, trees, and the earth as the inquiry relates to the concept of mind and universe...unless you were just speaking about your own time here as a mentally aware being.

Noooo, i was applying it to energy and how it relates to the universe and it's evolution.

 

[Balthazzar]

E=MC2

Wait ... that was Einstein ... What was I thinking? I still hold to it's relevance as a Newtonian principle as it relates to more base applications of Einstein's equation. It's relative ...

 

[ChristineM]

Wait ... that was Einstein ... What was I thinking? I still hold to it's relevance as a Newtonian principle as it relates to more base applications of Einstein's equation. It's relative ...

Its also profound.

And no, it's not relative, that's a completely different equation

 

[exchemist]

Is energy a mental construct, or is our mental awareness a by-product of energy as it exists? If a mental construct, then how can the God concept be ruled out? If our mental awareness is a by-product of energy as it exists, then intelligence must be a random occurrence. I lean towards energy being mental by nature, and existing in many forms, connected to a greater intelligence or mind.

For example: dead white blood cells (hair, toe nails, dead skin, etc) would be by-products of a larger mental and living entity. Based on what we know about life, why is it difficult for some to grasp the concept of things like plants, trees, etc. being similar as they relate to this egg (cell) we call earth, and the earth connected in similar manner to an even greater source of intelligence?

You can, I think , regard energy as a mental construct, in the sense that it is a man-made concept that we find useful in science for analysing and predicting the behaviour of physical systems. Energy is a quantitative property we can assign to systems. (Momentum is another example).

But I don't find it useful to treat mental awareness in terms of energy. Mental awareness arises due to the activity of the brain, which involves a very complex series of biochemical processes. While the cells of the brain certainly need biochemical energy to carry these processes out, that fact does not shed any light on the nature of mental awareness.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how can the God concept be ruled out?

It can't.

More relevant, how can it be ruled in?

I lean towards energy being mental by nature

Energy is physical. The physical realm is energy and its various manifestations (matter, force) in spacetime. The mind appears an epiphenomenon of matter (brain) and the energy coursing through it. Perhaps you were aware that 20% of the oxygen consumed by the body is consumed in the brain, which is only 2% of the body mass. That is because those physical processes that generate mind require a lot of ATP, which is regenerated from ADP in pathways using oxygen (glycolysis, Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation). The brain is using more energy than other organs despite having no moving parts. It's consumed generating mind. From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ab...erage, CMRO,δ-power, increased commensurately.

"During slow-wave sleep, synaptic transmissions are reduced with a concomitant reduction in brain energy consumption. We used 3 Tesla MRI to noninvasively quantify changes in the cerebral metabolic rate of O2 (CMRO2) during wakefulness and sleep ... During sleep, on average, CMRO2 decreased 21% (range: 14%–32%; average nadir = 98 ± 16 µmol O2/min/100 g), while EEG slow-wave activity, expressed in terms of δ-power, increased"

The energy is physical, its generation as ATP is correlated with oxygen consumption, and there is more of that during wakefulness than sleep, a pretty strong argument that mind is generated by physical processes. Believers want to find an immaterial reality, a place for mind independent of the physical, because that's how they see God - pure mind divorced from matter. But we don't find that anywhere, and if such a thing existed, it couldn't interact with the material world. The mind needs to run the body, a material entity.

dead white blood cells (hair, toe nails, dead skin, etc)

I think you meant dead, stratified squamous cells - not dead white blood cells. The latter are cells of the immune system that are found in the bone marrow, the blood stream, the spleen and lymph nodes, and in abscesses (pus).

 

[exchemist]

Well, light itself is electromagnetic energy. But we could talk about kinetic energy or anything else.

I feel like, unless we precisely define energy here, we won't be able to produce any significant answers to your questions.

Light has energy. But it is not true to say light is energy.

 

[Balthazzar]

No, that law only applies to inertia. Misapplying science is merely woo woo and easily dismissed out of hand because no one can seem to provide any evidence for it.

Newtons law of motion and Einstein's theory of Relativity, relatively speaking are similar in application, mathematically speaking in terms of space time curvature. Timing is an issue for less obvious reactions caused by energy or inertia.

Gravity vs. inertia vs. action and intent vs. timing and speed of processes like hair growth rates of living things as they pertain white blood cell lifespans. Blah blah blah ....

Anyway, a mental universe is what many in the scientific communities are researching and some are already theorizing, based, I think on the conscious awareness of living things. It's how we relate to everything. I can see you're in the random by-product of energy and motion. I wonder if both can be equally valid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Newtons law of motion and Einstein's theory of Relativity, relatively speaking are similar in application, mathematically speaking in terms of space time curvature. Timing is an issue for less obvious reactions cause by energy or inertia.

Gravity vs. inertia vs. action and intent vs. timing and speed of processes like hair growth rates of living things as they pertain white blood cell lifespans. Blah blah blah ....

Anyway, a mental universe is what many in the scientific communities are researching and some are already theorizing, based, I think on the conscious awareness of living things. It's how we relate to everything. I can see you're in the random by-product of energy and motion. I wonder if both can be equally valid?

Sorry but now you have lowered your argument to pure woo woo.. Making it far too easy to dismiss. Why don't you try to find some evidence for your beliefs?