I do wonder about energy beyond the idea as a concept in physics to that in experience. I was thinking about that today because I found it such a struggle to get out of bed today. I am sure that is partly to do with physical factors, such as not getting enough sleep frequently and also to do with psychological motivation.

But, it did make me wonder how energy works in life, because it is related to the lifeforce. It is probably also connected to will, because if someone lost will, it would result in giving up, or complete inertia. Of course, most of us have days in which we have more energy than others. But, while I lay there before getting up eventually, I did think how this seems related to the spirit within, because it is on this level that we move through life and realise our goals and dreams.

There is no "problem" — 180 Proof

You mean to say I don't have to look for a solution! Yaay!

That’s not it, either. — Wayfarer

:up: You make me look like a moron but I've never felt so proud of being one!

If you strip away the symbols, all you would see is entangled densities of energy with emergent function. — Pop

Let's strip that away too and if there's still something left, let's strip that away too, strip, strip, strip until we get to nothing and we strip that away too.

I think that some philosophies do seem to strip everything down to the point where there seems to be nothing left at all. I think that is my basic feeling about the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner. I think that it is a fine line between the stripped down philosophies and those which build up such complexities, such as Spinoza. I have started reading a book of his writings but have not got very far with it.

I think that the language in which he thinks and the concepts seem to come from such a different perspective than that which I am accustomed to. But, it is probably the case that the way we build up pictures or models of reality is so variable, but I am wary of those which seem to strip down or break it apart completely, because it does seem that we may be left with nothing.

some philosophies do seem to strip everything — Jack Cummins

Perhaps a good title for a book would be 'The Philosophical Striptease Show.' I am not sure if it would be philosophy discussion, or fiction about subcultures of people who have dropped out of society and their life struggles...

But, it did make me wonder how energy works in life — Jack Cummins

Energy and entropy are key; I don't expect generalisations of the physical concepts to be any more useful, but interested in trying it out. Energy is the ability to do work. What is work? Work is rearrangement of something contra to opposing or restorative forces. Getting out of bed is work against gravity. Walking is work against inertia and friction. Reading a paper is work against disorder. The first two aren't especially interesting with regard to life, but the third is.

Imagine a universe in which entropy naturally decreases. Structures would form naturally, requiring no work to order them. Information would be created spontaneously. Nothing could be learned, merely known, and since that information has not been created through any effort, it would be meaningless. Ink could fall onto a page in a way that neatly and precisely spells "You're out of milk" but because it was spontaneous, it would have nothing to do with how much milk is in your fridge. And, besides, that would have no bearing on what you learn from the ink. You could read "You're out of milk" but learn "Emily Blunt was defenestrated by militant vegans". Jackson Pollack would throw paint at a canvas and make the Mona Lisa. Music would, at best, have to write itself, but you'd remember something else anyway. And you'd have no meaningful sense of identity. You could go to bed thinking "I, Oscar Brainworthy, really nailed that movie pitch" and wake up thinking "Only three more double agents that I, Barry Grimm, need to assassinate".

Not that you'd have been born since procreation is also a battle against entropy. In anti-thermodynamics, a virgin truly could bear a baby boy, or a bear for that matter, in this universe in which the Daily Star and National Enquirer would be the only reliable news sources if only they could control their content. In fact, evolution itself is an intergenerational war against entropy, the incremental addition of information to minimise predictable death, competition for resources, and low reproduction rate. The only barrier to a man being created from bacterial cell division would be the sheer size of him.

Not that you could have bacteria without entropy... And so on. At any scale, life is about energy working against entropy in their precise physical conceptions.

↪Pop Well, ok, against my better judgement, ...didn't you say something abut everything being energy? — Banno

Oh! I'm a little slow with hints. Spirit fits, as it is a similarly uncertain substance, as does a god that is omnipresent but without definition. A melding of the concepts of energy and spirit and god would unify a lot of the narrative about it. My feeling is that it is something like this, but of course I don't have absolute logical proof. What is your feeling?

I think that often the choice of words such as energy, spirit and God are preferred ways to referring to the ultimate underlying reality. I don't really see the need to choose one of these above all others. But, that is my own particular perspective and I am quite aware that choice of naming this reality is one of great debate and importance for most people, not just philosophers. In addition the naming of this reality appears to be the starting point for so many other speculations which have farreaching effects in personal, cultural and political life.

Yes I think that is correct. As we have outlined earlier, it is not possible to reach that underlying reality absolutely, so we will only ever have interpretations of it. Some closer to the truth then others but none can ultimately be true! This is a long held belief in idealism, and is the best understanding in physics, as @Kenosha Kid has pointed out.

We can say we can never reach reality, or we can say it doesn't exist - that we in fact create it in our path, by collapsing interactions to conceptions. Either expression will do, imo.

Thanks for your detailed reply yesterday. I never replied because I developed an upset stomach, which was probably related to my not being able to get out of bed. I am sure that energy and entropy are interrelated. Also, work comes into it, probably because we have to have things to work on, to give us purpose. So, we probably need obstacles as well as suffering to keep us going, rather than us becoming subject to inertia.

It does seem that we create 'reality in our own path' as far as I can see rather than there being a clear 'absolute reality'. However, it is likely that many people would like to see their own view as the definitive one rather than recognise the role of interpretation of the facts of the senses and of knowledge. I think that it is important to be aware of the such limitations of knowledge about reality, as we try to formulate the most accurate interpretation based on the facts which are available for our thinking.

However, it is likely that many people would like to see their own view as the definitive one — Jack Cummins

It is the only way to form a conception of reality - via a paradigm based on our knowledge, that forms our consciousness, that creates our reality.

Are you suggesting that these are the absolute boundaries? — Jack Cummins

Well, it seems to me that many things (if not all things) come in discrete packages; all objects we can perceive, directly (i.e., your computer, your pet, your best friend, the sun, the stars, an ant, cells) or indirectly (i.e., molecules, atoms, fields, information) seem to be particular entities (i.e., you can differentiate among photons by their frequency or their order in a sequence of photons; you can differentiate among ideas by their meaning or their order in a sequence of ideas). Not all electromagnetic radiation is the same (or at least not all electromagnetic radiation interacts equally with matter - some is absorbed while some is reflected by the same element or combination of elements). Not all ideas are the same. So, it seems to me that the quality of particularity is something shared by every thing that exists. To be a particular, a thing must have a limit. It cannot extend infinitely in regards to all of its properties; at least one of these must have a limit, I think.
In other words, I guess what I am trying to say is that everything we perceive is different (there are not two things of the same - just like there is not two Jacks, there are not two oxygen atoms that are exactly the same, nor I believe there are two photons with the same frequency that are exactly the same; the photon of sunlight that hits your eye is definitely not the same that hits my eye, in fact not two people will ever see the same photon, right?). Anyways, every single thing that exists is unique/different which I understand seems to be an obvious fact; so obvious that we (or at least some us) do not ever really pay attention to it (or not enough attention). If every single thing that exists is unique, then I believe it must have at least one limit that separates it from every single other thing that exists with it; I cannot tell you that this limit must be definitely a limit in time or space, but there must be a limit, I think. How else could a particular be a particular if it was unlimited in all of its properties, whatever they are?

I believe all things that are real are particulars, although I might be wrong. And that's assuming that ideas are real (a unicorn may not be real in the exact meaning of the word, but the molecular processes that bring the unicorn to mind are very real). If an idea is a set of molecular interactions, then ideas would be real.

I think that often the choice of words such as energy, spirit and God are preferred ways to referring to the ultimate underlying reality. — Jack Cummins

You are referring to a Fundamental Absolute.

Either there is an Absolute, such as quantum fields (see QFT), or there is Relationism, with no intrinsic properties or absolutes (see RQM), so, indeed, we are very close to knowing.

Yes I think that is correct. As we have outlined earlier, it is not possible to reach that underlying reality absolutely, so we will only ever have interpretations of it. Some closer to the truth then others but none can ultimately be true! This is a long held belief in idealism, and is the best understanding in physics, as Kenosha Kid has pointed out.

We can say we can never reach reality, or we can say it doesn't exist - that we in fact create it in our path, by collapsing interactions to conceptions. Either expression will do, imo. — Pop

Yes, I agree with this. There's no divine revelation. Science grants us no direct access to objective reality. We have to use our impressive brains to interpret* wisely from phenomena.

*I distinctly remember typing interpret. But it came out interpolate. I don't think I can blame autocorrect for this one.

:fire: :100:

There's no divine revelation. Science grants us no direct access to objective reality. We have to use our impressive brains to interpolate wisely from phenomena. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

You speak of relationism as the way as a potential for knowing absolutes. I understand that to be about relationships and, really, it will just be yet another theory. We have models and theories but they are not reality itself.

I agree that we have to use our 'impressive brains' and not expect divine revelation'. The problem is that even rationality and knowledge are limited. We come back to the question interrelated to what is reality, which is, how do we know?

The problem is that even rationality and knowledge are limited. — Jack Cummins

Explain why being "limited" is a "problem". The alternatives to "rationality and knowledge" are, by the way, far more "limited" and, on your terms, even less worth consideration for use in seeking to understand reality. Besides, only "rationality and knowledge"-based inquiry – not mysticism, faith, intuition, magic, etc – can self-reflectively take its own limitation as a "problem" to contemplate (since it can't be solved as such) and endured. Philosophy, no?

I am all in favour of rationality. I just think that it is in the context of the spectrum and do think that Jung's model of knowledge is useful: sensation, feeling, reason and intuition. I think that we all have one which predominate and one or two which are undeveloped, with the idea of having them all functioning to some extent. I was once told by a supervisor that I am too much in 'my head' and in discussion with him, it appeared that I was more dominated by reason than any other function.

It does seem that since the enlightenment reason has been predominant. I think that it is a good thing because it is probably the strongest function, because it is able to bring critical thinking to emotion, intuition and sensation, but they should not be forgotten or ignored.

I only see the limit of knowledge as being a 'problem' if people fail to acknowledge the limits. I am not wishing to overthrow rational searching and thinking, but just believe that there is a danger of human beings becoming inflated with a sense of knowledge and overlooking uncertainty. Of course, Wittgenstein pointed to that so, hopefully, the philosophers won't get too caught up in the sense of all knowing, but those in other fields of knowledge may begin to mistake the map for reality itself.

It does seem that since the enlightenment reason has been predominant. I think that it is a good thing because it is probably the strongest function, because it is able to bring critical thinking to emotion, intuition and sensation, but they should not be forgotten or ignored. — Jack Cummins

This is a common view but is it accurate? Firstly, reason is popular because humans have learned from experience that it actually provides practical results. This was perhaps inevitable. But there is minimal evidence that emotion or intuition or sensation are abandoned. The arts are rich and productive; musicians, novelists, playwrights and painters abound; creative, emotional websites and flight of fancy blogs overwhelm us; clairvoyants and superstitions of all sorts remain prevalent. This idea of a post enlightenment paradigm which has a grip on contemporary culture seems widely off the mark to me.

What you are saying does tie into the discussion on my thread about philosophy and culture. I definitely don't think that emotion, sensation and intuition are not able to be abandoned because that would be about losing sight of what it means to be human. I do think that many people rely on novels and the arts, and, hopefully, philosophy will draw from these. So, it may come down to the juggling of models and metaphorical views. Hopefully, critical or smart thinking will help lead the way beyond the 'flight of fancy' as you describe what is happening, especially on websites.

I do plan to reply to your response on the other thread, but it will have to be later today. However, just one other point is that you raise the question of superstition and I think that is interesting, and perhaps it is the shadow of reason,and even the reason why people turn to sources such as clairvoyance and ideas of 'new age' philosophies.

:up:

It's the overwhelming atavistic pressure of our primate drives (e.g. intuition, magical-wishful-group thinking, neuroses & phobias, cognitive biases, etc) that make "people fail to acknowledge the limits" (i.e. hubris). Reasoning begins and proceeds as a self-correcting / adapting confrontation with and extension of the limits to "rationality and knowledge". In the West, btw, this did not begin with the Enlightenment philosophes but over two millennia before with Presocratic proto-scientists contra mythopoetic superstitions (Ur-conspiracy theories).

However, just one other point is that you raise the question of superstition and I think that is interesting, and perhaps it is the shadow of reason,and even the reason why people turn to sources such as clairvoyance and ideas of 'new age' philosophies. — Jack Cummins

People have never left behind the world of superstition and magical thinking. This is an evergreen pursuit. We talk about this era of science, but how many people know anything much about science? As almost any educator will reveal, science is one of the least understood subjects. I have come to think that many people choose their beliefs based on aesthetic criteria. Science seems to convey a cold world, astrology by contrast provides meaningful connections. Atheism is a world without magic, God ushers in romanticism. Etc, etc.

I agree that we have to use our 'impressive brains' and not expect divine revelation'. The problem is that even rationality and knowledge are limited. We come back to the question interrelated to what is reality, which is, how do we know? — Jack Cummins

We'll, they're not _that_ limited. Thanks to the best of us, we're exploring beyond our solar system and building machines that can answer questions we can't. We know an insane amount about the universe and ourselves. We don't know everything, true, and we don't know some of the stuff that's most important to us, but I think we're doing alright for a bunch of hairless apes who, a few thousand years ago, were firing sticks at birds and dying aged 28 of toothache.

And we're doing it alone while the majority of us are engaged in land wars, holy wars, race wars, etc. Imagine how much more we'll achieve when we form an intergalactic federation with advanced alien races founded on science, peace, and cooperation. Good idea for a TV and movie franchise, actually.

I am certainly not trying to argue against the use of reason and I do believe that it is extremely likely that irrationality is the worst enemy, for thinking about reality, and in the realities we create in real life.

Your reply is fantastic but I think it probably fits more into the thread I wrote about the future of philosophy and wastelands. Where is philosophy going, in connection with culture? I realise that all the themes are interrelated, and I am probably experiencing a bit of tangled threads syndrome on account of this. I am currently reading 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow ' by Yuval Noah Harari(2016), but we are looking not just at what is reality is, but what reality are we creating?

I do have one reflection about superstition based on my experience of working as a psychiatric nurse. I worked with a consultant psychiatrist, who was as far as I could see so based in 'the real world" in trying to point to delusions, almost outlawing any ideas which went against the norm. However, oneday, I happened to remark to him that the ward I worked in was so calm, and he got angry in a serious way, remarking, 'You will jinx it, saying that.' I did not challenge him, because he was so much more senior to me, but I was left wondering how people who seem so grounded in reason and avoidance of delusion, may often be prone to a certain amount of superstition.

I do agree that our perspective of reality needs to go beyond the universal to the specifics. We may make generalisations, but we also need to understand and analyse the specifics and the unique as well. These specifics should probably be not treated as the irregularities, but as key aspects of any larger picture of reality, or else we will really have a gross caricature based on generalisations.