The Logic Off Topic list

Hello all...

>>Psychologist and sociologists mostly talk about patterns to explain
>>behaviours they observe.>

> I hope Tony reads that 'cause he's kind of tried to say that he can't see
> the patterns in mathematics. My feeling is that if he can see the patterns
> in one PLUS he's not prepared to say that we're all complete idiots for
> insisting that those patterns exist, then he's pretty much there.

The perception of pattern - of connection - is the basis of both science and
art. Perception  both comes from and feeds back to one's _internal_ reality.
The ability to communicate that connection, that internal perception to
others is the other side of both science and art. Often the rest of the
world has to wait for some trigger, some linking concept, to allow the new
idea to be comprehensible - they can't make the immediate jump. I see you
guys talking about this stuff and derive genuine pleasure from the fact that
you do see these connections and enjoy them- this may have something to do
with living with an autistic person who most emphatically does _not_ see a
lot of connections most people take for granted - and I accept the validity
of your shared internal realities. When the triggering event comes for me I
hope to enjoy maths too!

>When a scientist uses the  word energy, then he or she means a very specific
thing. It's the stuff  that's absorbed or emitted when a material body of
specific mass moves  through a specific height in a given gravitational
field. I agree that I  have 'some kind of energy' that's 'keeping me alive'
and that I can 'tap  into' for certain purposes to 'enhance my life'. I do
this regularly. I  have my dreams for my life that I would like to fulfill
and that give my 
> life some meaning. However, if Sylvia Brown is going to say that she has
> some kind of energy that allows her to put her finger on chakra field and
> directly manipulate someone's organs into a state of health, then with all
> due respect she is using a word 'energy' that only has the power and
> effectiveness it does because scientists put it there, and I do think the
> average scientist has a very valid point if he or she puts up his or her
> hand and says: excuse me, but what's the evidentiary basis for this assertion.
> 
> Bottom line, I totally accept the existence and viability of such things as
> acupuncture and prayer and things like that. However, I do think that they
> also need to be careful of the terms in which they speak of such things;
> just like I think that many scientists are indeed arrogant in the way they
> approach a study of those subjects.

I feel the problem here is that there were no terms in European languages
for the concepts to which this word 'energy' has been applied; the relevant
labels are 'chi' or 'ki' in Chinese and Japanese and 'prana' from the Hindu
tradition. People may well have wished to find their own Western equivalent
and settled for something which comes out as less than precise.

Again, this is an issue of internal realities. I can speak from my own
experience and say that I have had an experience in meditation which has
been described to me as a partial flow of Kundalini. It felt like
electricity flowing up my spine from the base to the top of my head - a
remarkably _physical_ sensation which I was in no way striving for or
prepared for. I  have been involved in 'laying on of hands' healing for many
years, leading to me current involvement with Reiki. If I put my hands near
someone for these purposes I feel something flowing from the hands in a
definite circular motion. The Buddhist and Hindu traditions suggest there
are secondary chakras in the palms of the hands. To be frank, it is very
hard to find another term for what I experience in situations like these
than 'energy', loose and imprecise though it may be. I would be only too
pleased to use another term if someone can invent one.

Feel free to call the virtual men in white coats if you like to lead me away
for gentle sedation. Just remember that all sensation you experience is
internally mediated in you. If you feel pain or pleasure that's entirely
internal to your nervous system and not 'objective' in the sense of being
replicable in others in precisely repeated circumstances. I can say that
people do say they feel that the healing has immediate positive effects on
them - again, obviously internally mediated, though in this case there are
two overlapping sets of internal experience going on, often where I have
never met the recipient before.

I have come to believe that human beings function, particularly in
perceptual terms, in ways which current scientific equipment cannot measure.
I'm not going to adopt a resolutely sceptical approach to the very strong
sensations I have experienced because they have felt as real to me as
anything else I have felt in my life - I'm going to go with them and if
someone in a lab somewhere eventually catches up with me and produces a
scientific paper which 'validates' what I have been saying then goody for
him. I do know that there are many people in conventional medicine who also
accept these ideas and experiences and use these techniques in their work on
the quiet, though fearing for their careers if they are too outspoken in
their support.

Whew!

That came out a bit heavier and deeper  than i intended at the start.
Nonetheless, it's a reasonable statement of where I stand!

Tony Thompson