Energy >is< these things...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Energy >is< these things…

energy is something [an emptiness?] which acts in a given behaviour, and when it does, it changes into something we call an energy version e.g. electricity, light, colour, sound, information, knowledge and consciousness.

Feel free to consider any energy form you so wish to imagine, but we have to say that everything we experience is something that energy changes into.

At some level of change, energy is transformed from electrical signals and electromagnetic forces [forces – no labels initially required]. We can see that when in the form of a photon, energy literally becomes light and colour, and when it changes its behaviour into consciousness ~ it is then consciousness.

This may or may not, only occur at the macroscopic level, but what is the difference? At all levels and stages of change for energy, we see it becoming a given something simply by changing its behaviour. Those ‘somethings’ do not [here] exist as something, they are only energy transformed into that thing.

Here I am not asking why or how, a behaviour or pattern [electricity, thoughts etc] of energy can become light/colour, I am just accepting that it does. Indeed ‘energy’ should here become an archaic term, because we don’t think of it as a ‘thinking’ thing, we think of energy as a physical entity [not including consciousness and thoughts?].

Should we discard the term due to its connotations, or change the way we think about it?
Or
should we keep the term as representing so called physics? Isn’t that a failure to provide a term that represents everything we know to exist? To wit we Must then have ‘something else’ to describe reality and its aspects?

I cannot find anywhere to make a division!

_

2

That energy is something which cannot be defined and which cannot be understood. Not that I am mystifying it. The moment the dead thought tries to capture that energy, thought is destroyed. Thought is matter. The moment it is created, it has to be destroyed. But that is the very thing that we resist. Thought is born and is destroyed, and again it is born and again it is destroyed. The only way you can give continuity to thought is through this constant demand to experience everything. This is the only way you try to maintain the continuity of the `experiencing structure’.

Without knowledge you can’t experience anything. What you do not know, you cannot experience. It is the knowledge that creates the experience, and it is the experience that strengthens the knowledge. At every moment of our existence, we have to know what is happening outside of us and what is happening inside of us. That is the only way you can maintain this continuity.

3

energy is the thing that can become consciousness, how can it be so that consciousness is not in energy in some manner? for it to have the ‘ability’ to become colour or thoughts, it must be that thing in some way. unless there is something else at work here, and then we have a duality ~ where reality cannot fundamentally be described by any duality.

?
We do not experience the life and death of individual thoughts, and they don’t exactly die, they pass into the memory where the brain sorts them out as required or needed. we experience thought collectively as one thinking thing. at that level energy is one thing thinking ~ it has to be what we experience as well as other things we don’t.

Energy is not ever destroyed as we all know, there are simply changes to its behaviours. When a change occurs, energy becomes a given quality like colour. That doesn’t mean there is an affix ~ something, which is colour qualia. Energy contains what may be a given quality ~ there can be no duality to the meaning of the term ‘energy’ if is to be used as a primary description of reality. otherwise we must use a different term!

?

Animals don’t have knowledge and do experience.

[everything occurring in their lives, at some level].

That is to state; animals do have experiential ‘knowledge’.

Equally you feel many things as an experience you cannot define, no? Words and their respective knowledge belong to a secondary level of perception [perhaps that only humans have?]. Thought is all levels.

4

It seems to me that reality is, at its truer level, is a form of transmutation.
I’ve considered it often. I’m really tending towards a original substance transmuted into order, chaos, earth, water, etc. etc.
Reality is a form of nirvana based on transmutations.

5

Dan

I tend towards an original non-substance, an emptiness. I think that reality cant make substances off the cuff – so to say, and it is probably infinite and so cannot be something limited. Equally I wouldn’t think of mental qualities as any kind of substance?

This is something science cannot reach and is for philosophers to decide.

6

Emptiness is a part of the original substance. It was originally containing its own opposites perfectly.

7

Emptiness is only a word, as is fullness. They describe perceptions , arrangements, points of view and contexts within which these are framed.

Without perceptions, the perceptions become the nothingness of it’s self but surely perceptions are not merely matters of definition? What they are defining are the perceptions, and not what the perceptions represent.

What do they represent? An objective recurrence of patterns.
Nothingness is a subjective perception of patterns, as is fullness. They are pure objects of perception.