Hi, Micah and others:
I find many problems with that all energy has electrical charge.
Both the words "energy" and "charge" are used in many ways, and in the
context of your writing it was not possible infer what meanings attached.
There's high-energy rock music, there's the energy you feel when you drink a
cup of coffee, there's the energy stored in a coiled spring. You can get a
charge out of rock music, you are charged for your coffee, and there's the
Charge of the Light Brigade.
Assuming you were talking about physics, we can make these
observations: when you roll a rock up a hill you increase its potential
energy; you don't change its electrical charge. When you let it roll down
the hill, you increase its kinetic energy, but you don't change its charge.
When you stretch a rubber band or compress a coil spring, you don't change
the charge (at least, not for most materials). When you heat pot of water
you increase its thermal energy without changing its electrical charge. A
chemical reaction can change the amount of energy stored in chemical bonds
without changing the overall electrical charge of the molecule.
Electrical charge is borne by electrons and protons (and their
constituent quarks) and nothing else. Thus, there is no physical basis for
the statement "All energy has an electric charge, whether we can currently
measure that charge or not." Additionally, I don't think it is meaningful
to say "Science and Religion are concepts(energy) that play a large role in
the human system." While human mental activity that underlies science and
religion does indeed rely on biochemical energetic processes in neurons,
there is a severe problem with trying to understand the former in terms of
the latter. After all, our neurons function in essentially the same way as
those of a jellyfish or a lobster.
The information processing the emerges from the interconnections of
our neurons could presumably be replicated in some system that has no
neurons, such as a silicon-based computer, and that uses energy in very
different ways. Too many levels of analysis (reflected in the somewhat
arbitrary boundaries separating scientific disciplines such as particle
physics and neurology) separate raw physical energy from human social
phenomena. It is beyond our ability to understand the emergent properties
at one level based on our understanding of the principles governing the
lower level, and some would argue that it is impossible in principle.
I do not think that saying "All forms of energy have an associated
charge" would resolve these difficulties. Also, I never said your
statements were "first class nonsense." I said it "seems like nonsense of
the first water." That I drew my metaphor from the system of grading
diamonds can be seen as a high compliment.
Martin Meiss
2010/5/25 Micah Moore <mmoore1...@yahoo.com>
> I apologize for the first class nonsense of my statement, "All energy has
> electric charge". I am glad it was challenged, and I will provide as much
> detail as I can. Will you provide more detail about your disagreement? What
> if I said, "All forms of energy have an associated charge"?
>
> Respectfully,
> M. Moore
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> *Sent:* Mon, May 24, 2010 5:02:24 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
>
> I'd like to address a number of points raised in this interesting thread:
>
> 1. People seem to assume that all early humans were religious and/or
> superstitious and only much later developed the rational and logical
> process
> that led to science as we know it. Maybe early humans (with their larger
> brains) were logical, sceptical empiricists as they set about discovering
> how to use the vastly complicated resources of their environments. Maybe
> only rationalists could learn how to control fire, discover which plants
> contain medicines, etc., but their discoveries were hijacked by a parasitic
> priesthood who sought to control all knowledge and technology for its own
> power and enrichment.
>
> 2. Similarly, whatever accounts for the capacity of the human brain to
> supply experiences that are perceived as "spiritual" or "transcendent,"
> this
> capacity has been hijacked by priesthoods, often working in close
> cooperation with conquering armies. Priesthoods try to lay claim to, and
> take credit for, aspects of human experience that are the natural
> birthright
> of all of us.
>
> 3. Several posts distinguish between mono- and polytheistic religions, and
> I submit that this is a false distinction. The religions that claim to be
> monotheistic really believe in many gods but assign them names like "evil
> spirit," "demon," "Satan," "angel," "Mary," "prophet," etc. The roles
> filled by these mythological entities are the same roles played by
> analogous
> members of the pantheons of those religions usually called polytheistic.
> On
> the other hand, there is no reason to assume that the various so-called
> gods
> of allegedly polytheistic religions are necessarily perceived in the minds
> of the believers as distinct entities; rather, they can just be seen as
> various manifestations of the universal divine.
>
> 4. What does it mean to say "All energy has electrical charge?" This
> seems
> like nonsense of the first water. Why do people let statements like that
> go
> unchallenged?
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
> 2010/5/21 Chalfant, Brian <bchalf...@state.pa.us>
>
> > Splendid thread! (And I don't mean that in any Two Cities, Dickensian
> > sense.) Personally, I find great harmony between(+among)
> > science(s)+religion(s). In my esteem, science(s) and religion(s) share
> > essential similarities in their both/all being modes of human thought. I
> > find affinity in M. Moore's(+Einsten's+Rilke's+a lot of people's) idea of
> > translatability of ideas/matters/energies, although I take some exception
> to
> > some extensions thereof. In science(s), we often attempt to describe
> > existence(s) using methods/techniques/instruments to detect, describe and
> -
> > often - quantify energies of objects...
> >
> > [[riff on objects]] The idea of objectivity concerns me (apparently
> > paradoxical reflexivity intended). Personally, I think it's impossible
> to
> > observe something without the observer exerting influence on the observed
> -
> > the linking of all things, eh? (And that pesky thread again!)
> Relatively
> > recently, I had a sort of Archimedes/Edison/ah-ha! moment myself when
> > listening to J.J.N.L.Y.T. Gyatsothe - the current (ohms and all) Dalai
> Lama
> > - discuss the interface(s) of science and religion; what struck me was
> his
> > comparison of meditation techniques and the scientific method - which J.
> > Shevtsov introduced in excerpting E.O. Wilson: this D. Lama talked about
> > how some meditation practices are every bit as methodical and rationally
> > thought-out as aspects of scientific inquiry; he talked about how those
> > meditative approaches had been developed, refined and passed down by
> > generations of practitioners who were able to come to some
> inter-subjective
> > ( - that's a particular phrase that !
> > sticks with me - ) way to describe the specific methods they used to
> > achieve certain and equally specific mental/spiritual/extant states, and
> > then to describe what those states were like with similar accord. As,
> J.J.
> > Roper notes, these people thought a lot about these approaches and modes,
> > with an almost scientific attention. In such framing, I see no evidence
> for
> > irresolvable discord among ideas of rationality, empiricism, mysticism,
> > intuition, emotion, poetry and so on; rather, I see incorporation and
> > synthesis of human capacity. I see a nuanced beauty. (We'll get to
> truth.)
> > I think hooking monks up to fMRI machines may provide a different means
> of
> > describing what they could tell you in their own particular idioms, and
> > without all the electric and petrochemical infrastructure. [[return from
> > riff]]
> >
> > And, personally (I'm going to stop with that adverb since it's inherent
> in
> > my expressions), I don't find science(s) to be bound, except in how we
> > choose to apply what we call science - it's a matter of applied
> > interpretation, in my esteem. I think questions of divinity and unifying
> > aspects of the universe (maybe multi-verse?) can be investigated/accessed
> > with as much methodology, logic and deliberateness (see above and also
> > Aquinas, T. 'round about 1270-ish) as questions of physical sciences. I
> > think ideas and emotions are just as observable as insects. "I will show
> > you fear in a handful of dust."
> >
> > I'd also like to touch on something that M. Moore brought up: do we
> really
> > want to know? Or, modified: can we really know? Surely not by logic
> > alone... I've (thankfully) never taken classes on logic but from what
> I've
> > read of infinite regress (e.g., evidence for our evidence), axiomatic
> > assumptions, Agrippa and Gödel, I gather that logic is problematic, and
> like
> > its cousin, mathematics, is shot through with unreason and paradox and
> > conundrum (nod to D.F. Wallace, RIP). Proposition Q: Proposition Q is
> not
> > provable. Truth: Truths are only provable when true. As D. Pursell
> notes,
> > truth is tricky to define, especially with our inherently abstract,
> > ambiguous language/representational/number systems (nods to D. Pursell +
> W.
> > Tyson + D.F. Wallace here + all intellectual predecessors who led to
> them) -
> > water is not the word water. Language can impede and facilitate
> > communication, depending on who's in the audience. We always seem to
> start
> > with the ifs given. I like the id!
> > ea of only opining on what one could explain to one's mother, yet that
> > assumes one wants to talk to her, or can find her. {{Uh-oh, now I'm
> > thinking about my thoughts... oy indeed!}}
> >
> > I also think (believe, opine, tra la la) it's unfair to paint religion(s)
> > as the only human endeavor plagued by dogmatism and
> imperialistic-oriented
> > evangelism (and any number of other -isms). I think science, journalism,
> > politics and any human activity can be manipulated by power-hungry,
> > overzealous authoritarian interests who profit from suppressing
> questioning
> > and independent thought. I think one big benefit of what we call science
> > relates to the peer-review/inter-subjective process of debate, culling,
> > further study and tentative agreement... I think religion(s) are just as
> > capable of harboring lunatic rogues and science(s) - that doesn't condemn
> > either entire enterprise, if they are in fact so separate. For example,
> > I've read and discussed a lot of religions and I think the principle of
> > reciprocal interpersonal ethics (some would gild this and use words like
> > "unto" and "do" - note that it can be rendered very scientific-sounding
> by
> > throwing in a few quadra-/penta-syll!
> > abic adjectives with balanced consonant-to-vowel ratios preceded by "the
> > principle of") stands as an example of an idea that has been broadly
> vetted
> > across time and cultures and accepted in a variety of religious
> > ellipses/circles. (Ahh, but what of child sacrifice? you say?! Nay? Or
> > Yea? Maybe a fuzzy-setted, conditional kind of Maybe-Nay?)
> >
> > And I think much of this discussion has too conveniently divorced the
> > spread of Science (as such) from colonialism and religious
> proselytizing...
> > there's suspicious spatiotemporal correlation there too, methinks.
> Empires
> > of empiricism? B./W. Silvert touched on the idea of power structure. (I
> > think) When anyone presents and idea that threatens current power
> > structures, opposition will arise - the rationality of which depends on
> > perspective. One example cited by J. Crants: when astrophysicists
> suggest
> > (based on years of meticulous research which maybe helped those
> > astrophysicists to feed themselves and their families) the universe is
> much
> > older than some religious leader purports, and said religious leader's
> > reputation, position and ability to feed herhimself (nod to W. Tyson)
> and/or
> > family is put in jeopardy by having herhis authority and thus position of
> > influence questioned... resistance seems a natural response, but this
> > resistance may eventually give way to acceptanc!
> > e and paradigm change over time and with sufficient multiple-party
> > debate/discussion and/or self-reflection... blah blah blah. I have seen
> > similar scenarios arise within academic scientific circles when a new
> > theory/study calls into question a previous theory or entire body of work
> > that may jeopardize some untenured professorship. Extend this to
> corporate
> > interests disputing climate science. Extend this to disputing the
> disputed
> > science... Selfishly folded proteins aside; selfish selves create much
> rub.
> >
> > I'd also argue with the idea that religion(s) - monotheistic or not - and
> > science(s) strive purely to provide certainty, comfort and
> enlightenment. I
> > think aspects of human nature do yearn for certainty and explanation,
> which
> > - in part - lead to development of myth, religion and science - but I
> think
> > equal aspects of human nature yearn for disorder, improvisation and the
> > sheer excitement of unpredictability... I think our religio-mythic
> empirical
> > toolbox provides us with means to express all parts of our desirous
> spectra.
> > I find as much satisfaction in coming to new questions that arise while
> > attempting to answer previous ones and in find that there are things I
> still
> > don't understand (or overstand?), mysteries to be explored (oh no! that
> > colonial impulse!), as in arriving at - what could be termed - an
> answer. I
> > am reminded of kōans - questions to which there are endless answers. (To
> > me,) The question Why? implies wonderment.
> >
> > Some final fragmented and fractious thoughts that I want to express
> because
> > I read them, disagreed and feel the need to replace them with
> alternatives.
> > (1) I don't think efficiency is the end-all be-all goal of
> > evolution/selection and I take issue with conflation of efficiency and
> > fitness, at least without specifically qualifying a circumstance. What
> of
> > enjoyment? If efficiency, in what terms? For whom? Why do we defecate
> > then? (another 1) I don't think people alive today have any
> better/deeper
> > understanding of the world than any of our ancestors of contemporary
> > detrivores do, just different. It's always been an information age, just
> > less electronic maybe. It's a nice ego boost to think of one's self as
> > evolutional acme, but there are plenty examples of unintended
> consequences
> > of Slothrop's Progress (as such) that I'd wager many people would put on,
> or
> > toward, the uh-oh edge of things: increased cancer rates; oil spills;
> > explosions of asthma and autisms... which d!
> > irection are such steps? And who's the accountant? I think Paula Abdul
> > had a song about this, riffed from V. Lenin maybe? Are more humans
> better?
> > In some ways, we may need to unknow existing orders?
> >
> >
> > Long-windedly,
> >
> > Brian Challfant
> > -ologist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
> > ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper
> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:46 PM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> >
> >
> > To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of
> > anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic
> is
> > a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through
> insight -
> > and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained
> individual
> > was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them
> > until left to "digest." Additional ways of "knowing" all will have to be
> > tested logically.
> >
> > It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That
> does
> > not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get
> > along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion.
> > Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and
> an
> > answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think
> either.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney <a...@coho.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Why is there something rather than nothing?
> > > And why is some of this something aware of itself?
> > > And why is this self aware of the something?
> > > And why does it ask these questions?
> > >
> > > Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do
> > > they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface
> > > and interconnect?
> > >
> > > Warren W. Aney
> > > Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> > > Tigard, Oregon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> > > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37
> > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> > >
> > > I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can
> > > only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated
> > > long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and
> > > modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with
> > > William Silvert that religion
> > > probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to
> > our
> > > ancestors).
> > >
> > > However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain
> > > when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say
> > > something about why some people seem to need religion while others
> > > couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar
> > > the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or
> > > getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an
> > > instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological
> > > understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological
> > > evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in
> > > modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life.
> > >
> > > I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a
> > > religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on
> > > that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation,
> > > intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much
> > > further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about
> > > whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot
> > > to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity.
> > >
> > > Jim Crants
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah-HA!
> > > >
> > > > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in
> > > > Spain .
> > > .
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Eureka! Peak experiences!
> > > >
> > > > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets
> > > "processed"
> > > > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious
> > > after
> > > a
> > > > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes
> > > > and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery
> > > > is thus produced.
> > > >
> > > > WT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov"
> > > > <jane....@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to
> > > >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a
> > > >> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual
> > > >> (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective)
> > > >> experiences. These experiences are now being studied by
> > > >> psychologists and neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are
> > > >> often connected to experiences in nature.
> > > >>
> > > >> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially
> > > >> inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a
> > > >> twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the
> > > >> natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where
> > > >> passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension,
> > > >> without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I
> > > >> was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien
> > > >> world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution
> > > >> were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me;
> > > >> their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I
> > > >> could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing
> > > >> and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to
> > > >> me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to
> > > >> where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed
> > > >> animals to materialize and they came erratically into view."
> > > >>
> > > >> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect
> > > >> most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot
> > > >> like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their
> > > >> experience. But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other
> > > >> than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators!
> > > >> Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of
> > > >> consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices
> > > >> arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and
> > > >> social reasons, our minds changed.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think?
> > > >>
> > > >> Jane Shevtsov
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > ------------------------------
> > James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of
> > Terrestrial Vertebrates
> > ------------------------------
> > Caixa Postal 19034
> > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
> > ------------------------------
> > E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com
> > Telefone: 55 41 36730409
> > Celular: 55 41 98182559
> > Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
> > Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
> > ------------------------------
> > Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
> > Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
> > Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
> > In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
>
