Talk:Psychic energy

Accuracy
I think this article might be a bit misleading in that it doesn't say what I think is true - that the theory is now considered incorrect or obsolete. While of course brains obey the laws of thermodynamics in their chemical processes, I think the modern scientific consensus has ruled against an energistic model of emotion and thought. For example, anger doesn't necessarily get "bottled up" like a pressurized gas. But someone with a degree in psychology could probably give a better explanation. -- Beland 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Beland, certainly we could use more experts on this topic. But there is no factual inaccuracy in the article.  The article is typed up how the original concepts were presented by Freud and Jung during the years approximately 1880 to 1950.  The article is meant to describe an historical concept.  I have added our discussion to the bottom of the article and removed the factual accuracy tag.  The article sourced and accurate.--Sadi Carnot 17:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As an expert on the topic of thermodynamics, work, energy and force, (physics) I can comment with certainty that this article is grossly misusing these terms. It appears to be hijacking these terms to lend credence to itself.  It appears to me that without this misuse of scientific terms the article falls apart.  Unfortunately, many who write stuff like this are unwilling to consider science or logic as a criteria for accuracy.  64.203.55.147 05:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * O.K. Mr. "thermodynamics expert", let's go back and re-write history and tell Freud and Jung what they did was wrong. --Sadi Carnot 03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If Freud and Jung used the term 'energy' in the context of 'physic energy,' they were indeed wrong to do so. It is not clear that everything they did was wrong, and it is not clear why you suggest re-writing history.  Is your comment based on an understanding of what energy is, or that everybody does it so it must be right? John 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dualistic Interactionism to Explain Psychic Energy?
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. wrote about dualistic interactionism, a theory of consciousness, in his book "The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force". According to this theory the mind and brain are each seperate entities that interact through quantum physics, and mental states have the power to change cerebral states. So, a possibity could obviously be that this "psychic energy" is actually what Schwartz calls "mental force", although this is a theory within a theory. -- 14:49, 15 June 2006 User:63.46.88.65 (Talk)


 * Nice try. John (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Energy?
Oppose  This article is a pseudo-scientific use of the word Energy. Energy is a physics term that should not be confused non-scientific misinterpretations of the term. John 06:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Oppose. Per above, minus the scientism. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, this is an article about a topic claiming to be science. If it is science, then scientism (if it means what I think Martinphi intended it to mean) would not be a bad thing.  Maybe I should start a new section to discuss this, although it was hinted at at the top of this page.  John 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a disclaimer about use of the word Energy
This article is correct to cite that Freud & Jung compared mental processes to energy and thermodynamic principles. However, Freud & Jung, et al were in error, and a lot of misunderstanding arises from this error. This article should clarify that it is based on Freud and Jung's misunderstanding of science.

Psychiatry as a field of study claims to be a science. I do not know psychiatry but I do know general science and physics. Energy is a scientific term: the ability to do work. Work is a scientific term, force multiplied by distance, both also scientifically defined terms. Is the mind able to do work in the context suggested by this article? Key to the answer is that work is specifically zero if either force or distance is zero. The mind can only imagine a force, and imagine a distance, so it can only imagine work, not do it. So scientifically the mind has no capability to do work, no capacity for energy (in this context.) (Of course, the brain's metabolism and chemical processes do obey physical principles, including electro-chemistry and thermodynamics, but that is not the context here.)  Therefore, there is no such thing as physic energy in a scientific context.

I suppose Freud and Jung borrowed the work–energy and thermodynamic terms from science to lend scientific credibility to these theories. Whatever the reason, this encourages pseudoscience. So whats the problem? Recent trends seem to encourage the 'dumbing down' of science, and articles like this add to the confusion about what science really is. The notion of 'physic energy' has encouraged masses of people who are not scientifically aware to expect physic energy and vibrations and other physical phenomena to emanate from the brain. There are scientific measuring devices (temperature sensors and electromagnetic wave sensors etc.) being used to sense these vibrations and this energy. Some who expect the psychic to survive after physical death expect physical energy sensors to sense ghosts and spirits.

Science is a philosophy, some claim just as valid as "believing in things we don’t understand." Most educated people happen to believe that science is better able to produce correct answers. If some people want to chase ghosts with energy sensors, let them go for it. But this article should not acknowledge such notions as science. John 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)