I stayed out of the first couple of rounds of the ongoing energy debate between
Jason,
Patrick,
AIT,
the Scribbler, and others but after reading over most of the discussion I think I finally have something worthwhile to add. This is in some ways an expansion of the comment I left on
RO's blog the other day. So let's get to it.
The root of the debate seems to be that the strict version of Patrick's information/semiotic model disappears the experiences of "energy work" practitioners. Patrick has added comments suggesting that he believes anyone using "energy" in a magical context can only mean physical energy that would be measured in joules, but this strikes me as a bit of derail - I don't see anyone in the debate conceptualizing
Chi or
Prana that way, and the only example offered so far has been some ignorant New Age website talking about "crystal energy" and trying to relate it to the piezoelectric effect.
It seems to me that the best resolution to the debate would be to work out, in signal processing terms, what this "energy" could consist of in the context of the semiotic model. Until we do that there's a lot of apple-to-oranges comparisons being made. So here's my take - the signal sent by a magical ritual has three essential components:
coherence,
content, and
intensity. The content of the signal consists of the information being transferred, the coherence refers to how clearly that information is communicated, and the intensity refers to the signal strength.
This diagram shows how a modulated signal is encoded into a carrier wave. In the case of magick, the resulting function is the full
content of the information transmitted, the Modulated Result. Some have apparently asserted that the carrier wave is the "energy," but this is not really correct, as in the context of consciousness the carrier wave also consists of information. The fact is that we're not entirely sure what consciousness consists of, but we are fairly sure that it is not composed of any known form of physical energy. I've hypothesized that it may occupy the same "space" as quantum wavefunctions, given studies that show consciousness can affect quantum diodes, but that's pretty speculative at this point and pretty much impossible to measure reliably given our current level of technology.
In this simple example the regularity of the wave represents its
coherence. According to the schema I'm proposing, coherence refers to the precision with which the content is transmitted. Coherence can be degraded by nonsensical or imprecise content, and also by the quality of the magical link to the spell's target. Patrick's model focuses on these aspects of magical operations - make your signal logical and precise, and clear the link to the target as thoroughly as possible. The working semiotic model hypothesis is that when magical operations fail one of these aspects is responsible for that failure and this is where the magician must concentrate his or her efforts to improve the spell.
However, from the standpoint of communications theory signal intensity also must be a factor. A radio signal contains the same information whether it is being broadcast from a 100 watt or 100,000 watt transmitter. It is my contention that the "energy" that energy work practitioners are referring to is directly related to the signal intensity, not the signal content. Enough research has been done to at least suggest a mechanism behind this as well - breathwork techniques like Qigong increase the oxygenation of the blood which allows for higher firing rates throughout the nervous system. This is what produces the tingling sense of "current" when you're doing it correctly, and since neural firing is electrochemical in nature "energy work" is in fact not a bad term for this sort of practice.
The relationship between neural firing rates and states of consciousness has also been measured to some degree. In
Zen and the Brain neuroscientist James Austin cites a study in which advanced meditators' brainwaves were monitored as they reported reaching a state of
samadhi. The state seemed to be strongly correlated to high-frequency gamma waves, which would be facilitated by the heightened level of oxygen in the blood produced by breathwork. As Patrick points out, consciousness is still essential to this process because without it there's nothing for the electrochemical energy to facilitate. But this energy also influences how consciousness processes information and by extension should also affect the intensity of a semiotic communication.
I see the semiotic model as useful because it focuses on the quality of the communication rather than merely its intensity. Many energy model practitioners in my experience tend to do the opposite, concentrating their efforts on increasing the intensity of their communications rather than tuning their signal quality. Energy practitioners who work exclusively on signal intensity could be seen as akin to the ignorant tourist who believes he or she can make a foreigner who speaks a different language understand English by shouting. Both aspects of the work are important, though, and it should go without saying that the most effective magician is going to be a practitioner who can do both.
Today's question for Patrick from Jason was what sort of "energy" is contained by a fluid condenser. His
response is pretty clear, though it seems to me that he's imparting all sorts of beliefs to people who talk about "energy" that I don't personally share. He also has no problem talking about "power," which has a physics definition just like "energy" does and seems to me just as easy to misinterpret. In the combined schema I'm proposing, a fluid condenser is a substance linked to a field of consciousness that has been modified by a magical operation, in terms of both semiotic content and field intensity. Sending
Chi into the condenser does not alter the information bound to the field, but increases its intensity. Communicating a magical charge to the field changes the information that the field contains to serve a particular magical goal.
The existence of spirits in this schema remains open to debate. There's no good empirical test to determine whether (A) consciousness requires some sort of matter or physical energy in order to remain coherent or (B) consciousness can be coherent and self-sustaining without a material body or anchor, because we still don't have a clear physical model of what consciousness is. My experiences suggest (B), in that my probability shifts are better if I augment my own abilities with that of a spirit, and furthermore many spirits seem to have their own agendas, but there's always the possibility that a belief in spirits could simply allow me to access a higher percentage of my personal magical power (note: I didn't say "energy"). I went into this a bit in my comment over at RO's, but it's really a separate subject that deserves its own article.
So under the semiotic model can we describe "energy work" as "work to increase signal intensity?" If so, that implies that the whole discussion is over nothing more than terminology. If, on the other hand, the semiotic model is set up in such a way that signal strength is irrelevant I'd like to see some further explanation as to how that makes sense in the context of consciousness when it is extremely important in communications theory overall.
My follow-up article on how spirits can be considered within this schema can be found
here.