CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND A HEALTHY SARCAZM???

No. No, apparently, I can't. :|

sex is a desire to fill a need for human touch, I think human touch might be an electical force on some level(of the four mentioned)

Babies flourish more when they are touched , this could be a result of the electrical currents which flow in and between bodies,,,

I don't know if this is what you mean, but I do think that is not unusual in our affection-repressed society for people to think that they crave sex, when what they really crave is affection.

Certainly, not as much as sex (per se), but just a simple affection is what people crave for in our affection-repressed society. Though, sex is considered an ultimate affection!!!

However, that goes well beyond the subject matter of this thread which simply asks:
In that sense, msharmony's got it precisely -- ELECTRIC!!!
(Though, for the sake of not being confused with the power-plant, it would rather be a Micro-ELECTRIC force...)
No wonder I feel RECHARGED after almost every act -- that's why it's called an AFTERGLOW!!!

It is true that when bump into someone, the reason you do not pass through them is due to the interactions of your electrons. In school I learned that electrostatic repulsion between the outermost electrons of individual atoms is what prevents aggregates of atoms from passing through each other. This would meant that electric field interactions is what gives rise to touch. On the other hand, someone else has claimed that its not electrostatic repulsion, but the exclusivity of electrons, as fermions, that causes this.



Um... not in the most obvious interpretation of those words, no. But nerve signals do have an electric component to them. You touch the baby, the babies nerves carry the experience of being touched to the CNS, and the baby's nervous system tends to develop better than un-touched babies. There is a lot more going on, with hormones, too, but in no way is it 'an electrical current' that is establish between parent and baby.

MT:

Certainly not, LOL!
That's why I emphacised:

I realize that we are not necessarily arguing with each other, but may simply be saying some of the same things, or different-but-not-contradictory-things, using similar language... but just as an additional comment, I don't believe that humans gain any actual energy through touch. The energy that "touched babies" use to flourish comes from food. The touch seems to simply inspire them to flourish. Technically we can sometimes transmit a charge, but it will discharge at the earliest opportunity and afaik is not physiologically useful to humans. (Some other animals, maybe...)

As a massage therapist, I have 'energized' many people with my touch, in my life - but this is a matter of how they feel, how well their bodies and nervous system function. The actual energy was already there in their cells, their blood, their liver, their adipose tissue...they just didn't have the right kind of activity, especially in their endocrine system and brain, to 'feel' energized.

MT:

Have you ever heard of the "Healers" who can cure with their touch???

* I personally know (have known) a few who could relieve a head ache just by placing their hands on the temples...

** Even I can remove discomfort with a simple (yet passionate) touch coupled with a few words!

--->>> Though, your right, it hasn't got much to do with transmition of energy... Rather, it has to do with the Mental Influence of one person over the other!!!

(LOL, Jesus was one those!!!)

You might be underestimating your own abilities...

P.S. Mothers have a very strong bond with their babies that trascends a mere phisical connection!

Nothing irritates me more than this sort of "pseudo-scientific," post-modern jibberish that tries to combine science with the supernatural and/or explain or evidence the supernatural with science. All it really "achieves" is to placate those who are too easily offended or obsequious to believe or assertively ("offensively") think, let alone say, anything straightforward.

This is in reference to those in this debate who are trying to ascertain or categorize or whatever what "energies" or "forces" are involved in sex. In short, what freakin' difference does it make? Following this logic:

If you view sex as a singular--meaning here, metaphysical [abstract, mystical]--experience, rather than a base biological interaction, then what difference does any scientific, tangible categorization make in that context? You could more sensibly (by maintaining internal logic) conclude that magical fairies (gametes) dance bubbles of vivacious delight (chromosomes*) back and forth between the invisible nymphs of fertility (the couple** in question) on sparkly shoes of marshmallow ice cream (the sexual experience) to create an autonomous leprechaun of pure sunshine and gold (zygote). In a metaphysical dialogue, scientific terms and rules do not belong (once you start talking about "energies" and "forces" and other abstract, ambiguous things, the pseudo-science begins). Such terms are superfluous as ballet or musical or crocheting terminology in a discussion about this "mystical," intangible view of sex. Get it?

If you, however, view sex as a biological interaction, then scientific (specifically relating to Physics for some asinine reason, in this case) terms and rules make perfect sense, but, at the same time, make absolutely no difference at all as far as identifying sex as a "special" event. The only really intriguing thing to consider in such a case as sexual intercourse might be the biological, because that--THAT, the biological--is what truly distinguishes sex as a fascinating phenomenon: The combination of two individuals' DNA on a cellular, for one instance, level is something rarely found in nature, something truly intricate and highly complex and fascinating (and sensible!). Yes.

In short, don't bring Physics into a metaphysical discussion of sex unless you want to be labeled the village fool.
'Kaythanksbye.

* Half a complete set of chromosomes in each gamete, obviously.
** Man and woman in the case of successful reproduction; just FYI.

Yes! Many people have described me as an 'energy healer'. The only problem I see is when these people confuse any meaning they might see in that phrase with the meaning physicists give the word energy.

Many people believe view physicists/scientists as a kind of authority - for good reason. As a community, they exercise great care and precision in their investigation of the material reality. Then you have people who have beliefs about reality, which may serve them well. Thats fine.

Then you have people who, through ignorance or deception, try to co-op the language of physicists to support their non-scientific or anti-scientific worldview. In doing so, they seek to lend a degree of credibility to their ideas which are not warranted. Speaking against this particular dishonest promotion of delusional ideas is my motivation here.

We all have some false beliefs. I am only seeking to promote clear, consistent, and specific use of words within a particular dialog, especially when it comes to what we mean by 'force' and 'energy'.

In that context, many of our statements (JaneStar and mine) are orthogonal to each other.

I agree!



I don't understand.



I think making correct statements about science is helpful to promote science literacy - even if there are no deep truths expressed. It may seem pedantic, but at least its not dishonest. I consider the simple fact that you read that page on 'the four forces' in response to that guys statement to be 'a good thing'.





What if we see it as both? Just sayin'... my actual experience of sex (or meditation, or 'energetic practices', or whatever) has little to do with the categorization of things, or knowledge of science.




Well said.



I feel sorry for anyone who only has this view of the sexual experience.



Absolutely.



Is this directed at the OP, who, if i remember correctly (I'm too lazy to check) originally suggested that sex might be the 'fifth force' ?

Edit: I checked - he didn't do so explicitly, but close: "We read in physics books that there are four fundamental force in nature namely nuclear, magnetic ,electric and gravitational.then wat type of force is sex?"

Sex is an evil force pushed upon man by way of dark other-worldly creatures whose only plan is the demise of mankind...come, be a Jedi with the greats and resist that horrible force known only as 'sex'.

May the force be with you.

As Imentioned at the beginning,

And reaffirmed by Qiao

-- meaning Those who DO, will evolve...
and Those Who Measure It, are bound to faze away...

massagetrade:

1. I beg your pardon, MT, but could you translate that last sentence into plain english -- cuz I've never been perpendicular to anybody else!

2. 'energy healer' -- I suspect you might be underestimating your abilities (that most of people -- who mistakenly assume your Mechanical act with something Spiritual -- might be confusing the scientific terms...)
* In fact, I believe your act could be even more beneficial, if you could put some of your mental powers into it

Besides, you cannot expect people from all walks of life using the terms in a srictly scientific manner -- especially at the Singles' Site!
I, for example -- being quite scientifically literate (although the Physics isn't particularly one of mine Strongest point), use the terms only in relationship of their application to the matters of the heart, i.e. relationships.

*** If anybody thinks the scientific matters should be discussed from the strictly scientific point of view -- especially at the Singles' Site -- THEY'RE DECEIVING THEMSELVES!!!

Okay, and yet....

Yes, I know, my son.

That's what post-modernism is all about and it is the "mood" under which we all are living. Hence, the tendency to want to fuse scientific and mystical/religious thought--often, for the sake of "tolerance." Such a conflation is quite a replete source of pseudo-science of many a delightful kind!

But yeah, I guess sheer ignorance seems to be the MAIN source of that (con)fusion (haha, I am so darn hilarious!), in this case. Although, post-modernism may yet play some affecting role.

No.

I am talking about this tendency to blend mysticism with science: Hence, pseudo-science! Trying to categorize mystical things--like the alleged and, hence, MYSTICAL forces*--involved in sex with scientific terminology, in a scientific way, is bullocks.

I was arguing for the separation of mysticism and science. Clearly, I am the most pedantic human being alive; but where it actually freakin' makes sense contextually.

*Sigh* Again, you have failed to ascertain even remotely what I was suggesting, my very difficult and obtuse** pupil!

It is the CO-MINGLING of such ideas--while both very well could be "true" IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT, IN THEIR OWN WAY--but for the sake of INTELLIGENT discussion should not be allowed to conflate into one paradigm from which all these ideas come, etc.!

Etc.!

Thank you. <:|

Er. Well, that isn't my view. The only sort of person I can imagine having that view--NOT THAT THEY ALL WOULD!!--is a staunch atheist or naturalist.

Okay, so you DO agree?! Agh!

Yes, it is, and it is directed at anyone who agrees with that most jejune assumption. Jejune. >:|


* Not humoring, of course, the painfully obvious forces [of Physics, obv.] involved, which are so obvious and so blatant that they are not worth mentioning, let alone discussing at so infuriating a length as this thread has encouraged!
** JK, man! JK. I'm JK.
I COLOR-CODED THESE FOOTNOTES AND THE ASTERISKS THAT LED YOU TO THEM!! WHY DOESN'T ANYONE!!! APPRECIATE THE THINGS I DO?! WHY?!?!?!

All I meant was that I wasn't sure if I was parsing that specific sentence correctly. My first effort to parse your sentence lead me to: "All it achieves is placating those who lack straightforwardness" (leaving out the reason for the lack, and the manifestation of the lack). Given the nested grammatical structure, I wanted to be sure.




As your general theme, I understand, understood, and agree. On some specifics I have been curious to have a more detailed understanding of your view.



Yes, yes, that point is clear, but there are so many tangents in this conversation that might be worth exploring.

Er. Well, that isn't my view.

Just to be clear, I never thought this was your view. However, the language you used earlier suggested an idea of 'either/or' approach regarding two views of sex, and I simply want to assert that a person can have a biological view without lacking for a 'mystical experience' of sex. I don't presume that we disagree, but you hadn't clarified how seriously/literally you might have meant the 'either/or' approach. Also, I wanted to say (for the sake of saying, to the world, and unrelated to any presumption on your position) that it might be a bad idea to only have a biological view. All of this was related to exploring the implications of an 'either/or' approach to 'this view' and 'that view' of sex, which might be entirely tangential to your points.



Please don't assume any of my questions or tangential points mean that I disagree, unless I state it. I strongly agree with the basic theme of your statements here - thought I've been interested in exploring details.





There is one place we disagree - 'what is worth discussing' - but this is no more than a matter of preference, tastes, no? Some people like telling jokes in the joke section, others make endless lame sexual innuendos in the dating section. We all have opinions on what has worth. This is the science forum, and many readers simply don't know this information which you consider obvious and blatant - that alone makes it worth discussing for me.

It's an instinct, not a force.

Its not unusual for someone to misunderstand someone else because they believe the other persons statements to be made in the same context as the their own. You and I have different purposes in this conversation, but not necessarily contrary purposes.



The real 'energy healing' process, whatever it might be in its true nature, is a wordless phenomena. To do this work, you must practice stillness. Intellect doesn't even play a role. The main consequence of my insistence of 'proper use of terminology' is that I avoid bizarre and foolish beliefs and systems of thought.

Consider: I can choose to create various sensations moving through my body - feelings of warmth, tingling, flowing, coursing sensations; the sensations of currents; I can have the experience of sensations that extend into the space surrounding my physical body, and into the body of another person. All of this, without beliefs. These are experiences, sensations. I don't need to analyze this while its happening, or have an opinion about its 'true nature'. As far as interpreting the experience at other points in time - I know enough about the physiology of sensation to know that it would be wrong to assume much about the real, physical world based on these experiences.

Some people who do this seem to require an 'energy based' "belief system" which explains and supports these experiences.

As far as you thinking that I am limiting myself be being judicious and deliberate in my thinking and language use - well I can't help but wonder if thats based in a specific dogma about the 'true nature' of 'energy healing'.




Slow down here...I frequently use scientific terms in a non-scientific way, and I have never criticized anyone who did so while being clear on the different meanings. This is not just a matter of using the same word in difference contexts - it is a matter of possibly creating confusion of meaning.

Some people are more interested in truth than others. Some people are more willing to put effort into their thinking than others. Like many here, I am inclined to speak up when I think I smell BS. I disagree with any notion that we should just 'accept science illiteracy' in the general population. Also, this isn't just a dating site, this the 'Science and Philosophy' section.




And, at the same time, it seems like you are able to see that the 'energetic' phenomena of 'energy healers' may not involve any energy in the physics sense of the word.