Modern science is based on mechanistic rather than teleological explanations, making a strong distinction between passive matter and the invisible mind. And the advance of science has caused a gradual retreat of intention (and mind) from the world: first from non-living matter, then from the body to the brain, and, more recently, attempts have been made by both philosophers and neuroscientists to banish it from the brain itself. Yet as individuals we prefer intentional or anthropomorphic explanations of the world, rather than cold mechanistical explanations. We prefer to think that people and animals do things because they want to, rather than because their brains make them do these things. We like to see the world and Universe as having meaning, rather than being meaningless accidents. Part of the reason science alienates people is its rejection of intentional explanation; and perhaps in turn much of the appeal of religion and literature could be their generous use of anthropomorphism and intentional explanation. You may notice as you read this book that the parts that describe the behaviour of molecules and cells in terms of their intentions, wants or needs, are more readable than the strictly scientific parts cast in terms of cold mechanism. And, moreover, there may well be a good mechanistic explanation of why we prefer intentional explanation, which is that it is hard-wired into our brains. Recent psychological research indicates we develop the ability to attribute intentions to others at the age of three, and children who fail to develop this ability (perhaps because of brain defects) are much more likely to become autistic and unable to interact functionally. Thus, our preference for intentional explanations of other people and the world is because that’s how our brains work, presumably because such explanation has been successful in promoting survival during evolution. However, during science’s evolution, it has been found that intentional explanation is relatively unsuccessful in predicting the behaviour of the world in comparison to mechanistic explanation.
The relevance of intentionality to energy is that the concept of energy has evolved partly to replace intentional explanation. Energy has replaced gods, spirits and inanimate forces as the source of all motion and change in the Universe. But fundamental theories and concepts (such as mind or energy) are not labels that can be attached to the world without distorting it, but are rather like a pair of coloured spectacles through which we can see and interpret the world. If we are short-sighted, it may be impossible to see the world at all without some spectacles (or some theory). Or the spectacles may be locked on (as happened to Dorothy and her companions in The Wizard of Oz), or imprinted in our brains, so it is well-nigh impossible to see without them. The concept of energy is one basic idea through which we now perceive the world. And we have already seen how the origin of the concept of energy is rooted in even more basic ideas about life, movement and mind. In the following chapter we follow these ideas’ evolution into our current conception of energy.
Chapter 2 THE STORY OF LIVING ENERGY
The modern concept of energy originated in the nineteenth century, a child of the industrial revolution, but its origins extend back to ancient Greece, amongst the elements, humours and spirits of the classical world. We will follow the evolution of these ideas of energy and life up to the present, as it is extremely difficult to understand the current concept of ‘living energy’ without seeing where these ideas came from.
THE ELEMENTS, HUMOURS AND SPIRITS OF THE CLASSICAL WORLD
Science started in ancient and Classical Greece, and it is there that we can begin to pick up the trail leading to our current ideas of energy and life. The Greeks were astonishingly creative thinkers. Indeed it is almost impossible to characterize clearly what the Greeks thought about anything, because they thought so many different things about any one thing, most of them mutually contradictory. (Much like the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, who could believe six impossible things before breakfast, without spoiling her appetite.) Indeed the Greeks were spectacularly wrong about many things. And this in itself is important because for almost two thousand years after the fall of Athens, Greece’s intellectual heirs in the Hellenic, Roman and Islamic worlds, and in Medieval and Renaissance Europe believed that whatever the Greeks thought was the unquestionable truth. The thoughts of the wise men of Greece on philosophy, science and medicine were held in the same awe and reverence as those of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed on religion and ethics. Now we know that many of the ‘truths’ discovered by the Greeks are ‘false’, but the forms of their ideas, the type of questions they asked, and the ways they went about answering them, have had a fundamental influence on the development of modern knowledge and ideas. Were it not for this relatively small number of thinkers in ancient and classical Greece, science, philosophy and western culture as we know them would not now exist.
Empedocles (c. 490–c. 435 BC) was one of the greatest all-rounders of all time, exemplifying the enormous diversity and creativity of ancient Greek thinkers. Born to an aristocratic family in the city-state of Acragas, Sicily, he assisted in a coup against the oligarchy ruling the city and was offered the crown. He refused, establishing instead a democracy, and becoming himself a politician. But, in his spare time, he also managed to be one of the greatest poets, scientists, philosophers, and doctors of his age. As if this were not enough, after banishment and exile from his home state, he became a prophet and god. Legend has it that he could work miracles, control the winds, restore the dead to life, and killed himself by jumping into the volcanic crater of Etna to prove his divinity. Whether this leap did in fact prove this or not, history does not say, though apparently all that remained of Empedocles physically were his sandals. However, his thoughts remained to haunt the intellectual landscape for over two thousand years.
Empedocles devised the theory of the four elements, described as the most successful scientific theory ever, in terms of popularity and longevity, although it was not, of course, correct. It held that everything in the world consisted of a combination of only four elements. This theory appears to be a diplomatic compromise between earlier contradictory ideas that the world consisted solely of water (Thales), an unknown and unknowable substance (Anaximander), air (Anaximenes), or fire (Heraclitus). Empedocles suggested that there was not a single fundamental substance at all, but rather four elements (or ‘roots’ as he called them): earth, fire, air and water. The advantage of having four elements rather than one, was that it was obvious to anyone that the world consisted of an incredible diversity of things, and it was hard to explain this diversity if everything consisted of the same single substance. It was also difficult to explain how anything could change, if everything was, in essence, the same. Empedocles suggested that each different type of thing in the world consisted of different proportions of the four elements, and further that change was due to exchange of some of its constituent elements. For example, he said that bone was composed of fire, water and earth in the proportions 2:1:1 and flesh was composed of all the elements in equal proportions.
However, change could not just be left to the elements. After all, why should objects alter if there was only inert substance in the world? Why should rocks fall? Why should volcanoes explode? Why should thunder and lightning wrench the skies? Change was a big problem for the Greeks. It is also intimately related to energy, as energy can be thought of as the hidden source and cause of change. How were the Greeks to explain it without invoking gods or souls or minds? How could matter alone cause change? How could something new appear from nothing? Empedocles proposed that, in addition to the four elements, there were also two forces, which he called ‘love’ and ‘hate’. Hate (or ‘strife’) pushed things apart, while love pulled them together again; and when the two forces were balanced there was no change, a standoff. This sounds like a plot for a romantic novel, but Empedocles partly conceived of love and hate similarly to the modern conception of a force, as an inanimate pushing or pulling between matter. Thus, Empedocles’ overall conception of the world as consisting of different immutable elements, pushed and pulled by forces,