If we take scientific terminology and use it to describe something metaphysical then we are very literally engaged in pseudoscience.
But this doesn’t apply for your theory, of course.
What do you mean when you say “energy” in this context? Do you even know?
Totally clueless. Whatever is outside your theory is wrong, so why try to define it.
That is exactly correct. It does not apply to my theory because I don’t do it.
No. Whatever takes scientific terms and uses them to mean vague metaphysical stuff is pseudoscience. Not “wrong” as in “incorrect” but mixing up scientific and metaphysical vocabulary in a way which will be instantly dismissed by scientists. It is hard enough to get scientists to take metaphysics seriously even if you don’t use scientific vocabulary, so why make life even harder by using scientific terms?
You are accusing me of hypocrisy, but there is no actual justification for doing so.
This is roughly my core position. To me the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” is a consequence of trying to overcome Cartesian dualism in favor of a non-dual view, while avoiding physical reductionism or undisciplined idealism. “Energy” in an E =MC^2 sense is clear enough for the world of res extensa, so I accept all that in normal scientific terms. However, there is a wider sense of energy as process, movement, flow, dynamic action and so forth that speaks more to the mental, the spiritual, the imaginal, to res cogitans. Does it take mental “energy” to study post-Newtonian theories of “energy”? Absolutely! Both senses of the word “energy” are equally valid and necessary.
The challenge is how to bridge the inner and the outer, so as to overcome dualistic divides? (Decartes thought the bridging mechanism was the pineal gland. That theory, however, has not stood well against the test of time). For me, energy in all its senses is where we need to look. There is plenty of evolutionary cosmology lately suggesting that complex structures emerge through energetic action. The universe abhors energy gradients, so complex structures like life and civilization emerge as the most efficient pathways to capturing free energy and moving it towards entropy. It takes a lot calories to fuel human brains! It takes many, many more calories to coordinate 8 billion+ such brains in global civilization. So energy is really the root cause of quite a bit!
But what about the spiritual? Is energy at play in that world in any way beyond the metaphorical? We might begin with the word “spirit” itself. (Latin spiritus, Greek pneuma, Hebrew ruach, Arabic rūḥ). All of these have connotations of wind or breathe or movement. Spirit, as such, has been regarded down through time as a dynamic life force. Eastern notions of chi or prana run along similar lines. The idea of life as dynamism is well-nigh human universal, even though languages, cultures, and traditions put their own distinctive overtones onto the basic experiential insight.
The way I reconcile this personally is rather simple. First, I eat breakfast. That contains calories, i.e. energy in a Newtonian sense. Those calories get transformed through metabolism into bio-physical structures and processes of body-mind. So far so scientific. Being retired now, I fortunately have a lot choices about what that body-mind may wish to do today. Which way to go? How to go there? Who with? For what purpose? To me, these are spiritual questions above all. I generally define the “spiritual” - indeed, even the “salvific” - as “sense of direction”. How might one sense a direction? How do we prefer better over worse? How do we step one way into the “right” or misstep the other way into to “wrong”? Yes - breakfast is involved in all those reflections! So is body posture. So are physical encounters with other people, birds, trees, animals, internet screens and all sorts of other things. But in the end, key decisions - vital turning points - pivot in the dark in places that are not directly attached in any obvious way to “objects” in the world. I call all that the “spiritual”. It is also very obviously dynamic and energetic. For me these process flows across physical-spiritual conceptual boundaries are quite seamless. Which suggests to me the Cartesian model is just that - a model - and experiential reality is closer to non-dual or interbeing. Language requires objects and distinctions. Life-in-the-world, rather less so.