Dan B
New
Not irrelevant at all Dan, because you used an analogy in the attempt to illustrate a principle…but your analogy (in its real world context) *actually* demonstrates the opposite of what you used it for. What do you imagine you would be conscious “of” as a “field.”? Give me an example of how such consciousness could even be aware. In fact, just try to give me an example of such consciousness, period, and you'll see the problem.
No it doesn't, this is only assuming your own personal variables, I have just listed one of mine which accounts for the gripe of yours. You asking for an example of how such consciouness could be aware, yet we don't even now how WE are aware right now. I could likewise ask you to "detect" this deep human psyche which happens to stream into our awareness at prescribed times in our lives.
I mean that there is no mental aptitude that can survive its species of brain damage, unlike your receiver analogy. If your claim is that the “picture and sound” represent human mind and personality…well then, this is *destroyed* by a malfunctioning set. The broadcast, even on those terms, is not a realizable picture and sound without a receiver, so again, the analogy is not actually one that works, even with the world of technology you are lifting it from. You can’t have your cake and eat it in that way. Either the broadcast is something completely different from the image, or it isn’t. Mind and personality (picture and sound) are only possible with a receiver. The broadcast wave is not a show…it can be considered potential only. To THAT degree I concede that the analogy might have some traction, but then it becomes no longer simply a "transmission" analogy, but an "enabling" analogy, something that draw potential into actuality.
Oh I see, (when you say there is no mental aptitude that can survive its species of brain damage") your just making a retrospective correlation which itself is based on your pre existing assumption that conscioiusness cannot function in a similar form that it does now without a brain.
Your reply is well thought out, but it falls down in that the whole point is that consciousness within and without the brain is different, a differently experienced thing with differeing capacities. Just like the picture and sound is in a different form within and without the set.
It’s not “my logic” Dan. It’s the logic of the whole of nature and of physics. There are no phenomena exempt from the universal energy currency. If you don't agree, again, please give a specific example. This includes what you are calling “mind,” which, as I pointed out above, is a phenomena of stellar proximity enabled by complex elements, a large reservoir of available enery, and complex structures.
You ignored my point, the afterlife can be considered as a part of this energy ecology in principle whether we have detected the "afterlife particle" or not based solely on generally and specifically corroborating accounts. Please don't casually say what the origin of mind is, it is just as possible that pre existing mind in whatever exotic form invades biology.
Question, what is the relationship between mind and the universal energy currency?
You are assuming a concept that is essentially “magical” in the attempt to solve a problem that is pragmatic. Magical wand concepts have no explanation content. That problem is that the universe is an inter-connected ecology. Nothing can happen in it that does not rebound upon other things in it. A “department” of the universe involving billions of afterlife beings all mentating would have to be a high energy domain. It is nigh inconceivable that this high energy domain could go undetected. Again, “magical” assumptions about its secretness, remoteness and so on are required to be shoehorned in to the argument to make an excuse for why it wouldn’t be detectable. Other dimensions, higher vibrations, “pure consciousness” etc are all such pragmatism-resistant “magical” constructs that do not really address the problem’s dimensions, these being 1) all phenomena are caught up in universal energy currency, 2) mind is a high energy and therefore “visible” phenomenon in cosmic terms.
Everything you just said is predicated on the assumption that we havn't detected this afterlife. This is of course patently false. All this stuff about it having to be high energy in the way we understand eneris an assumption about it's nature too.
Consider this, mind is clearly the dominant "force" in the "beyond", mind one thing we cannot yet measure, and hence it would be expected that we cannot measure this realm directly as of yet.
You need to stop conflating the strangeness of mind with the relative familiarity of matter.
We are told dark matter makes up most of the universe and yet we may only infer it's existence. Inferral is a valid method of science and it's use on confronting the data on the afterlife should not force us use our current notions of what should and shouldn't be apparent to cast it aside, but rather cause us to wonder and awe at just how much more there is to discover