It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
power that may be translated into motion, overcoming resistance or causing a physical change; the ability to do work.
3 Physics the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules):
When does the energy enter a human being? Is it being after a foetus arised for three weeks?
Who says life has to have a point? So many things don't.
It's the same issue with most serious studies of NDEs. They generally don't prove much, at least from a science aspect.
The question you're asking doesn't really make a lot of sense in the way you're asking it. There is no particular "life energy", that's a new age trope.
The "energy" would be glucose that the zygote's turning into ATP through the Krebs cycle. But there's no special energy that "enters into a person"
Originally posted by fourthmeal
Oh I didn't realize that "Physics" was your religion. My mistake.
I thought we were talking about something free of religion, like consciousness and such.
Originally posted by dominicus
So many things do have a point. Plants provide oxygen and food for other species. Elements and molecules bond together to form various aspects of existence. Gravity allows everything to be bound. I look around and I see order and points and meaning.
The skeptic's view of NDE's is already crumbling under the pressure of serious theories tha include the possibility of non-local consciousness, doctor's and scientist's whop themselves have had NDE's, who themselves take up serious studies on NDE's.
It's just a matter of time until they create instrumentation sensitive enough to measure consciousness outside of the body.
HE was speaking of, "When does consciousness enter the physical vessel". Same thing.
And you know this for sure how? You can't prove that it's only that.
It's not going away any time soon.
Elements bonding together to make molecules are what elements do - it's electrostatic forces. It doesn't have 'meaning', per se, in that something intended that to happen.
It'll crumble more, and in actuality, if people undergoing NDEs can actually demonstrate anything but subjective inputs.
I don't consider that to be anything but anecdotal either, in that it was totally subjective.
Enough of them and you might have a case. But there's a remarkable lack of that sort of data.
You're voicing a desire on your part. You can't know that.
"Consciousness" is a function of brain, so maybe you could measure brain activity to the extent you could say "there's a consciousness", but as far as some sort of ghost-a-mometer, no, I don't think you'll end up with one. It occurs as the emergent behavior of a complex neural system, as that system develops in complexity and input data. It doesn't 'enter the physical vessel' from the outside.
Sure you can. Basic biology. Go shoot yourself up with a few hundred units of insulin, drop your blood glucose to near zero, see how much consciousness you have.
A pity. Wishful and/or magical thinking is the bane of the human condition.
Dominicus, I think using consciousness so haphazardly to describe a fundamental unified-something might be a bit confusing to those of a skeptical nature. Myself for example. We know consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." In other words, it is a state of appearance; a notion conceived and applied to the way someone appears to be awake and conscious.
The appearance of being awake vs. asleep seems to be all that consciousness amounts to: a non-entity, nothing fundamental, and merely an idea regarding the way someone appears when they are aware (a verb) of their surroundings.
Consciousness or awareness or any word with the suffix 'ness' are abstract nouns, which represent only ideas or concepts.
Would it be possible to explain your experience using perhaps a different word than consciousness? Because to me, when you say 'I existed as pure consciousness,' I assume you existed as something to which you gave the name consciousness. But consciousness isn't a something, but the appearance of something doing the verb 'conscious'.
I know this might be confusing, but I ask this because I'd like to understand your experiences better. ETA: In other words, how would you explain your experience to a nominalist?
One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g. strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects—objects that do not exist in space and time.