Please, if you're going to use words like 'energy' in a discussion like this, please define them well.
Energy is not a force, so try not to mix the terms up, it only confuses things.
Energy isn't even real. It's just a mathematical concept based on the idea that no matter what actions you perform, a mathematical quantity called 'energy' will always be conserved. Energy isn't made of anything; there are no little 'bricks' of energy floating around; it's just a rule that everything in the universe follows, but nobody actually understands why.
So please, unless you could explain what is actually meant by 'conciousness energy', try to use real terms that we can all understand.
I'm reading a great book at the moment called 'conciousness' (good title, huh?).
There's some very interesting stuff in there, and what's great is that, using physical examples and logic nowadays, it might even be possible to make some progress in its understanding.
What I refer to above is 'science', by the way; the scientific method, by which we look at the world around us, and then try to work out why it is like that by manipulating it and investigating further.
Anybody who promotes guesswork and superstition is, I'm afraid, rather medieval in their thought processes.
After all; if you're investigating conciousness, I think it would be very foolish to place your faith in your 'gut instincts', considering that these can only arise from conciousness in the first place!
One particular experiment that the book is talking about at the point which I've read to, is that it's been shown that our 'conciousness' requires half a second of information from the brain to actually register said information; so essentially, our conciousness should be half a second behind the real world. What's strange is that it's clearly not; we can react with our surroundings much faster than that. So one theory is that somehow, the conciousness, upon recieving the sustained signal for half a second, sends that signal to a point in time half a second previously, so that there is no percieved delay.
It sounds shaky to me though; maybe the author's about to disprove it. I'll report back when I'm arsed to read some more.
Bookmarks