Oh yes it does, because it uses the same apparatus that tells us the real world is out there. In fact how do you know that our thoughts and dreams aren't merely part of this constant state of flux -- or, energy if you will -- of which the real world is the consolidation of? You don't believe such things are possible?

And yet with each mental image comes a specific energy pattern (electro-magnetic I would say) which, no doubt is in a state of flux with other energy patterns around it. Don't radio waves criss-cross each other all the time, within the same space?

What you experience in your dreams is the closest thing to the real you.

No, what I'm presenting here is merely a characterization. I'm not asking you to take the whole thing literally. Which, is why we have imaginations by the way, as it adds dimension to our thoughts, so we aren't bound to taking everything literally ... sort of like the difference between a two dimensional and three a dimensional image, really.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchy, you don't know the difference between energy and flux, so I cannot reasonably be expected to think that you can use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the real world. I believe anything is possible, but if you want me to believe a thing is likely then you'd best present a convincing case. Misusing cool-sounding terms does not present a convincing case.
LOL! What a vivid imagination you have! You really should have been a poet.

Yeah, radio waves may "criss-cross" each other, but that doesn't mean that they affect, or "are in a state of flux" with each other. Radio waves also "criss-cross" light waves, yet we can't see radio waves. They also criss-cross regular sound waves, but do not change how we hear sound. They also criss-cross the waves that crash on the beach, but they do not affect the feeding patterns of seagulls.

So your explanation of how things affect each other is unsupported, not only by the things themselves, but also by your analogies. If you want my advice, I'd say work on understanding the things themselves, rather than by trying to find better analogies.
Not hardly. Do you mean it is the closest thing to real that is not actually real? If so, then even that is not true. My conscious imagination is much more real than my dreams, because it is consistant and directed. Daydreams, on the whole, are more real-feeling than the dreams I have at night. So the dreams I have at night are at best the third most real of unreal things I experience.

I do not mistake my imagination or my daydreams for reality. Why should I respond differently to things which are even less like reality?
Oh. My mistake then. All this time I thought you were trying to present this as something that really exists. If you were just telling me a story that even the author didn't believe, you should have told me so up front. Then we could have discussed the nuances of storytelling.

For example, I thought that the movie version of Lord of the Rings was good, but that it overdid the sensational and romantic aspects of Tolkein's work. I would have preferred more of the elven poetry.

Rats. My computer crashed while responding to this. This will be briefer, then.
Not supported by any current research. May or may not be true, but is absolutely unsupportable (not to mention, unless you specify what you mean by "energy pattern", undefinable).Demonstrably false, or at least at odds with what we know about neural transmission.No doubt. Except that the statement is meaningless.

Energy itself is the fllux, and matter is what it fluxuates between.

If they are of the same frequency yes, they do interact (or merge) with each other.

Am merely working with the available evidence I already have, so it's not like I'm entirely without a point of reference.

I've had dreams where I couldn't help but feel they were the only reality. In which case my next question becomes, what happens if I don't wake up? Does this real entity which, for all intents and purposes beleives what it's experiencing is real, just all of a sudden vanishes? In other words do I die twice ... in both the physical and, non-physical worlds?

Let's not forget that I'm merely trying to make it sound plausible, Okay?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Your fluctuate/fluxueate pun is somewhat amusing, and I approve. But don't let it distract you from the point of the thread. Do you, in fact, know the difference between energy and flux?
I've just shown you that frequency is only one of the many attributes of electromagnetic waves. For years, we have had Amplitude Modulated (AM) and Frequency Modulated (FM) radio. Cell phones obviously tap even more attributes of the electromagnetic spectrum. So your attempt to compare reality to a simple sine wave is... well... simplistic.
Hey, I've had dreams (more than one) where I died. But then I woke up, and realized they were just dreams. So did I really die? Of course not. It was just a dream. So don't worry about dying in your dreams, Iacchy. It isn't real.

If, though, you don't wake up from your dreams, then you are dead. But then, you will be dead, so you won't realize you have not woken up, so you won't have to worry about what you "think" after that point.
Nice try.

And what is flux but a state of being fluid and fluctuating? (Look it up in the dictionary.) And what is energy (some kinds at least) but a state of being "in flux" with matter?

And yet I think I would make Mr. Occam right proud ...

But like I say, there will come a time when you won't wake up.

And my question becomes, do you continue to dream or, do you die a second time in your dream as well? -- or, vanish from the dream altogether? Of course what is it exactly that has vanished if, in fact you didn't recognize it as you?

But no cigar huh?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Occam tells us how to choose between two theories both of which adequately explain the given observations. In other words, a theory should be as simple as it can be, but no simpler. Your simplifications come at the expense of ignoring vast heaps of observations; ignoring what physicists know about radio waves, or what psychologists know about dreams, or what biologists know about natural selection, does not simplify your explanations, it oversimplifies them. This is why it is so important to know the knowledge base of your topic area before you start theorising. It prevents one from proposing an elegant simple theory which sounds plausible...until you actually look at the phenomenon itself, and realize that you are basing your theory on a strawman.

Yin and Yang dude! Describes the nature of oscillation perfectly!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I have looked it up in a dictionary and you are, again, incorrect, though I will admit that you are not the only person who uses this term incorrectly. Flux has nothing to do with fluctuation. That you would even have the gall to suggest I use a dictionary when you refuse to do so speaks volumes about you.
I'm sure you would think that. And in this, as in most things, you would be completely wrong.Which is not only incorrect (since I might not die in my sleep) but has nothing to do with the nature of dreams. What you seem to be suggesting is that dying in your dreams is related to actual death, and I have shown you why that is incorrect.It varies. I may adopt a different character, or become just an observer. And of course, nothing has actually vanished. It is a dream, and as such, my death is simply part of the impromptu script that my brain is writing. And of course, the "me" in my dreams often changes, even when it doesn't die. Don't you find this to be true in your dreams?They do no such thing, dude.

What, you didn't think I would bother to look it up? Look at item 4 b please ...

No, I think Mr. Occam would whole-heartedly agree that the simpler argument is the best.

Either you continue dreaming and you don't wake up or, you stop dreaming and don't wake up either.

Except that you still identify it as you. Neither are we always the same person during the day, demonstrated by the way we behave differently towards different things. It's just that when we dream, our minds reflect these things differently.

A sinewave within a circle, thus demonstrating one complete cycle. Perfect!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'll leave the rest to 'Berry, since it was addressed to her...but since I addressed this in my last post, which Iacchus obviously either did not read or did not comprehend (I know he would not be so rude as to simply ignore it after reading and understanding it)...you forgot the crucial thing you always forget about Occam. You must explain the observed evidence. If your theory does not explain the observations, Occam does not even apply.

Your overly simplistic explanation of waves and their interaction was easily shown lacking by Gooze...an honest person would admit that his explanation was inadequate. You did not. You repeat your insistance that you would be Occam's favorite son, when you have been reminded that your explanation must first be adequate, before parsimony comes in to play.

You are not merely wrong, you are wrong in a manner which was pointed out to you only three posts earlier.

Yin and Yang dude! How can you get it any simpler than that?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Mia culpa. "fluctuation" is indeed one definition. My humble apologies.

However, when you speak of "energy flux", that is not the definition that is employed.
That is ridiculous. If it were true, then, "Because I say so" would be the most correct of all arguments, having ultimate simplicity. Diggy explained this to you. Did you read it?
I fail to see what this has to do with anything.
I don't necessarily identify it as "me". Are you telling me what I dream now? Interesting. This implies that there is no consistant thing as "self" but rather it is constantly changing, which is what I have been arguing all along. It changes from the "self" of an infant to the "self" of an adult, varying widely all along the way, then eventually, it dies.
Um. No. The curved line dividing the halves of a Yin-Yang symbol are not a sine function, which you would know if you studied math. They superficially resemble one, but are the wrong shape. Imperfect!

Again, sorry for my earlier misstatement.

And what does definition 4 b also say with respect to fluctuation? ... "in a state of flux." Now isn't this essentially what energy is in relation to matter? ... being more so in "fluid state" or, "state of flux." And yes, energy does fluctuate (i.e., oscillate) within these parameters.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well...you oversimplified yin and yang, to start with.



<< Sorry, I inadvertantly edited your post. Had to add substitute picture instead. Iacchus32 >>

The true yin and yang explicitly denies your idea that it is binary, as there is alway some yang in yin and some yin in yang. I'm sure you'll find a way to make this fit too, if it takes a crowbar and axle grease, rather than admit you chose a bad example of a flawed concept.

excellent point. 4b is a linguistic definition rather than a physics definition, and your example was clearly using the physical definition. By that definition, I will guess (based on my tenuous understanding of physics) that your last sentence is wrong. But that is not my area of expertise, so I will defer to the 'Berry on this one.

Why are you so unwilling to look at what I'm trying to say here? Yes, the curved line does represent the alternating cycles between positive and negative which, is none other than what a sine wave portrays.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No, this is just your version of the yin and yang. For as I understand (I could be mistaken here) your version is merely an adaptation of what the Koreans interpreted from the Chinese. In which case my version refers to the original.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Oh, now it "represents" a sine wave? Earlier you said it "was" a sine wave. So I guess that means that the division beween the "tadpoles" does not "represent" the nature of good and evil or true and false or any other dichotomy. It only represents a sine wave.

Or does it get to represent many things? Could it indeed represent anything you say it does?
What kind of energy are we talking about here? They have different styles of transmission.

Here's a little info that may surprise you. Electromagnetic waves do not actually propegate as little wiggly lines. That is just a way of representing them.

And of course, Diggy has shown you that the Yin Yang symbol is more complex than the simplified one you showed. (You forgot the eyes of the tadpoles). So all in all, your metaphor is not a very good one. Are you so unwilling to accept that?

Are you sure? How many revolutions does a generator need to turn in order to produce one sine wave? One full circle, right? And what if you were to take that circle (representatively) and split it in two and stretch it out so it looks like the curved line we're referring to? Certainly, at the very least, it portrays the mechanical aspect of the generator (one revolution) which produced the sine wave doesn't it? In other words we're still speaking about the same thing.

You really ought to consider things in context with the rest of the things I'm trying to say. And yes, the yin and ying symbol is a perfect represention of this "dual nature" of reality.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?