Yes, I agree with you, if there is no way to detect a mental field by experiment, it is all no longer an empirical thing, but just purely philosophical or simply speculative.

I thought of the field as a genus, of which there are many species, like the electromagnetic field and perhaps also our mental. Therefore, I thought a distinction of the two would be insignificant.

One of my presuppositions beside naturalism was also that our mind moves our body. There would be a direct proof for the causal-physical effectiveness of the mental of our mind, because we experience it so.

Good questions, I have not reached that stage to be able to answer all this satisfactorily. I was primarily interested in a basic modeling of consciousness.

What is the force carrier for this "consciousness field"? How do we measure it? — 180 Proof

I would say there is no force carrier in a direct sense. The consciousness field originates from the body. So the body in some sense provides the energy. To your second question one could perhaps say that yes brain waves are already measured.

Yes I agree, a panpsychic conception makes it even more believable.

What do you think physicists today consider to be the stuff of the world? I always thought they made a matter/field distinction, that is, assume the existence of particles and waves. On the other hand, they believe that that distinction dissolves in quantumstuff. But this was not relevant to my thesis, in my opinion.

Thanks for the tip.

No, I must have expressed myself in a misleading way. The fields are dynamic insofar as with them an absolute coming into being and passing away prevails. A moment of the field is immediately followed by the next one, in that it desists and simply does not persist.
It is not that they change and at the same time do not change, they are absolute change without there being anything that changes. They are substrate-less in this sense. That is, they are not like the waves in the water, which is the substrate for the waves. The fields are only waves.

Yes, without a solid core, you pop away in an instant.

But fields are not static, are they? I think they are completely dynamic.

Okay, consciousness, could still be attributed to quantum stuff as a third possibility or to something else entirely as a fourth possibility, as in the work of David Chalmers. A premise I also presuppose is that physics tells us what is currently natural and thus naturalistic. This said, I consider my conclusions to be valid, since I consider the third and fourth possibilities to be unlikely.