This is a topic I have been wondering about for some time.... and realized it might be a good topic for discussion at this BB.

So that the reader understands from the get-go where I am heading, it is about the measurement (in the scientific sense of the word) of non-physical energy and/or intent.

Some perspective: Just a couple of centuries ago, energy was thought to be entirely non-physical, and inherently unmeasurable... really it (the measurability) typically wasn't thought about at all. It was just there, one didn't even consider the possibility of measuring such an ephemeral and ethereal 'thing'. Gradually though, that changed.

And here as a digression I want to note that the evolution of scientific sensibility, awareness and modeling (thinking) about PMR-style energy mirrors the evolution of sensibility (that is, the evolution of a sense, such as feeling, hearing or vision, over the generations and/or eons).

These are the stages:
Z) At first one is unaware that there is something "in that direction". With vision, there may be light, but one doesn't notice, but then:
1) One notices that there is some sort of new 'something' out there. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not. (on/off grade sensibility) Gradually,
2) One notices that when whatever it is is there, that it is not always the same... there are at least two different 'grades' (intensities or qualities, etc) of the something. Either at this stage or in the next there is a gradually correlation of the registration of this new somethingness with the products of other sensibilities.
3) One notices more kinds of the somethingness, and then gradually puts together that this new stuff has a variety of instantiations with reliably repeatable properties. This is where 'perception', the next level of sophistication above sensation, starts to evolve. If we continue with the vision metaphor, it might be that brightness of a certain kind tends to imply warmth, for example, or the possibility of it.... so reliably that when it is sensed, the possibility of warmth is automatically perceived.
4) Perceptions accumulate and form into sets. (In vision, perceptual sets might be 'trees' or animals or the Sun, etc.
5) These sets (thoughts) are learned over time to have varying properties under varying conditions, and fitted together, and so models begin to form

.... and on and on.... the idea of the evolution of a sense over time, and it's possessor's increasingly sophisticated ability to interpret the data that it provides, is the essential idea here.

/digression.

Okay. So consider that science is an evolving sense of a more non-physical sort. It is gradually poking along and assembling more and more complex forms, in a manner something like the evolving of a sensibility.

Revisiting, say, the energy of a bonfire: A couple of centuries ago it was unmeasurable. But we could note that there were differences in intensity... a basic discrimination. To keep this already long post from getting out of control entirely, let's just sum up that science learned over time that energy was understandable, first in a rough comparative way (this bonfire has more energy than that one) then in more measurable way (this bonfire keeps five people warm, that one keeps two people warm, and then moving on to things like a discrete number of calories or watts or ergs.

The suggestion that I want to advance here, the why-come of all this, is that intent and or other nonphysical "energies" are almost certainly measurable in an objective manner. There are probably only two obstacles to doing so: 1) Failing to consider the idea, and 2) Contriving the appropriate measuring devices.

The measuring devices don't have to be PMR mechanisms to be objective devices. In a manner similar to that in which clumps of earth were sorted, studied, understood (science) and slung together into useful ways (technology), as in transistors, so can clumps of non-physical substances and sensibilities be assembled.

So the purpose of this thread is for a group discussion on the how-tos of such an objective... the measurement of 'non-physical energy', whatever that is.

My hunch is that it is only a couple of insights out of reach at present.

-Montana

PS: sorry for any spelling / grammatical errors, no time to recheck this morning

how about a vote?

I'm serious about a vote though not deeply theoritically, thoroughthoughtly serious.. It sums up my layman-view of objectifying subjectivity. But you must have some assumptions you're not sharing..? Are you thinking in quanta and mathemathical? Perceived sense of order, flow in system? How can a subjective reality be agreeingly objectified without politics? Maybe through rational intuition, common (non-physical) sense? You've written a post earlier where you suggested a technique of measuring IUOC's Quality Of Consciousness by intuitively, meditatively sensing, putting, reading them, us, on a scale from x-y. I remember Tom's phrase saying reality isn't objective, but it approximates objectivity (I've wondered if the same work with arbitrariness? Nothing is arbitrary, but it approximates it? nah, i thought, thats bullpucky, nothing can be arbitrary when ruled by intent, but still...), which strongly suggest something along the line of what you are aiming at. An objective systemically worked intesubjectively agreed scalesystem of energy-vibration-order-flow, maybe, as earlier stated or hinted, directly intuitively perceived by all?


Any way, Montana, thank you for your wisdom and very rich field of constructive guidance.

Love to you and yours.

Kristian

Hi Kristian...

I wasn't sure what to make of your post.

I didn't follow the notion of 'putting it to a vote'.

It is probably the case that my sentences are peskily complex at times. Ted got after me about that once. Occasionally, I revisit my personal journals and wonder "who the hell wrote THAT?"

As I wrote the above post this morning, it was an idea that I wanted to get out, and had to translate it first into thought, and then into language, pretty much as I went. "Flying by the seat of my pants", that expression might apply.

The essential idea was that "It is likely that intent and / or other non physical "energies" can be observed and measured with the same kinds of discipline and repeatability as can physical energies."

No one that I know of supposes that presently. It sounds outlandish at first think.

But so did, at one time, any sort of absolute measure of 'light' or "gravity" or "electricity"... that stuff, if it was fathomed at all, was approached on an entirely mystical level.

I digressed to suggest that science and reason might evolve in the same manner as any other sense.

MAYBE that helps make my earlier post a little less unclear?



I will try to do future posts in less complex sentences.

-Montana

Here is a logical chain. If something (e.g. energy) is deemed non-physical, then it belongs to NPMR and cannot be touched with PMR tools. And if an NPMR apparatus is constructed to measure it, then it will produce an NPMR result which will be perceivable only in NPMR :).

Maybe if you multi-task in both at once you can figure out a way?

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

It would only be possible to describe it in PMR using metaphors. But it is one thing to hear about it and another to experience it for yourself.

Yes, it would definitely have to be in PMR metaphores. It wasn't clear to me that you (Montana) meant PMR-scientifically measuring. We pmr humans do more or less agreeingly measure love and intentions, sort of on a scale, diagram, from egotistical to altruistic, from disorder to order, all the time. But that is not put in a scientifical system. For something to be scientifically objectively true, what is required is that we have a system, a science system of information, that a lot of people agree on to be scientifically objective. Only enough so that the science system survives as a system in the information flux. like a political party survives through a poll. (that should explain my vote-idea. objectivity requires agreement between IUOC's).

This is probably not satisfying your ideal expectations. Is your idea like a machine reading intent-, non-physical energy- information and spitting out detailed objective results? And how would the design of such a machine be constructed?

Alik: And if an NPMR apparatus is constructed to measure it, then it will produce an NPMR result which will be perceivable only in NPMR :).

Montana: Yes, Right On!

Some early morning thoughts:

We suppose that PMR does not interface with NPMR well, but that is precisely what we are doing when we incarnate.

We can all agree that vision is a physical process, with it's photons and cones and rods and bifocals. But the experience of the vision process, of seeing, that is fundamentally and NPMR activity. Sound right?

If that fits, then the above seems to want to go to : NPMR scientific measurement instruments would consist of (presumably sophisticated) experience-sets.

This is dangerously close to the precipice-y question: Of what does an "experience" consist?

Not sure we want to go there, at least in this thread.

To recap the idea that Kristian referred to above, it had to do with measuring one's own ability to focus by counting at a comfortable rate from one to 100, noting the interferences in concentration and their degree and character. The number of interferences gives a measure of the ability to focus.

-Montana

Added later:

I'd meant to explicitly state that all experience is experienced by consciousness, therefore, experience is fundamentally an NPMR event, regardless of what format events occur. So when we measure photons with a photon-o-meter, the doing of it has a fundamental NPMR component to it. (That IS the main jist of QM isn't it?)

So, again, the point of all the above was to get us to wondering about whether and why not NPMR measuring devices, and tools, etc, can be fabricated from NPMR "materials" ... which, maybe like earthly elements and energies, ought to be identified, studied, their properties analyzed, (remember the halcyon days of early science when the fun was mixing different colored liquids together in exotic vials and giggling like a lunatic...?)

~~~ overly long sentence alert!!! ~~~

Okay, enough already. But more later.

I think we already do this with aura's, right? In NPMR aura's are probably more noticable in some way, wouldn't they be? I have been told what my soul "looked like" by someone doing some healing on my Hep. C.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Oh, dear! Here we are measuring again! :))

Montana,

I have no conscious memory of my NPMR experiences, so this is only my belief. If I remember correctly from what I have read, your thoughts and intents are clear for anybody in NPMR, who communicates with you.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Hmmmm....

Maybe someone will speak up if I have got this wrong, but in a basic sense, to be aware at all is to have an NPMR experience.

To hook into Monroe's analogy, PMR is like a slow and lazy country lane well off of a spaghetti-nest of more complex and faster-laned super-highway systems.

Information itself is (ostensibly) non-physical, though it can be coded into physical material. So reading a book, while it is a physical experience in a superficial sense, is mainly about the NPMR access that it presents.

Or is that making things sound more complex than they need to?

-Montana

Montana,

I wouldn't worry about the complexity, because the redundancy of different perspectives gives one options to resonate with - or not.

It's all good !