I appreciate your comments. You help big time bringing back here free thinking towards learning.
Moji: That's true - and, as a late-comer to the thread, I'm trying to catch up a little bit. So, we've got this notion that it is possible for some beings to find greater efficiency of consciousness evolution in NPMR (which, I would think most people here can agree is possible) with one reason seemingly being NPMR time quanta, which occur at a rate of 10^18 faster than in PMR (most of us should know that). I sense that you are using this concept along with the greater freedom (fewer constraints) in NPMR to as an indication that the speed of consciousness evolution is greater, for some, there.
Claudio: I agree with this 100%, but consider also that IUOCs can multiprocess, so they can learn both in NPMR and PMR (or PMRs) simultaneously. Tom apparently is able to lower his IUOCs entropy when awake simultaneously (in parallel) in PMR and NPMR. I get training at night, and other subsets of my IUOCs can certainly be working on themselves while I am not aware of that and focusing on the experiences I am aware of.Moji: You've also pointed out that some beings progress at very different rates (or regress) and that beings can produce similar results regardless of location within AUM, but not always - all things that are possible. Also, in your response to me, you add that using intent to drive evolution is a big factor - this is certainly a point that Tom has made many times, so this clearly falls within his theory. And lastly, you've mentioned some characteristics of your own experiences with consciousness evolution.
Am I still on the right track regarding your comments in this thread?
You mentioned that you find this comment to be unclear.
The FWAU subset that experiences NPMR never contributes as much per unit of time to this effort at improvement. That is not to say that it doesn't contribute as much in total, but not having the intense interactions and feedback of PMR, its contribution is not as fast.
Claudio: I totally agree with what you say. I am not saying this comment is unclear. I am open minded and skeptic. If somebody says: "never contributes as much", I analyze why. I think it may be better said "most likely contributes more in PMR in early stages of evolution". This is so far how I see it in context of the whole big picture. So I agree with what you posted before as well.
Moji: Perhaps I see what you mean - If a FWAU that experiences NPMR does not contribute as much per unit of time (delta QoC compared to FWAU in PMR), but may contribute as much in total and
its contribution is not as fast: Per unit of time is a rate, and fast means 'something per unit of time' - "as much in total" would imply the same rate, unless the difference in time quanta is not considered... perhaps we have a contradiction or a misunderstanding.
Claudio: This part is not too clear to me. I hope may be you can rewrite it so I can get it, but I think the higher self of an IUOC (a metaphor of the subset that says who does what and when) has a clear understanding of how the entropy of the being is behaving overall and considers how it changes in all subsets for the same period of time being analyzed (same time period overall).
This is why I corrected what Ted posted here saying "your NPMR awareness" (on my first post in this thread). People may interpret "your" as FWAU (subset of IUOC that is handling this PMR mission). I say the one that knows what really is going on is the subset in charge of the IUOC that we can name it higher self, but the name does not matter as much as to understand that subset has a better vision than others. Hope at least you may be the first one here to understand why I made my first post with the correction on the first mess. The conditioning towards me some people have here deviate from my original purpose.
Moji: The "intense interactions and feedback of PMR" is a familiar concept from MBT, so I don't think anyone should be confused by this. Let's ask Ted if he can clarify his statement a little bit, since it seems not to be a statement we would expect, given what we know.
Claudio: Totally agree with you Moji. I enjoy learning with you, feels good man. Good you came back and contribute here!