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.
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.
PS: sorry for any spelling / grammatical errors, no time to recheck this morning
Last edited by Montana on Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.