Intensity of interactions and prompt feedback as to the quality of our choices are necessary to optimize the probability of entropy reduction as it occurs within your IUOC as being your basic digital code of your digital mind. The basic reason that PMRs were invented and what we come here to experience.
Beginning on page 382 and including an aside beginning there, a discussion is begun of AUM’s experiments and purposes leading to the development of PMR type VRs.
In order to help you understand the strong interrelationships connecting AUM, experiments in consciousness, evolution, scientific inquiry, and love, I need to broaden your picture of AUM by putting Our System (OS) into a more personal perspective. At the risk of sidetracking your focus and generating curiosity tangential to the intended point, I think a short aside explaining the nature and purpose of NPMRsubN and Our System relative to other realities is in order. Understanding there are other reality systems that are fundamentally constructed the same as our, but are functionally very different from ours, will help you to see AUM from a larger perspective.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYHtBP ... 82&f=false
AUM: scientist at work. Metaphorically speaking, AUM has run, and is running, many experiments. Before there were PMRs, there were only NPMRs. As it turns out, NPMR realities are not optimized for evolving basic or elementary consciousness. The problem is the motivation-action-result-feedback loops are long and difficult to define in NPMR because interactions between entities are often tenuous and not steady. If a sentient entity does not like what is going on in NPMR thought-space, it can drop out and disappear or block out (filter) specific interactions. In NPMR, your external environment is, to a large extent, controlled directly by your mind. Such is the nature of thought-space and thought-form land: It is tenuous, individual, and quick to change. Doing or action (energy exchanges) comes and goes with focus, is intent driven, and often reversible.
In NPMR, the results and consequences of intent and action were difficult to define and unclear. Responsibility and right intent, the main learning issues, seemed forever debatable. Reconstruction of certain and clear motivation becomes a slippery and divisive issue among NPMR residents. A reality that has stickier, more solid and obvious – something less tenuous, changeable and camouflageable – was needed to obviate these “Yes I did,” “No you didn’t,” arguments over intent.
The above has been generalized in discussions on the board as the description of PMR interaction versus NPMR interaction as the PMR rule set adding intensity and also the determinism of physicality to NPMR to create a PMR VR. The word intensity is a word to generalize all that Tom has said in the paragraphs above. This also describes the feedback loop as a required part of this whole process required to reduce entropy.
Intensity of interaction is guaranteed by the PMR rule set as it permits extreme conflict and death. But intensity can amount to things that are less extreme and even the interaction with the PMR system, as opposed to avatars of IUOCs is significant. You must also experience the feedback from the interaction to have an effective process. This is however why the PMR design can be effective even if the FWAU is ‘clueless’. The system is built to automatically create this process and the feedback is forced upon our attention and cannot be totally ignored long term.