Machines seem to be an extension of our senses- fine tuned to deliver informantion that would otherwise be impossible for us to see, hear, etc.(x-rays)
There may be other stimuli (or forces) at work in nature that, due to our 'insensitivity', we're incapable of measuring. That we never developed a 'receptor' for it was because it wasn't paramount to our survival.
Fear of the Unknown is the blanket treatment we've developed for just such things. Have you ever wondered why you picked up something to read and found it addressed something you've been acutely interested in? Or changed a channel to something that again, hit the mark? Or maybe you've been in a life threatening situation and came out unscathed and wondered, "How did I survive this?"
There may be nothing at all to these 'observations' but, building machines capable of 'sensing' them would be neat. If, these are true 'forces', and we could discover where to look for them, that is. It'll probably happen by accident if it happens at all.
IMHO, yours is one of the closest to get it right.
The same question is essentially what Adam performed in the Garden of Eden, naming all the animals. The action of naming, was more than simply identifying a verbal expression with an object. Rather, the name is an expression of the essence of the object/subject being named.
When Adam had body, soul, and spirit, and presented with other living beings which had body and soul, but lacking the spirit, which presented humans as having been made in His image, Adam was able to then discern between the animals and God in fellowship with Him.
Indeed budwiesest. We do not sense or perceive quantum phenomena at all, for example. And yet we know that the quantum realm is the general foundation of all aspects of physical reality, of which the "Newtonian Paradigm" is but a special case.
We can extend our natural sensory apparatus (five senses) by instrumental means which allow us to "see" things invisible to the human eye. So we are able by their means to detect such elusive things as x-rays, etc. But it seems to me that certain aspects of Nature are invisible in principle because they are inherently non-physical, immaterial. And as such are completely undetectable by sensory means no matter how extended. The law of causation itself would fall into this category. As would mathematics and the very notion of "information."
But if this is so, then is it even possible to build a machine capable of detecting such phenomena? If they truly were "forces," then one would think they could be detectable.
I believe the bearing of the Mikulecky article is that such phenomena are not "forces." But they are nonetheless "real."
You wrote:
Have you ever wondered why you picked up something to read and found it addressed something you've been acutely interested in? Or changed a channel to something that again, hit the mark? Or maybe you've been in a life threatening situation and came out unscathed and wondered, "How did I survive this?"Wow budwiesest. I have experienced all those things myself. Most vividly the very last. The only explanation I could give for such experiences is: the Holy Spirit was with me. Try building a machine that can "detect" that!
But my soul can do it....
Thank you ever so much for your insightful essay/post!