kimmy

Certainly. What of it? I said "seems likely" because I'm not sure that we have conclusive proof that the Mona Lisa looks the same today as it did when it was first completed. I said "could be" as a means of inviting discussion of the merits of that assertion. Loss of brushstrokes and change of scale, these can again be discussed in terms of loss of signal or lower signal to noise ratio. Does it make a difference to my overall impression of the piece? Quite likely. Does it detract from my ability to discern the image as the sender intended? Not as likely. As I mentioned earlier, the flaw in this communication link isn't the physical channel, it's the receiver's ability to interpret the data. The ideas you presented have little to do with the ideas c-r is advancing. I am more interested in hearing you discuss the ideas you're interested in than I am in hearing you discuss what you think c-r is trying to say. She's had ample opportunity to speak for herself, has done so, and has demonstrated herself to be a stark raving fruitcake. Let's move on to something more interesting. I have been using the word "social" because I want to differentiate the forms of communication-- speaking, writing, gestures, print, television, lately the internet, and so on-- that have formed the basis of human social interaction for as long as we have been a species. I would like to distinguish these sorts of communications, which I've called "social" because I don't know what a better or more technical term might be-- from ideas being advance by c-r. You didn't care for the term "telepathy", so how about "extrasensory"? Some means of receiving information that bypasses the 5 senses could fairly be described as "extrasensory", right? According to c-r, it's formed of electromagnetic waves from our brains travelling through the air and combining with other waves and forming thought that exists outside of the human brain. Haven't you been reading along? You chided me for not being "scientific" for not being open to the idea that our brains might be receiving information in the form of neutrinos. Being "scientific" doesn't require me to be open to hypotheses that have glaring flaws. I pointed out what appear to be glaring flaws... do you disagree with with that assessment? If not, then what's the problem? -k

This is an extremely important point, and one completely lost on those advocating "brainwaves" as a medium of mental telepathy. Brainwaves are not thought coded into electromagnetic form. Brainwaves are a measurable result of thought, much like tailpipe emissions are a measurable result of an internal combustion engine. However, I must disagree with this... There's this revolutionary technology that's going around that you might have heard of... We can certainly measure infrared (and higher frequency light as well) using photodiodes. My TV is demodulating information from an infrared signal each time I change the channel. The big problem with positing blackbody radiation as a means of communications (as I see it, at least) is: how is the signal being modulated? Your transmitter would need to be heating and cooling itself to move its radiant spectrum enough to generate a detectable modulation. With blackbody radiation, you don't have a nice pure frequency output like you can generate in radio. You generate a spectrum that's a lot like a bell curve. Because the peak of the spectrum is so round and wide, you don't get much variation by moving the center of the curve just a little. Unlike radio, you have to move the spectrum around a lot to get a significant change in the peak. And all that heating and cooling would take an enormous amount of energy. We would detect those temperature shifts, and we would detect all that energy being spent. -k

Sender is considered a master technician of the medium; could be likened to a transmitter with a high signal-to-noise ratio. Restorative action of curators over the years could be likened to repeaters, maintaining integrity of original signal. Original signal is converted to digital form, transmitted to receivers location, and reconstructed in visual form with high level of accuracy. Quantum mechanics analysis of optical portion of channel completely unnecessary; classical optics and conventional understanding of photochemical receptors in eye entirely adequate for this situation. Physical layer of communications channel is extremely solid. Seems likely that image available to receiver is entirely as sender intended. Failure of communication occurs at higher level. Receiver receives information with extremely high degree of accuracy, but unsure how to intepret the data. Result: unlikely that receiver has obtained message sender intended. My only interest in this thread has been to dispute c-r's idea that our thoughts are directly connected to a great collective consciousness. If you find my focus on that topic to be tedious, then I don't know what you're hoping to get out of this conversation. As always, you're quick to let people know they're not talking about what you want them to be talking about, but unwilling to actually say what you want to talk about. How many times have I said exactly that? I gathered early on that you were hoping to steer the topic towards some sort of social concept of collective intelligence, and perhaps hoping that c-r's inane ramblings were actually some sort of metaphor for the ideas you'd like to introduce. But it has become clear that c-r is speaking quite literally and that her notion of a collective intelligence isn't some kind of zeitgeist formed through media but rather literally that human thought exists outside the brain and combines with other thought through means which she believes can be made science by calling it "quantum reality". If you're hoping to piggyback your own interests into this thread on her horse, you're probably terribly frustrated by that. So perhaps you should just present the ideas you'd like to talk about on your own. Unentangle (or quantum unentangle!) yourself from c-r's fruitopian fantasy and present your own ideas! We'll all be happier. And yet you didn't actually dispute any of my analysis of the situation. -k

I have meant to see this, if only out of curiousity to see how much of Fort Edmonton Park I recognize. Several friends lined up for hours to apply to be extras, sadly without success. I think Brad Pitt is a better actor than he gets credit for. Perhaps he's most associated with roles in bad movies where he's called on to look handsome and not much else, but his resume also has smaller parts where he is surprisingly enjoyable playing unlikely characters. (I thought he was great in 12 Monkeys and Snatch.) -k

As I said, you need only choose the parameters (sender, receiver, information, means of transmission) and I'll do my part. I won't proceed until you set the parameters, because I suspect that whatever I write, your response would be "bah, that's irrelevant! I was talking about something completely different; something that I will continue to not specify." You misunderstand. I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm saying I think you're already intimidated. It's become clear that you're not going to commit to any actual specifics as to how our brains might receive ideas from c-r's electron soup, and I think it's because once you stick your neck out you'll be in the position of defending something completely untenable. The physical layer is the layer at which information is converted into a signal, transmitted, received, and converted back into information. For a communications model where the sender and receiver are both human brains, the physical layer is of necessity means available to the human brain. The brain can transmit information by using the body's nervous system to effect mechanical signals. (speak, type, hand-signals, activating some mechanical device, winking, tap your foot once for no and twice for yes, make funny faces, etc.) The brain can receive information using the 5 senses. (watched it, read it, heard it, Braille, SCTV Smell-O-Rama, etc.) For humans, those are the start and end points of the physical layer; what's in between could be anything from carrier pigeons to smoke signals to a gigabit fiberoptics network to a neutrino-beam datalink... doesn't matter. It's beside the point. A part of a path. But the start of the path remains your motor controls. The endpoint remains the human senses. I have been arguing that our brains are not receiving information from elsewhere unless it comes through one of the 5 senses. Whatever the information path between you and me, the final step of that communication channel is one of our 5 senses. Showing me two machines that communicate using pulses of light doesn't address my argument if the pulses of light get demodulated and turned into information that I receive through my senses. Ditto for proposing a means of communication using a system that uses quantum entanglement or beams of neutrinos to send data across great distances, if the information gets demodulated and received through sight and sound. Who knows what might be technologically possible, but that's unrelated to the argument I'm making. Guh. I'm not arguing that our senses are not affected by quantum mechanics. Whatever the quantum mechanical interactions within our senses, they constitute specific communications channels which we refer to as sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste. I do not dispute that quantum mechanics can be applied to all of these channels. What I do dispute is the premise that our thoughts are inextricably tied together through "electron soup" or radiation or electromagnetic waves or neutrinos as c-r has been claiming. Yes, I'm very comfortable with claiming non-existent possibilities for neutrinos as a communications channel by which thought might be transmitted from brain to brain. I think the neutrino's most well known properties (being difficult to detect, and having little interaction with material as it passes nearby) make it by definition an incredibly unlikely communications medium. I think Shannon would look at the influence of a neutrino on a neuron in your brain compared to the influence of surrounding noise sources on the same neuron, and laugh his ass off at the prospects for this communications channel. I think Heisenberg would probably tell you that the premise of using a neutrino with a required degree of precision would be fundamentally unworkable. But if you want to speculate on how thoughts could be transmitted using neutrinos, please do. I'm fascinated to see where this goes. -k

I'm not asking you to do my homework, I'm asking you to set the basic parameters. I'll discuss the channel as I see it, including an assessment of the quantum mechanics implications for that channel. Then you can grade my work, including critiquing my assessment of the quantum mechanics implications if you wish. (My suspicion is that you're unwilling to participate because you know that once you commit to specifics, ToadBrother will make short work of whatever means you come up with.) The fact that something exists in the physical world does not necessarily make it a reasonable physical layer for the OSI model. Is a bucket of sand physical? You bet. Is it a physical layer in the sense of the OSI model? Not on its own... Did you actually reference the OSI model because you wanted to talk about communications? Or did you just think that people would accept "physical = physical layer" at face value and move on? Fascinating, Shwa. You can receive data directly into your brain through the means of fibre optics? I'm truly astounded! I keep talking about means of communication available to the human brain, and you arbitrarily forget the brain portion when it suits your purpose. Is fibre optics a viable communications channel for equipment built for that purpose? Obviously so. Is fibre optics a means of communication available to the human brain? Obviously not. It could be part of a channel (ie, what we're doing right now) but ultimately that communication channel is going to have to transfer the data to one of our 5 senses (ie, what your monitor is doing right now) or we're not going to get the data. And let me know when your brain gets online with the Quantum Entanglement Network... Who knows what possibilities neutrinos might hold. But for terms of this discussion-- which has been about how our thoughts are influenced by the "electron soup" -- the possibilities are non-existent. -k

If we're talking about information being conveyed from one place to another, then we're talking about communication. You're talking about communication, you're just afraid to call it that because you know that if you do, you'll get your ass kicked using information theory. We're not in the same soup. Our soup is separated by distance. Your soup has statistically almost zero chance of influencing my soup even if we're in the same room. Quantum mechanics shows that the statistical odds of our soups interacting with each other is so infinitesimally small as to guarantee individuality. You still don't have the foggiest idea of the mistake you made in that message, do you. Want a hint? -k

Earlier you said that any idea we have is actually formed from the energy of ideas we receive from other beings: And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas. ...which certainly sounds like communication. But now you wish to say that you're not talking about a form of communication at all. Ok, if there's no communication, then the "collective consciousness" you've claimed we're part of isn't really very "collective", is it. But as we look at where you started and where you're at now, we notice that you've gone from claiming that individual thought is an illusion and that we're all part of a collective consciousness to suggesting that hey, *maybe* "ah ha!" moments *could* be possibly inspired by thoughts from others and denying that any communication is actually taking place. So it sounds like I've made my point. ...but if all you're trying to say is that we're connected by the forces of the universe, then nobody will argue that point. But so what? How does that support the claim that the existence of God is proven by science? Wow, we're all connected by gravity. How does that constitute proof that there's a God? You keep insulting my intelligence and acting as if you're some great scholar of quantum mechanics. But then you go and blow your cover by posting something like this: I don't know a lot about modern physics, but I know enough to see where you slipped up. I think everybody here who actually knows anything about modern physics can spot you for the pretender you are. -k

You choose the parameters. Pick anything you like, any one of C-R's notions of how our thoughts are an integral part of the electron soup. Neutrinos, radiation, the electromagnetic waves generated when you think, "radon", I don't care. Pick whichever one you'd like me to discuss. Tell me what the sender is, the receiver, and what information you believe can be exchanged through this channel. And I will do my level best to assess it in terms of classical physics, which I'm far more comfortable with, and then I'll send it back to you and the other Masters of Quantum Reality here on the forum to explain how quantum mechanics would greatly enhance my analysis of the situation. Sound like a plan? Quantum mechanics is analysis of the physical. But neither you nor c-r have offered a reasonable suggestion as to how it might provide a viable physical layer. If we're talking about neutrinos or any of the other ideas c-r has been suggesting, we're talking about an analysis of a physical layer that's simply not a viable means of communications. Suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if neutrinos could be the physical layer of a viable communications channel would be like suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if I could throw a baseball to the moon. I've got two plastic cups and a piece of string here, and I don't think I can do broadband data over this physical layer. Would you like to analyze the situation with quantum mechanics? -k

She's positing that "brain information" from one brain can move through space and influence thoughts in another brain. That's by definition a communications channel. Doesn't matter if it's node-to-node or broadcast, it's still a communications channel and can be analyzed as such. There is no need for me to speculate at the quantum-level interactions, since the signal to noise level for all of these paths can be measured experimentally. Quantum level interactions do occur, and are included in the results. I'm somewhat familiar. And I keep harping on the physical layer of the model. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste all have viable physical layers associated with them. There's no viable physical layer for our brains to receive thought in the form of neutrinos or radiation or electromagnetic waves. -k

My main point was that people who attribute the success of Star Wars to special effects are missing a large piece of the puzzle. Iconic characters. A mythology that appealed to people. Strange creatures and technology that captured people's imaginations. An alternate reality that appealed to people's sense of escapism. Special effects might have played a role in bringing some of that stuff to the screen, but the real reason it was such a success is the creativity that went into building a universe that appealed to so many people. (shrug) If I met somebody as annoying and whiny as Woody Allen's character in his movies (does he play the same character in every movie?) in real life, I'd probably break his jaw to get him to shut up. I've always suspected that his target audience is self-styled intellectuals who pat themselves on the back for being sophisticated enough to appreciate Woody Allen (and other stuff that the proles just can't stand). I don't know anybody who's seen Annie Hall. I don't know anybody who'd watch a Woody Allen movie on purpose. Nobody my age likes him. But that's just my take on it; I may be as out to lunch as August. -k

I was listening to "Amazing" by Kanye West a while back. I am not a fan of the guy or the genre for that matter, but I like the song. It uses auto-tune, and it's not like they're trying to hide it from the listener... they morph West's voice into basically an electronic instrument. I wouldn't listen to a whole album of it, but it's an interesting effect. As for Taylor Swift... if your singing is so bad it makes Stevie Nicks uncomfortable, that's really saying something. There is a lot of debate about whether Pink's performance on the show was "real" or lip-synced. A lot of people feel that she just couldn't have sounded that good while soaking wet and spinning in circles while suspended upside-down from a sling and dressed in Milla Jovovich's costume from The Fifth Element. I mean, if she can sing that well in a studio, that's impressive... if she can sing that well while doing Cirque du Soleil acrobatics, that's freaking amazing. -k

Primarily because the mentally retarded are far less likely to stage a riot in response. -k

You didn't see it? She's quite explicit about it here... ...and here: You're completely wrong. Nothing in the argument I've presented is challenged by the fact that we can receive information through our senses. Every step in the communications channels available to us through our senses can be shown to have reasonably good likelihood of transmitting information from receiver to sender. While it could be difficult to assign a mathematical signal to noise ratio to the electrochemical communication between your eyes and your brain, we can assume it's quite high. And your eye (unless you have a visual impairment) is a tremendously sensitive receiver of light. You don't want to do a "traceroute exercise"... well, tough. I can do a "traceroute exercise" on the signal path from person to person through any of our senses and demonstrate a viable communications path. I don't think that you can show me a viable communications path from person to person that doesn't employ one of the 5 senses at some point in the process. I won't believe otherwise unless you do the "traceroute exercise" and show it to me. -k

Star Wars remains very entertaining even though the special effects are at this point highly passe. Terrific pacing. One of the most memorable musical scores in movie history. I'm not sure Darth Vader can be called a "special effect", but he's one of the iconic movie characters of all time. The same for Han Solo to a lesser degree. And some of the best scenes were memorable not just because of special effects, but because of the creative use of them. It's certainly not the first movie to have model spaceships flying around in front of cameras... but the opening scene, where the Rebel ship streaks by and then the Imperial destroyer rolls over and completely engulfs the screen, was really memorable. In 1977 Star Wars didn't win "Best Picture" and Annie Hall did. 33 years later, Star Wars is not just known by just about everyone, it's pretty much part of our culture, while Annie Hall is ... something my grandparents' generation liked. It will be interesting to see what people will think of Avatar in 33 years. -k

And? South Africa used to field an all-white national rugby team that was, I gather, quite powerful. Do that team's victories amount to an argument in favor of apartheid? -k

I attended the Olympic torch relay thing in my community, quite by accident. I was on my way to my evening job, downtown, and heard a huge racket, and went to see what the commotion was. From all the blue and yellow crap on display, I assumed we were welcoming Team Sweden. As it turned out, it was the Olympic torch relay. The blue and yellow was because it was the Royal Bank of Canada torch relay. Or the RBC torch relay, I guess... I don't think I heard the word "Bank" mentioned at all. So I hung out for a little while. Some loudmouth on stage tried to rally the crowd into a frenzy by playing crappy music and imploring people to chant along and dance, and so on. Then it arrived. The torch. Carried by a young man who won a silver medal in rowing at the Beijing Olympics, apparently. And even though the torch itself looks like nothing more than an enormous joint, I felt it... the huge pull that it exerted on everyone as it came down the street and toward the stage. People around me seemed genuinely excited, and I found myself inspired... not by the torch itself, but by the effect it had on everyone around me. Although the torch itself is just a big joint, the enthusiasm and happiness it seemed to create in the thousands of people watching it was quite unexpected to me, and kind of moving as well. -k

I agree with this much. Individual sports are about pursuing individual excellence. It's kind of inane to uphold athletic achievements as examples of the achievements of a nation. I don't see how that's any more sensible than by country. At least doing it by country makes sense from an organizational perspective (ie, questions like "who is funding the team?" and "who decides who is on the team?" become much simpler.) It is an entertainment business. People pay their money to watch because they want entertainment. That's really the only aspect of it that matters. Watching athletes compete within the artificial parameters of a skiing race or a judged figure skating contest is not really that different from watching an actor pretend to be a detective or a doctor, is it? Not many at the Olympics are really "losers". Win or lose, the athletes have had the chance to travel the world, meet people, train, and compete. At someone else's expense, for the most part. Nice work if you can get it. They're not the losers. People who buy tickets aren't the losers either. At least, not if they've received the entertainment they paid for. The losers are the people who aren't interested in the Olympics and yet still pay a chunk of the costs of staging the event out of their taxes. -k

I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for "boring" and "lame". The message was cheesy and cliche, the characters were one-dimensional, the story was predictable, and it was very much an action/violence/CGI movie. But I don't think it was boring, and it certainly wasn't lame. It was a visual experience pretty much unparalleled in movie history, which to me makes it the opposite of lame. -k

Translated: you can't actually address anything I've said and you're afraid to dig yourself into a deeper hole by even trying. I stand behind everything I've written, and everything I've written here stands unchallenged. You, on the other hand... most of what you've written has been nonsense with no scientific meaning, and on the few occasions you've tried to employ real science in your arguments, your efforts have been crushed flat like empty pop-cans (which is an apt metaphor for everything you've written on this subject.) Science says that sub-atomic particles are real. Science also says that the forces that bind sub-atomic particles together to form atoms are equally real, not an illusion. Science also says that the forces that bind atoms together to form molecules are equally real, not an illusion. Science also says that the forces that bond molecules into larger structures are equally real, not an illusion. Science also says that the larger structures formed out of molecules bound together are equally real, not an illusion. If you are denying the reality of any of these things, then you're not talking about science, you're off in the realm of metaphysics (or in your case, off in the realm of nonsense.) Sure. We all have an enormous amount in common. Including the fact that we're all made of stuff that's identical to the stuff that every other object in the universe is made out of. But that doesn't have anything to do with the argument you're trying to present. -k

We'll let C-R prove she can transmit information telepathically first. However, even if she can, I don't see how that proves the claim that this communication is facilitated by Christ or any other religious entity. And even if it were... which one? -k

I find it quite amusing that you keep giving me these little put-downs, in the midst of making a complete fool of yourself by posting this junk-science. I'm out of my league? You're out of your league. Not only are you out of your league, you also don't even know what sport you're actually playing. Your posts don't actually indicate that you know anything about quantum mechanics. You wandered through the lobby, leafed through the brochures, and picked up some buzz-words and catch phrases. Your understanding of modern physics appears to be based on having watched a few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. You are postulating a means of communication, so Shannon's Law is not just applicable, it's unavoidable. It's applicable to any system of communication, from smoke signals to snail-mail to semaphore to cell-phones to the system you're proposing. All that is left for us is to quantify a signal to noise ratio... which for the system you're describing, could be shown to be arbitrarily close to zero. The argument I'm presenting is way above your level of sophistication, but I'm sure you're still going to dispute it in a way that demonstrates not only that you don't understand what I'm saying, but also that you don't even understand what you're saying. Looking forward to it; should be hilarious. The fact that radiation can affect molecules in our body is not proof that it can effect (or affect) thought. You're claiming a scientific proof that thought is influenced by outside forces. The scientific understanding of thought is based on the action of neurons. Influencing a molecule isn't sufficient to cause a whole neuron to act. You have to influence millions of molecules, at once, in the same way. To put it in terms you're more likely to understand: you're showing me that you can splash handfuls of water around in the lake. But to effect/affect a thought, you have to move the whole lake at once. And to effect communication, you have to be able to move the whole lake from place to place repeatably. The mechanisms you're describing are so far below the requirements of establishing a means of communication as to be not even worth discussing. And yet you're able to type? How come your fingers don't just pass right through the keys? Why does that mountain stay a mountain? Why doesn't air start turning into mountains? How do you eat? Why do you even bother eating? How come your body hasn't just vanished into disassociated quarks traveling in random directions at high velocities? Why does nuclear fission require work to achieve? Why does nuclear fission release so much energy? Do nuclear explosions just randomly occur where you live? Why don't they? Ponder the answer to these questions, and then ponder how that relates to your argument, and let us know what you come up with. Saying that the electromagnetic fields resulting during thought *are* thought is like saying that thunder *is* lightning. The electrochemical effect in your brain is the thought. The electromagnetic fields you can observe outside someone's head are a measurable result of thought, not thought itself. ...and claiming that the measurable aftereffect of thought will travel elsewhere and combine with thought again is like claiming that thunder travels elsewhere and turns back into lightning. And here you're just combining fancy words you heard on Star Trek with the . -k

Do you mean "why are they doing it now?" or "why didn't they do it sooner?" There are some pretty obvious reasons for doing it now: declining interest in their awards being one, the financial benefits that nominees receive being another. So if it's such a winning idea, why didn't they do it sooner? Worry of damaging their brand. By taking this step, they are running the risk that audiences will see their award nomination as being less prestigious. Out of all the movies released in a year, 5 nominees is a very exclusive group. 10 nominees is less so. If there were 100 Best Picture nominees, would a best picture nomination represent anything at all in the minds of the ticket buying public? Doubtful. Your study claims an Oscar nomination (major category, I'd assume...) is worth $6 million to a movie's bottom line... but that's based on many years of having just 5 nominees. Will $6 million worth of audiences still go to see movies based on Academy Award nominations now that it's a less exclusive group? That $6 million worth of business is based on the idea that people view the awards as credible. Expanding their group of nominees carries the risk of making their nominations less credible in the minds of the public. Of course, allowing their awards show to drift out of relevance to the tastes of the viewing public also carries the risk of damaging their brand. -k

See, Shwa? She's not talking about television or using your eyes to receive information. She's talking about radiation. And so Shannon's Law is completely applicable: a communications channel with an infinitely low signal to noise ratio has an infinitely low data capacity, which means it would take an infinitely long time to transmit a message. Calling something that could never send a message a "collective consciousness" would be inane. It would be like calling my coffee cup an "artificial intelligence"... maybe it could be one, but has yet to complete its first thought. yeah, juvenile insults are a good way to make yourself look smarter. -k

c-r is talking about our individual ideas being inseparable from a collective consciousness: "It most certainly can be used to prove the existence of God as I described - the universe of connectedness and collective consciousness. The Bible describes this as "The Christ" - the universal thread that flows through all of us." All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas. That sounds like "telepathy" to me, but call it what you wish. That's how I describe the theories c-r is advancing. Find a more generous description if you wish, but you'll just be putting lipstick on a pig. I've said a number of times that the same argument is equally applicable to any means which could be used to convey an idea from one brain to the other without the means of the senses. You're going to give me a bunch of stuff like this to dispute the notion... But it doesn't address my point. Does your brain perceive light directly? No. It doesn't perceive light at all. It receives electrochemical impulses from a highly refined optical sensor. I'm not arguing that we can't share information through the use of our senses. I'm arguing that we don't (and can't) receive ideas directly out of the "electron soup". As I said in my previous post: If there is an idea in my brain, it got there through one of two ways: either I thought of it myself, or I received it through my senses (saw it, heard it, touched it, etc.) Another fine example of how ideas can be received through the senses, but nothing to support the theory that our brains are physically connected to a collective consciousness. Yet another fine example of how ideas can be received through the senses, but nothing to support the theory that our brains are physically connected to a collective consciousness. I am asking how you got this: I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time. ...out of this: "It most certainly can be used to prove the existence of God as I described - the universe of connectedness and collective consciousness. The Bible describes this as "The Christ" - the universal thread that flows through all of us." All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas. -k