[naphand]

You could certainly change my opinions with reasoned argument, but that is not your preferred means of communication - you seem to either "not understand", "don't get it" or "pity people".

I don't think you're arrogant - it's self-evident from your posts. Just this one comment sums it up:

"why is it that every month or so i have to deal with a new internet loser who obviously must feel challenged by my intellectual prowess to make such a post??

Is this really the only explanation? Could it be that it's something to do with YOU and what you are posting? Could it? Can you really s-t-r-e-t-c-h your mind far enough to consider the possibility that the problem is to do with what YOU are doing? I mean, the whole "hate thread" thing, have you not noticed a trend here?

"also i think to say a discussion on ESP qualifies as a physics discussion is laughable."

Arrogant and ignorant. You claim to be interested in Physics, but have NEVER come across the parallels between quantum theory and consciousness-based phenomena? Maybe you should try reading a few of the publcations on the New Physics before you use such phrases as "laughable" as it is clear to anyone who is familiar with this work, that you are just an ignoramus. The work conducted by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Reasearch Lab. should be a good start and then maybe Google to find out about some of the other publications.

The whole question of what consciousness is (and such things as ESP clearly come under that domain, being as they are, consciousness-based), is a matter of how "consciousness" arises from "inert matter". It is, in fact, a physics question. It is not a point of philosophy. Most attempts to study consciousness-based phenomena have involved either purely statistical tests, or some element of physical manipulation. Any proposed mechanism must have a theoretical basis, and as such a "physical means" for its propogation. The whole issue of what consciousness amounts to, it's properties, scope and mechanism of interaction with the physical environment is being increasingly linked to mathematics (which arises from the brain anyway) and unified field/quantum mechanical theories. Many significant mathematicians have expressed surprise at how some even totally abstract theories seem to have a place in quantum field/superstring theory: there are two possible explanations for this parallel, can you work out what they are, and why they may in fact be the same explanation?

OK, maybe I mis-read your one-liner to Festus, in which case I apologise, but considering the tone of your other posts, I think this assumption is really not that surprising. After all, if you drew 20 red balls in a row from a bag with 30 balls in it, you might anticipate expect the next one to also be red (of, course there is no absolute guarantee of that), or even, indeed, to assume the bag only contains red balls. Or am I being too abstract for you?