The object of this discussion is to define characteristics of interface issues, i.e., between non-local consciousness and observation, better termed "awareness".
This interface may be defined as the event which occurs when a quantum wave is collapsed through interdiction of awareness and expectation.
The event, I have named proximity and cohesion. Proximity regards the probable aspect of the yet-to-be event, and cohesion relates to the observed event. Proximity, a term here related to probability, or quantum superpositions, also and more completely may be described as a range of compatability with a material reality based on a spectrum of available outcomes, or yet-to-be events.
Cohesion is defined by the result of a collapse of a myriad of quantum events as awareness, or when observation takes place. Cohesion cannot be said to be universal for all aware human beings at a singular moment even if such beings share reality time/space; rather, I shall propose that awareness of so-called "empirical" material states is entirely controlled by cause/effect equations which take into account only provable aspects of information, and eliminate non-provable aspects entirely. To state that a particular event is non-provable is not to say that it is theoretically non-provable, but that events are required to unfold to satisfy non-provability as part and parcel of the equation. This may appear to fly in the face of logic, and indeed such would be the case were we limited to addressing the requirements of classical physics. However, if we are to move toward any understanding of the nature of awareness as the prime mover of material events, we must shed the notion that our reality is separate from our awareness when we observe. As such, all events issue from a spectrum of probability themes. Probability themes in turn are limited only by perception barriers.
Perception barriers may be defined as the limiting factor of humanness, or the mechanism which provides a stage upon which we play out our human drama, concievably to excersise free will in a context of trial. error, and advancement. An analogy to the concept of these barriers is as follows: one imagines a path in the woods, a destination ahead, and an experience remembered of the path behind. At each side, one sees the forest receding from the view of the path. One might venture to either side of the path to some distance, but the fear of losing one's way is always present. The path is a bit monotonous, and not nearly so interesting as the wilderness to each side. Some are impelled to venture a small distance from the path to satisfy a curiosity or to pick a wildflower. Some venture yet further, aware that such excursions are dangerous (how to find the way back?). Still others remain steadfastly in the middle of the path, their fear of the unknown overcoming any desire to enrichen their experience. Each might be said to be experiencing a spectrum of greater or lesser perceptual scope in their journey. The journey of each might also be said to be limited to a proximity to the middle of the path. So proximity, or scope of probability themes, varies from one individual to the next. But which elements of proximity are we referring to, and what is meant by probability themes? Insofar as we have established that proximity describes a limited range of probable events available to the material experience of a person, and that cause/effect relationships are defined by experience alone, manifesting "as required" to satisfy proof only, irrespective of any requirement of classical physics, one asks how consensus at a later time would occur, unless time itself were eliminated as a limiting factor. I propose that time does not limit a process which is dimensionless, as has been well proven by Bells theorem, among others.
Experiments showing us that non-local events do occur sychronously outside of the realm of space/time also allow us to assume that it is the presence of our probability themes which require that effect follow cause, and not the other way round. Put another way, a strong probability theme inherent to our human condition allows instantaneous action at a distance, but does not allow (provably) knowing future events. "Provably", in our present context, must not be mistaken in meaning for any proof in the classical world of physics. "Provably", as earlier defined, describes adherence to a rule, that rule being non- empirical in origin, and in our context perhaps is best described as a means to an end, and no more.
We can imagine the "rule" in the context of a mathmatical equation.

All perception x All times x All locations x All meanings
________________________________________________ = Reality

Individual limit of proximity

We are addressing individual reality when we speak of reality, so it must follow that we address shared reality also. Note I do not refer to shared reality in any empirical sense. Rather, I refer to interactions between individuals, or more prescisely, discrete interactions and subsequent discrete interactions between any number of individuals, and the outcome of those interactions subjective to each individual.

Any interaction, subjective (thought), and objective (interaction), alters the facets of proximity subjective to individuals. In this sense, ones proximity is flexible, may posess unique charactaristics, be extremely flexible, extremely inflexible, or anywhere in between. Individuals may possess a myriad of proximity elements; elements of culture, language, location, time, physical condition, expectation, complacency, fear, exhuberence, sadness, tiredness, alertness, etc.. Past experience attenuates past proximities and provides a default calibration for present proximity.
Completely subjecive externalizations, and small group externalizations offer a view into the pre-emergent world of probabilities. Quasi-real in nature, such events possess unique characteristics of altered awareness, altered body states, and a near abscence of physical proof after the event has transpired. UFO abdution scenarios are a good example. Here, the emergent product of a probability, cohesion, does not occur, or is diminished in cohesion to a minor peripheral cohesion, an inconclusive reality, often doubted by the participants after the fact. More later

Hi FOx:

I agree completely when you speak about perceptions barriers. One comment. When we see a "tilted house" we have an external "objective" mean to know that it is the camera and not the house what is tilted. We see a tree that is growing absolutely vertical. It relates with nature growing not with our perception. It is independent of your point of view or my point of view.
Besides, imagine we are hearing music. We hear both the same preasure wave, this wave is a Fourier wave created starting from it's harmonics.
1)Do we perceive all the harmonics?. No. Each one has different eardrums. So each one ears different harmonics and ears different music. (External - eardrum - Perception Barriers).
2)You know that the way in which one person understands the music has to do with the relation between sounds accomplished in the brain. Just in the same zone as the mathmatical relations do. (Internal Perception Barrier?).
Are this type of relations between sounds proximity or cohexion?. I mean, are there "external" awareness, objectivable, and "internal" awareness, subjective?.
In the other hand, when two, or more persons, have the same quantum probability themes they can manifest a unique at a distance cohexion event as the sum of the distinct but equals proximities.

I agree completely when you speak about perceptions barriers. One comment. When we see a "tilted house" we have an external "objective" mean to know that it is the camera and not the house what is tilted. We see a tree that is growing absolutely vertical. It relates with nature growing not with our perception. It is independent of your point of view or my point of view.
Besides, imagine we are hearing music. We hear both the same preasure wave, this wave is a Fourier wave created starting from it's harmonics.

Hi a.r.g.! Imagine that you had no idea what a tree was. What then is a tree? And how did it get there? Let's assume that you have no assumptions at all. Thats hard to do! After all, you are already the product of your experience, even if that experience was on a colony on Mars. But what if you had no experience-- none at all. What if you were a newborn baby? One could say that your options were more broad. During your first experience with the tree, a branch falls on you, scratching you painfully. You have already begun to define "tree". A tree is pain in your arm. And that's your "vote". Arm pain. And if every time after that (God forbid) a branch falls on you each time you lie under a tree, that's all it will ever be to you. Arm pain. So what is a tree?
But trees are big, and they stay in place. Let's take another example. You know of a good field to wait and watch for a crop circle. You hide in the bushes. You "believe" in crop circles, but would you stake your life on it? No! but you would like to see one appear. All night you wait. No action. Finally, at 4:00 in the morning, you doze off for five minutes. No problem, you say, it was only five minutes. Then you look. There it is! You missed it! No BOLs, no light beams! Why? How did the circlemaker know when you dozed off? Now here's the wierd part: When you saw the crop circle at 4:05, you were the first one to see it. Your observation is, I repeat, the first, and in addition, you tell everybody about it, and lead them there, where sure enough, there's a crop circle. Did you personally create the crop circle? Yes. In other words, you collapsed a coherent wave probability, in essence defining an energy potential as a fixed thing, that thing being a pattern pressed in the wheat. Does that mean you designed the whole pattern yourself? although There is something familiar in the design-- yes! The dream you had last week! It's not exactly the same, but it looks a lot like your dream circle. So did you "make" the circle with your mind?
No, you defined a probable event by observing it. in a sense "fixing" or "collapsing" an energy that exists in a no-time, no-place "superposition". Once collapsed, it is there for all to see. Yet, although your proximity was broad enough to include the liklihood of seeing a crop circle, you still are thinking, gee-- maybe my watch was off. I could have been asleep for a lot longer. Maybe the watch stopped for an hour. Then, you imagine that it might have been the military with sophisticated equipment-- but the dream! It's a lot like the dream! But different too. Maybe it was just coincidence. But the BLT team arrives, and they proclaim, after some tests, that this is a genuine circle.
Now you're excited! Every night, from then on, you wait, watching. Soon, you find that you have a sense about where to go to watch. You see dozens of circles, a lot of them very close to where you "knew" they would be. Or is it that you are collapsing probabilities, because your proximity limits are now expanded a bit, and you're getting better at collapsing further out from your old limits? One night, you tell a friend that you're going out to watch again. What you don't know, is that he is planning to make a fool of you. He's going to paint flourescent paint on some balloons, and when you see them, you'll think they're BOLs. He waits in the field, with the balloons on the end of two long black poles, and then he swings them around in the air. What a sight! You are completely fooled! The trouble is, on his way home, he drives off a cliff, and is instantly killed. But nevermind, you realize that BOLs are real, and the next night, your proximity further expanded, you watch and wait. Soon, you see three red balls of light, something like the ones last night. By now, though, you already know for sure that BOLs are real.

Hi FOX:

Only I have a little question to do. It's hover around my head days ago.
"Did you personally create the crop circle? Yes. In other words, you collapsed a coherent wave probability, in essence defining an energy potential as a fixed thing, that thing being a pattern pressed in the wheat."
There are regular star shaped crops with 7-tip, 9-tip, 11-tip, or poligonal shaped crops with 7-sides, 9-sides, 11-sides. When I studied geometry nobody teach me how to create exactly a 7,9,11, sided polygon with a ruler and a compass . At the present moment I think that nobody knows how to do it exactly (correct me if I'm wrong). Only there are rought constructions. Real crops are constructed in a extremely precise way. I don't know how to do it, so how can I create a perfect 11-sided crop if I don't know how do it (How can I collapse a proximity wave with unknown parameters)?. Maybe there are "something" in the non-dimensional reality that help us to do it, working together with our subconcious. Maybe the collective subconcious in this reality joined with the collective subconcious "in the other side" works together, not only for creating crops, althought for creating reality.

And just another idea.
"But nevermind, you realize that BOLs are real, and the next night, your proximity further expanded, you watch and wait. Soon, you see three red balls of light, something like the ones last night."
Our mind is a very limited, very, very tiny mind compared with the hugeness of the Universe, or with this "non-dimensional reality". If you can imagine that something exists, like a BOL, maybe it could exist in some part of the Universe. So it "could come" to your reality. You are "calling it". You are not creating it necesarily. Only you are realizing that something is coming in the fringe of your awareness. Your perception is widening. You are taking account on things that previously you don't know. When you study fluid mechanics, you "see" the streamlines in a fluid surrounding a moving vehicle. Previously you don't know about their existence. You aren't creating the stream lines.

a.r.g.-- "Create", was maybe the wrong term. I used that term as related to creative processes, or imaginative thought. I struggle with language contantly. Bear with me. Look at wave probabilities like this: You are in a sense, a "reciever" (think of a radio) with a capacity to extend your "frequency" range incrementally in an interesting way. You see, on this radio, the dial is connected by a string inside to the pointer (like old radios) As you mostly stick to the familiar middle range of frequencies, the string runs easily around the little wheels inside, but when you get to a certain point on the dial, you find that a coating of dirt on the string makes it increasingly harder to turn the dial-- The coating doesn't get worn off so much at the ends, because it is the drawing of the string through the wheels that constantly clears the dirt off the string. This is of course because of how you use the clearest stations in the middle frequencies most. As soon as you try to pick up a station beyond the usal range, or proximity of reception, the dirty string sticks a little, so that as you try to fine tune, the string catches and then jumps (usually past the point you were trying for). However, you find that although it's an effort, eventually, if you keep trying for that hard-to-get frequency, the dirt gets worked off, and operation of the dial is smoother, at least in that small area, or bandwidth. What you don't know is that whereas, the station you finally tune in easily is in Spanish (of course you chose this frequency; it is closer to your language proximity), the same station is broadcasting in other languages-- english, Japanese, etc.--- . Over time you find that tuning in that particular broadcast is easy. Others have their own radios, and the chances are that other Spaniards are like you-- not trying for the incomprehensible Japanese broadcasts, for example, which would be a lot of effort for little return. Yet the broadcasting facility is really in one place, and the content of the stories is the same, they just broadcast in every language. Now you meet a japanese man in the street. He begins to relate in his own language the very same story you were listening to last night, but you hear his description, of course, as unintelligable gibberish. Later, you meet an Italian in the street, He relates the same story, this time in Italian. Wait a minute! You can sort of understand this guy! Some words are familiar. You begin to "feel" that both you and he heard the same story. Your proximity to each other culturally means that you can teach him your language easily, through the stories, and vica-versa. Some broadcasts are only in Italian, and now that you are getting to understand Italian, there's a whole new world of great broadcasts you would have passed over before, but now are worth the effort to fine-tune in. Some italian stations, for example, talk about crop circles, which you know to be hoaxes. It is only when you learn Italian that you realize that the Spanish news programs in the middle of the dial never tried or even cared to try to find out the facts that come from scientific evidence. So whereas you are being "creative" in terms of learning new definitions (language) to feel that crop circles are real, your Spanish next door neighbor only listens to Spanish news, and he feels that the circles are hoaxed. What is amazing here, is that these broadcasts are all different stories, and yet they're all true, or probable. Crop circles are both real and hoax. If our reality is purely subjective, then truth is not the same for everyone. This is because this radio is run by the same people who listen to it's broadcasts, and these people are just like you-- subjective beings. We always assume that truth is "out there" (objective reality), but no logic can prove that, and in fact, logic proves the opposite --- quantum physics experiments show that WE collapse wave probabilities. They remain waves until we direct our attention to them. When we do, they act on our (subjective) world "physically", changing outcomes. Waves cannot be seen until we convert a particle to a wave. That way we know that the particle became a wave-- the wave occurs when we shoot a particle and discover that it became a wave as it crossed the room. When we then look at the effect of the wave across a screen, we see a particle again, but we have no way to tell where exactly on the screen it is going to land, except statistically. If we shoot, one by one, more particles through a wall having two slits (aiming for the middle) and look at the pattern on the screen beyond, we see that although we shot them through one by one at near the speed of light, so that never were there two particles in transit at the same time, it is apparent that EACH particle has passed through both slits, because the screen that stops them shows an interference pattern. How could this be, a particle interfering with itself? A particle should by rights go through one slit or the other. This would indicate that the particles were in one trajectory as they travelled through the room. They must have had an absolute trajectory when they hit the screen, because each landed in a particular position. So we have to assume that waves (which we can't see, touch, feel or otherwise subjectively "fix" in a material world) only have a location when we observe them. So how did they interfere with themselves to create an interference pattern? Only a wave can do that. Waves are like clouds. They can be measured only in proximity, though we can use patterns to determine their velocity compared to any wave produced by a particle with the same mass. By observing their final position, are we are part of the process ourselves, in effect "collapsing" what was a wave down to a certain point location instantly? The interference pattern indicates, over time, as more particles are shot towards the screen, that each individual particle had only a statistical probability of "landing" in a particular place, and the fact that each cloud-like "wavicle" or wave-like particle is a cloud and yet would "choose" a particular place to make it's mark plagues Physicists. More experiments were concieved, though, which conclusively showed that it is observation that collapses particles. more later

Ok. Lets go with the radio and the dial.
Five different people are seeing a single crop circle.
1st)The first one, Chinese, only see a beautiful art design. First frequency. First way of "collapsing a wave".
2nd)The second one, an Arab, see a beautiful geometric design. Second frequency. Second way of "collapsing a wave".
3rd)The third one, English, see a mystical message, (Flower of Life, David's Star, the Pentangle of the Knigths Templars,.....). Third frequency. Third way of "collapsing a wave".
4th)The Four one, an American, see an UFO message. Fourth frequency. Fourth way to collapse a wave.
5th)The five one, an Spanish ;-) , see scientific information (Solar System, planets alignement, ASCII languaje, magnetic field of the earth....). Fifth frequency. The Fifth way to "collapse a wave".

And many others that I can't appreciate.
There are many levels, perhaps many messages in a single crop. Some could be for us. Some could be for other entities.

Some mystic people say that there are "densities", (not dimensions), as different levels to identify the reality. There are layers of collapsing waves, depending on the point of view of the observer, depending on his awareness.

a.r.g.---Then too, there's only one crop circle for a lot of different people. If you collapse a wave probability, you may think it entirely your definition, but think again. Where did you get your definitions? Not only that, but what were your expectations? Did you believe you would see a Spanish motif crop circle in England? One thing, let's say that you accomplished a lot on the night you collapsed that probable circle. It might look spanish (sort of), and like your dream-- (sort of)--- to lots of people,; English, American, french, they all see a Spanish symbology to an extent. But, some of these see a hoax. Remember, you yourself are not totally convinced it's not a hoax. You were asleep! So, in a sense, the most important aspect of the circle is still a probability! Do you understand now why I focus on the odd stories about crop hoaxers having their formations "fixed" after they leave? As incomplete formations, they are in a real sense still pre-emergent (pre-cohesive) Soon after a bunch of hoaxers go out there, they become more convinced than ever that no man could make a really good circle in the dark, in a couple of hours. For the first time, these guys are more apt to believe in formations than you are. They're impressed with their own inadaquacy, which plants a seed of doubt about all formations being hoaxes. As this belief sets in, so do the funny feelings, the odd behavior of their friends. Now, the "idea" comes to the hoaxers that for the first time, they really know for sure that crop circle are real. Then, they sense a presence close by. What is that in the sky? They run, as a strange ball of light swoops across the field...
Crop circles are strange things. They are not like a tree, ages old. They are a reaction to a more "loose" form of energy-- microwaves, magnetic fields. All wave energy. All, in the truest sense probabilities. Probabilities that exist strongly in your personal perception limits. We can say that all the time, the world "adjusts" through these probabilities, and because probabilities are not bound by time, but by proximity, the rule states that all events not only always accomodate every person's proximity, but that accomodation reaches to any future time to "correct" and "adjust" through available individual perception limits (proximities).
How can this work? You would think there would be "slip-ups" and the world just couldn't be organized so far in advance. The answer is, it's not an absolutely perfect system, always exactly matching everyone's experience to their beliefs or proximity. If it were, we would have no free will, and nothing interesting would ever happen, I suppose. It's a probablistic system with statistically valid material cause and effect "classical macro-physical" in a large sense. Our ability, to a larger or lesser degree, to imagine ourselves outside of that "box"
is what we are doing now. We are imagining stretching our proximities a bit to include change and vitality. Just imagining this is enough to "work the dirt off the string" a little, and pull in some of those strange stations. We've been doing it for centuries. Have you ever heard of the strange phenomenon scientists encounter sometimes in a lab, growing crystals? Something they can't explain is why, when a crystal finally forms for the first time from the same methods and elements they've played with for years, suddenly, all over the world, in labs they never heard about, at the exact same time, other scientists are seeing the same crystals forming for the first time. The scientists (starting with one) collapsed a wave probability when it was most necessary for this crystal to appear-- and the reason it appeared then was a combination of the pre-disposition of the scientists that it could possibly form, and the requirement for that crystal in the world to adjust or re-set proximities closer to center. It's an amazing balancing act. We imagine, seek solutions, and our solutions are constantly "fit in" to create a world that when studied, makes sense most of the time. Imagination may be in fact more than just thinking. Perhaps we, by our effort-- (stretching the limits of our proximity) are already effecting the changes that will accomodate our new thought creations, so long as there is no eventual conflict with existing proximities (cause and effect don't matter, just our belief that they exist-- they don't have to really exist). Such accomodations are seen clearly in mental telepathy. Here, deliberate or meaningful creative concentration can be targeted to alter the proximity of another, whether they are aware of this occurring or not. It is, in a sense, an adjustment, and may be a conscious one for the sender(s), reciever(s), either, or both. On a more subtle level, interplay to both adjust proximities and expand them takes place all the time.

It is one thing to talk about reality as being "only in your head" so to speak. The problem is, we don't naturally sense that most of the time. It is our bodies that tell us," I am here-- I feel myself here. If I cut myself, do I not bleed-- and hurt? My feet, which I feel, are on the floor, which I do not feel. They are real, as the floor is real. When I go out of the room, the floor is still there."
It's common sense. So how can one "feel" the concept of subjective reality? It seems like a plausible possability, but...
It is difficult, because feeling one's thoughts allows one to understand concepts more easily. When you can't feel your thoughts, your thought train stumbles around drunkedly, and becomes confused by relatively simple concepts.
Imagine dream states. In most dreams, we do have a definite feel for subjective reality. Many people are aware that they are dreaming, dreaming lucidly, and remember that feeling. Dreams have a quality of everyday reality in many ways. The emotions are present. The concept of self is present. Many times the body seems to be there. So what's missing? Doubt! It seems, at least from my own experience, that when dreaming, the element of surprise is completely missing.
The idea of doubt crops up all the time in waking life. What is the first thought that would jump into your head if you saw a man with the head of a dog? Would you feel sorry for him? No. You would doubt that he really had the head of a dog.
Doubt also figures prominantly in our attempting to understand the idea that reality is only subjective. We doubt, not intellectually, but on a deeper level. We feel our doubt strongly, as if it were a massive barrier in front of us. This illustrates the allure which our center of proximity holds over us. We constantly fall back into the center, almost as if it were the center of bowl. If doubt is a force, then what is the opposing force? What counteracts doubt in dream states, for example? Probability! So probabilities exist as a kind of pressure of sorts. Doubt, on the other hand, acts as a resistance to that pressure. Doubt is a real thing, as real, and perhaps more real than a school bus, for example.
Doubt, fear, skepticism, caution. These are prerequisite to keeping our body alive and our minds healthy. Yet, one might argue that doubt, and its cousins, fear and skepticism, when in excess can be counterproductive, even deadly.
Witness the behavior of animals. For them, it seems all is doubt until proven otherwise. You can't watch the behavior of a dog, for example, without noticing how untrusting he is in unfamiliar surroundings. Lacking an imagination outside of one including features related to experience alone, he assumes every new situation is absolutely tied to every old situation. He cannot imagine creatively. He can't draw on probabilities--(so far as we know). In any case, we divine this from his behavior, which seems obvious-- dogs are terrible at hiding their feelings).
Let's return to the bowl. Let's also replace two terms for another pair of words to further define the concept. Doubt --(fear, skepticism) = resistance, and probability-- (creative thought)= effort. If we are able to maintain ourselves between these extremes, during states of relaxation, we discover something telling. Our rythyms slow down. We feel well and content. We feel the emotion of happiness. We become unconcerned with larger questions, and find joy in simply being. We can see now that there exists an interplay between doubt and probability, as if a messenger were rushing back and forth seeking responses from one extreme to another, consulting, racing back, consulting with the other side thousands of times each hour of a busy day. In between, the coffee breaks, when one hopefully might "zone out" for a while.
more later

You say it. (Crops are macro systems, we are macro beigns, and some times we have to tought in macro world terms). Sure you have ear about "the hundred monkeys" experiment. It speak about "morfogenetic fields". When two waves, with the same frequency interplay they resonate to create a higer wave. So proximities can resonate to create a higer, more dense, reality. Is it?.

And now I'm beginning to doubt.
I believe that Crops are sending a message for Humanity or for the Earth. Crops only take form in summer. What happens in winter?. Are there no messages in winter?. Do ccMakers work in winter?. There are not proximities related to cc's in winter?. If there is not weath in the fields, like in this year, are there no crops neither messages?.

Hi a.r.g. Regarding resonance harmonics, etc.,
I was searching for a way to envision the idea of interplay, and when you mentioned harmonics, I "saw" what I had been trying to describe.
One thing our brains do very, very well-- they are marvelous code-breakers. This "transciever" is an interesting piece of hardware. It appears to "seek" harmonic congruity with external (etheric) meaning structures:
a.r.g.'s brain: How about this?
Etheric: This is close. Try this.
a.r.g.'s brain: No, thats too far from my proximity.
Etheric: Try this.
a.r.g.'s brain: Good, I added that. Now look.
Etheric: This is closer. Try this.
a.r.g.'s Brain: Good, I added that. Now look.
Etheric: You're there.
Brain: Ah! I see now. I'll show that to a.r.g.!
a.r.g. looks
a.r.g: Wow! I just had an idea (describes)
Dave: Wow! I was just thinking the same thing! Whoa! Are we psychic or what?

Or were we both in harmonic proximity? This happens with my daughter and me frequently. Yesterday, we were at a nearby pond to walk and "swim" the dog. As soon as she jumped in the water, both of us saw a frog right next to the dog. Then, exactly at the same time, both of us said, "Better get out of there!" to the frog--(which it did). We said it in unison, as if on cue. Each of us "saw" the same probability, (the dog injuring or killing the frog), because our proximities are somewhat overlapped.

Sorry Dave, I agree with the harmonic proximity but I can't understand the dialogue between me, my brain, and the etheric. I think that I'm not so complicated when I speak with my brain.

Neither do I, and may I now kindly suggest to hold this discussion elsewhere. Cheers!