Yes, it was Emerson. But let's be fair. Steve espouses his point of view with consistency and tenacity. I categorically do NOT subscribe to his "wires is wires" point of view, but I do think it's a bit unfair to demean his "psychological or intellectual character". He's asking for hard data and, to be fair, we haven't yet given such. What we have given is anecdotal evidence. That such evidence is not yet quantifiable does not nullify it; rather it means there are physical properties to this whole business that aren't yet mapped. But namecalling solves nothing. Let's try to stick with facts.
Sean's approach makes some sense from the scientific point of view; perhaps we can undertake to push that kind of empirical testing to see where it leads?
Really hope everyone here can keep this confined to "quietly asking and answering in turn". (Some Greek fella wrote about that quite some time back; Plato or something like that.)