Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 76 of 142 (428469)
10-16-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
10-16-2007 12:31 PM


Re: On Car Repair
You and Nator seem to be asking why, if I choose to have an open mind, I don't just take the door off of its hinges. I accept that I could make some guesses and be wrong. No big deal. If it's a major life decision involving my family, money, etc, then I'm very careful about the choices I make.
Creationists choose to suspend their skepticism where the Bible is concerned. I believe they are wrong. Most of them aren't going to believe it through being told by you; they will have to come to that conclusion themselves. If some of them had a better education in science in the first place, they might not have decided to suspend their skepticism in that particular way.
And yes, you see some of them making some pretty amazing claims here, and those too are obviously wrong a lot of the time. But I've got to give them credit for their open minds, as long as they aren't too gullible or vulnerable to people who want to scam them.
You must talk to people daily who are not 100% skeptics. Do all of them seem unhinged? They just have a bit of a different way of looking at the world. Skepticism may be important if you are a professional scientist, but as I said a while back I don't see why it has to be so rigorously applied to the rest of one's life. It's a bit like a Christian saying that if you are an atheist, you must also have no moral code, because morals come from religion. I am not a hardline skeptic, but that doesn't mean I'm a nutcase and that I believe everything I'm told.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-16-2007 12:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 10-16-2007 2:17 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 77 of 142 (428472)
10-16-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 12:53 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Define raw energy.
Kinetic energy.
Hi NJ. It's been a while since we spoke
Kinetic energy is a rather specific form of energy associated with moving objects defined by the formula 1/2 mass * velocity squared
I'm not so sure there is any such thing as "raw" energy since energy can exist in certain forms and can even be transformed from one to another.
possibly "raw" energy could be defined as "matter" if you really stretch the analogy a long way since matter can be described as solidified energy that can become any other type.
Actually on second thoughts I will stick to my original answer. I don't think 'raw' energy actually exists.
Must admit it sounds good in science fiction though
Yes, you make a very good point. I carry a radiation pager much of the day which is almost always registering some background radiation, especially onshore. And I always get a huge SMAC reading when I board vessels carrying bananas because the large quantity of potassium usually gives a false reading. If his EM wave theory stands up to scrutiny, one would think he'd be going berzerk around bananas.
That's interesting. What kind of radiation does it measure? The only thing I can imagine giving you a hit from potassium on a banana boat would be low energy gamma.
If Petro's theory of EM radiation was correct then that kind of thing wouldn't really effect it since EM is more of a magnetic field than an actual partical as you detect with radiation monitors.
Edited by PurpleYouko, : modified quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 5:04 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 78 of 142 (428480)
10-16-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
10-16-2007 12:31 PM


Re: On Car Repair
Let me put this another way. If I were ill and some people were willing to do faith healing for me, would I let them? Yes. I think there may be something in it, though I don't believe that "something" necessarily has to involve a deity. There's plenty of power in people themselves. However, if they wanted me to pay for it? I don't think so. I'm willing to admit the possibility that faith healing can work, but I am also unwilling to let myself possibly be scammed.
Sometimes I read my horoscope. Maybe there's something in it, maybe not. It's just fun. I wouldn't pay anyone for this though.
Does that explain my personal system a little better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-16-2007 12:31 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 142 (428484)
10-16-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 1:39 PM


Re: On Car Repair
LindaLou writes:
And yes, you see some of them making some pretty amazing claims here, and those too are obviously wrong a lot of the time.
I see you making some pretty amazing claims too, obviously wrong a lot of the time. More important, I see you using the same thought processes as the creationists. If you reject creationism, it's for the wrong reasons.
But I've got to give them credit for their open minds, as long as they aren't too gullible or vulnerable to people who want to scam them.
That's just it, though. They are too gullible. If it wasn't for the gullible, there wouldn't be any creationist books or videos and without them, there wouldn't be any creationist movement.
The gullibility is the same, whether it's about dinosaurs on the ark or ghosts in the attic or telepathy. If there was a movement to teach ghost-hunting or spoon-bending in schools, they'd be making videos and you'd be buying them.
You must talk to people daily who are not 100% skeptics. Do all of them seem unhinged? They just have a bit of a different way of looking at the world.
No. They have a different way of thinking about the world. There are people who think, "Wouldn't it be awsome if there was a giant sky-daddy who poofed the world into existence?" and there are people who think, "Wouldn't it be cool if there were spirits that can throw milk bottles around?" and there are people who think, "Doesn't it make sense that my thoughts will last forever?" What's the difference?
The people who are "100% skeptical" just want to know how the world came into existence and how milk bottles can fly and how thoughts work.
I don't see why it has to be so rigorously applied to the rest of one's life.
That's why I brought up car repair. It is applied in the rest of your life. If a skeptical mechanic is good enough to fix your car, why isn't a skeptic good enough to monitor your milk bottles?
ABE:
I'm willing to admit the possibility that faith healing can work, but I am also unwilling to let myself possibly be scammed.
There's a fine line between taking an interest and being scammed.
Do you buy a lot of books on poltergeists, alternative "medicine", telepathy, etc.? Do you spend an equivalent amount on books debunking those claims?
If you're only looking at one side (and your posting history here suggests that you are), you probably are being scammed.
Edited by Ringo, : Added reply to second post.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 1:39 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 142 (428510)
10-16-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:18 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I gather that these things aren't always at people's beck and call.
Why? Doing regular human things is at my beck and call. When I want to move my arm, I will it to move and it does.
I don't have hearing only on Fridays and vision every second Labor Day. What you're talking about is an excuse. Obviously, it "only works sometimes." Those times that it "worked", it had worked by chance. When someone talks about a "power" they have that they can only get to work "every once in a while", they're talking about the times that it just happened to work by chance.
Obviously.
What if some of those people who Randi what's-his-name tested really do have some kind of gift, just not one that functions on demand?
So why don't the fraudsters say that until afterwards? Why is it that, before the test, they claim they can do it at will and under any circumstances, and it's only after they fail that they come up with some ad hoc rationalization?
Because it's bullshit. Surely any reasonable person can see that. They're so wrapped up in believing they have some kind of woo power, that when it's abundantly established under controlled conditions that they don't, they can't believe it. It's pathetic.
Anyway, do you think there are police forces or other organisations that actively seek out this kind of help?
I know that the police have occasionally employed "psychics", but in the entire history of law enforcement, no psychic has ever led to any resolution in a crime. If Petro would be the first he could revolutionize anti-terror efforts. But he doesn't - because he knows he's wrong.
I don't believe in "any old thing." But I try to keep an open mind.
I keep an open mind, too, but my mind is only open to that which the evidence supports. There's far, far too much garbage out there to keep a mind open to just whatever blows in.
There are a lot of people around who aren't 100% skeptics and perhaps their lives are the richer for it.
I doubt it. Particularly not if they're not scientists. I do truly believe that nothing in this life is more enriching than evidence-based inquiry into the natural world, and anyone who is put in a position to do that should consider themselves blessed.
Meditation. The subconscious. The collective unconscious.
The subconscious doesn't know anything but what the senses tell it. Meditation has the same imagination problem. There's no such thing as the "collective unconscious." We're not connected in a hive mind, Linda.
Where do ideas and inspiration really come from?
The imagination. Everybody has one and it's always working. Shouldn't that make us very skeptical of the veracity of the "truths" we believe independent of the information from our senses?
Haven't you ever had a dream? Doesn't that make it abundantly obvious that our minds can't be trusted to get reality right without verification from our senses?
But not being 100% skeptical doesn't necessarily make me deluded.
It just makes you gullible.
How's things in the corn belt BTW? I lived in Omaha for a while and went to college in Hastings.
Cold, today. My wife's father went to college in Hastings, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:18 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 142 (428524)
10-16-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by PurpleYouko
10-16-2007 1:45 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Hi NJ. It's been a while since we spoke
Hey there... Yes, its been some time.
Kinetic energy is a rather specific form of energy associated with moving objects
Yes, you're absolutely right. How does "potential energy" work for everyone? Couldn't stored, unspent energy be considered raw energy?
What kind of radiation does it measure? The only thing I can imagine giving you a hit from potassium on a banana boat would be low energy gamma.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. The Rad pagers only detect for Gamma and Neutrons. Alpha and Beta particles are not included. To add for clarity, when I say it registers, it is very low. A bad SMAC reading, which is inherently dangerous, is anything over 4500 microrem per minute, or over 20 neutrons per second. The readings by bananas are like anywhere from 50-250 microrem per minute. Certainly nothing that is going to hurt you.
There is something more nerve rattling than that, which we call, "The pucker factor." Its when you are walking on the deck and all of a sudden the pager goes off the charts. When you stop to investigate a suspected emanation site, it isn't repeatable. If it isn't repeatable, its probably due to a phenomenon known as the "Ship Effect." Nobody is entirely certain of why it happens. But the best known scientific reason is given in the quote below from a Department of Energy official:
"The ship effect occurs when high energy cosmic rays, protons, interact with earth's atmosphere, leading to showers of neutrons at surface level... In the presence of large quantities of steel, such as on a ship, these high energy neutrons are converted to many more lower energy neutrons, which has the effect of turning a ship into a floating neutron source. This phenomenon is harmless, but it makes measurement difficult."
If Petro's theory of EM radiation was correct then that kind of thing wouldn't really effect it since EM is more of a magnetic field than an actual partical as you detect with radiation monitors.
I suspect that he must have meant something more along the lines of magnetic fields as opposed to actual radiation. I'm hoping he'll answer soon because I'm kind of lost as to what he means exactly.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : fixed quote tags

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-16-2007 1:45 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2007 5:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 86 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-17-2007 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 82 of 142 (428531)
10-16-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 5:04 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Yes, you're absolutely right. How does "potential energy" work for everyone? Couldn't stored, unspent energy be considered raw energy?
I'm not convinced about this. I can imagine looking at a still of a tsunami and thinking 'Wow, look at the sheer raw energy imagine the force of all the potential energy stored in that towering wall of water unleashed', but I can't really imagine feeling the same way looking at a room full of batteries no matter how much chemical potential energy they represented.
I think one big problem is that 'raw energy' is not really a technical term but a colloquial one used to describe particularly dramatic or vigorous displays of energy. people talk about raw energy in sports or in musical performances, it isn't really a scientific term.
I would think that scientifically the closest one would get to 'raw energy' would be the energy held by nuclear binding forces, which directly ties into PY's suggestion of matter as 'raw energy'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 5:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 7:10 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 142 (428565)
10-16-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
10-16-2007 5:24 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I can imagine looking at a still of a tsunami and thinking 'Wow, look at the sheer raw energy imagine the force of all the potential energy stored in that towering wall of water unleashed', but I can't really imagine feeling the same way looking at a room full of batteries no matter how much chemical potential energy they represented.
Well, perhaps when energy is most animated, such as it would be found in gale-force winds, that one begins to truly appreciate energy. A battery just sits there.
I think one big problem is that 'raw energy' is not really a technical term but a colloquial one used to describe particularly dramatic or vigorous displays of energy. people talk about raw energy in sports or in musical performances, it isn't really a scientific term.
True. I think the term "raw energy" is just used for hyperbole to capture the essence or the grandeur of it.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2007 5:24 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Damouse, posted 10-16-2007 8:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 84 of 142 (428577)
10-16-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Superman : Kryptonite :: Telepath : Bananas
NJ writes:
Well, perhaps when energy is most animated, such as it would be found in gale-force winds, that one begins to truly appreciate energy. A battery just sits there.
A battery might, but hows about a thermonuclear device? It can sit there all it likes and im still gonna have more respect for its titanic destructive power than a natural disaster.
LL writes:
How do you know a mother's love is real if you cannot quantify it? What if there's more to the world than science can describe? Why does anything unscientific automatically qualify as a delusion?
But lindaLou, you CAN quantify and/or qualify ANYTHING you perceive. Of course science can tell you your mother loves you: you can SEE her actions and judge them for yourself, you can FEEL her intimacy, you can even HEAR her say it to you. And the reason you arrive at the conclusion that she loves you is not because of some deeper unexplained phenomenon that preconditions you to love, it is based of your concept of love as based upon your upbringing.
I challenge you to name one thing that EXISTS (and you can maintain at least a few people that agree with you) that cannot be quantified or qualified by the senses.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

This statement is false.
Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 7:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 3:01 AM Damouse has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 85 of 142 (428636)
10-17-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Damouse
10-16-2007 8:21 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I challenge you to name one thing that EXISTS (and you can maintain at least a few people that agree with you) that cannot be quantified or qualified by the senses.
Enlightenment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Damouse, posted 10-16-2007 8:21 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Damouse, posted 10-17-2007 3:00 PM Kitsune has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 86 of 142 (428744)
10-17-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 5:04 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Yes, you're absolutely right. How does "potential energy" work for everyone? Couldn't stored, unspent energy be considered raw energy?
Nope sorry.
Potential energy has already been taken too, in two versions no less.... (that I can think of)
Chemical potential energy such as the battery mentioned by Wounded King and good old plain Potential energy which is most often used to describe the potential for an object to fall toward a center of gravity. i.e. holding a bowling ball up in the air
I still like "raw" energy best. It just sounds soooo ... RAW and powerful doesn't it.
PS I knew there was a reason I don't like boats
And to think, I work in a Nuclear reactor too.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 5:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 87 of 142 (428755)
10-17-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Kitsune
10-17-2007 3:01 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
So if enlightenment cannot be quantified or qualified by the senses, how do you know that someone is enlightened? Can you just feel it?
Do you know that they are enlightened before they speak?
No.
You hear, see, or read their thoughts and ideas and then judge for yourself if they are enlightened, based on your perception of enlightenment, further based on any of hundreds of factors, all which can be traced to concrete conditions such as upbringing, schooling, and even what you read last weekend on the topic.
If you were led into a room blindfolded and told that three people are seated in front of you, one of whom is perceived to be enlightened and the other two legally mentally retarded, could you tell which one was enlightened? Could you even tell that there was anyone sitting in front of you without using your senses?
The universe is concrete, dont delude yourself otherwise. If you still maintain otherwise, continue the examples.

This statement is false.
Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 3:01 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 4:00 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 88 of 142 (428911)
10-18-2007 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Damouse
10-17-2007 3:00 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Good heavens.
Of course there are factors that influence a person's degree of enlightenment. But enlightenment is more than knowledge and even wisdom. You talk about some ways of perceiving a person's degree of enlightenment, but I'm talking about enlightenment itself. It's one thing to say, "I think this person is enlightened and here are my reasons," and another to actually make that connection and share in that person's enlightenment, and gain some yourself.
It's the same point I was making with a mother's love. You could try to study it in a concrete way and decide someone does or doesn't love you because of the way they talk, act, behave, etc. Your conclusions may be right or wrong. But in the actual perception and giving and sharing of love, there is nothing quantifiable. Many people down the millennia have described love in a spiritual way and I think they will continue to do so for many years to come.
How can I describe spirituality to someone who chooses not to be spiritual? It's impossible.
The universe is concrete, dont delude yourself otherwise.
If this is your belief then I doubt if I'm going to be able to say anything to change it. Maybe your own life experiences will give some real food for thought one day.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Damouse, posted 10-17-2007 3:00 PM Damouse has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 142 (428932)
10-18-2007 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taz
10-15-2007 11:45 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Taz writes:
Nem writes:
And isn't this the goal of deep meditation? I have tried to meditate so deeply that, literally, no thoughts come in.
I've tried really deep meditation, too. All I can say is I'm not there yet. May never get there.
Taz (and also NJ & LindaLou)
40 years ago I was the same way. If today I stop thinking consciously, in my mind there is total silence. No stray thoughts, images, nothing. I am just observing the world and my mind is adding nothing to it, my mind is not biasing the world I observe.
This is not something I'm doing, I merely stop thinking. This is the state of mind you need to be in to see anothers thoughts. If you have things going on in your mind out of your control or conscious knowledge you can not tell the difference between what you are doing and something from outside yourself.
It took me from the time I was 19 until I was 38 to do this. I can explain it in greater depth but I am very busy consulting right now so it may have to wait a day or so.
The experiment you proposed won't work, but it got me to thinking of ways to make one as simple as possible. Found some interesting articles on fractal spectral analysis of EEG and people having the same response to different scents, people responding to EM unless their head (and is this wierd) their kidneys are shielded, baboons sensing electric fields both static and AC(EM), a WHO report stating that whales, dolphins and humans have biomagnetic in their brains and many others. Our brain waves are close in frequency to the naturally occuring ELF (EM radiation) that the earth naturally produces and all life is bathed in from birth to death. No surprise since we evolved here.
I am finishing up consulting today so will be back with a fairly long post answering other questions, possible experiments to verify human detection of EM (non visible) radiation, and post the papers and links. I have several pages in Word at present but must organize it.
I'll also deal with the psychological problems of the Holy Army of the Atheist Inquisition which has showed up here.
For NJ, radio waves ARE electromagnetic radiation. This is what I'm talking about:
Gamma ray ” X-ray ” Ultraviolet ” Visible spectrum ” Infrared ” Terahertz radiation ” Microwave ” Radio waves
Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia
The only difference between any of these words used for electromagnetic radiation is the FREQUENCY.
I agree with the following:
Nation Academy of Science
"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."
It appears to me some people on this board do not agree with this statement. If that's the case I'm not interested in hearing from you. Take your psychological problems somewhere else.
Edited by petrophysics, : No reason given.
Edited by petrophysics, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 10-15-2007 11:45 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 9:44 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 95 by nator, posted 10-22-2007 7:31 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 90 of 142 (428965)
10-18-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by petrophysics1
10-18-2007 6:17 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
It's a pleasure to talk to you here Petro. I'd enjoy hearing more about this when you have the time. I've started to learn some reiki, which apparently uses the sort of energy you are talking about for healing. It feels real enough to me.
I agree that science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge. I think we're in the minority here though LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by petrophysics1, posted 10-18-2007 6:17 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2007 8:22 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024