initial Nov 8 post edited and reposted:

This post deliberates the Profundity of Communication ~ Relatedness ~ Consciousness, which from the perspective of the “average statistical person”, can hardly bridge the human world and the animal, and even less so the plant world, let alone dive into the depths of Existence (at the quantum level), where no distinctions obtain between matter (particle) and energy (wave), and Time and Space are invalidated.

After all, we inhabit a macro world, where Time is a near-global scourge and Space is an eternal bone of contention.

Taking the Heideggerian etymological-analytic way, Lat. pro “for, forth” and fundus “bottom, adj.” (cf. reference), English “profound” is precisely the qualifier to render 1) along the physical dimension, the meaning “registered throughout the full extent of the structure of the universe”, as traced in the Profound Communication post (as deep as anthropologist-evolutionary geneticist-cybernetist  Gregory Bateson looked, and deeper), and 2) along the metaphorical dimension, the connotative hint of “(reaching for/attaining to) ultimate understanding thereof”.

An extra point in “profound” ‘s favour, compared to “deep”, which boasts a similar semantic bifurcation, is the phonetic fact of rhyming perfectly with “sound”, thereby adding the bonus of an Eco-son-ic tickle.

As for the Communication~Relatedness~Consciousness trinity, P-Communication conceptualized as a vehicle for P-Relatedness presupposes commensurate structural reach of the latter, and in turn, P-Relatedness conceptualized as predicated on P-Consciousness presupposes that the latter term in this latter pair avails itself of commensurate structural spread.

Delving directly to the quantum level, where distinctions between biotics and abiotics disappear, two staple (at least for science-savvy generalists such as a smartened up Carl Sagan fan) phenomena  appear to exhibit signs of consistency with the above theorization.

Recognizing that there’s always a “catch” in translations of scientific knowledge for the benefit of a wider audience, I invite the patient reader to take a look at and deliberate on age-universal and fun (for the favourably disposed)illustrations of Quantum Entanglement and the Observer Effect in the Double-slit Experiment from the movie What the Bleep Do We Know (2005), on the “Profound” Resources page.

Quantum Entanglement demonstrates a powerful connection (cf. Relatedness, in ES terms) between two “electrons created together”, which endures irrespective of subsequent variations in the location of the “twins”. If one is affected/observed, the other changes polarization. Setting aside the puzzling fact that this close coordination takes place instantly, irrespective of the (measurable?) distance between them, for the purposes at hand let us note that the two “electrons” exhibit behaviour analogous to being 1) conscious of each other, and 2) indisputably in relation, since they appear to be 3) in communication.

Adding to Entanglement the Double-slit Experiment, initially devised as a test to determine whether light is a wave or a particle, the so-called “observer effect” would appear to produce behaviour analogous to communication and mutual awareness between “electron” and human (through the “measuring device” operated by the latter). That is, not only is the observer effect mapping an analogy to conscious-like behaviour at the deepest level “known to current science”, but it also appears to testify to Relatedness and Communication-like behaviour between physical structures of vastly different scale, which in Gregory Bateson’s terminology would likely have been categorized as significantly different “logical types”, with several (all the other, really) of the hierarchical levels in between.

A sprinkling of queries, which may not hold any attraction/validity to one who is scientifically versed:
== What is the scope of applicability of the Observer Effect? Should it be factored in in all and any quantum-level observations, which we would have no way around, if we are to stick with empirical/experimental science?
== If the Entanglement clip authors are probing into, even straightforwardly advocating, “entanglement” of All Existence, assuming that it came about as a result of a Big Bang, should there be in some sense and form levels of strength of entanglement corresponding to generations of matter–call it successive cumulative outbursts (of quanta ???)–if, in crude terms, change in quantity of matter (over Time) is assumed?; or periodic multiple (re-)groupings of various scope, if all there is now was there from the start?
== Could it be that Entanglement is accountable for the phenomenon of distributed cognition, which is, basically, soaking up knowledge by being one of a group, with no other known way of info transmission/communication.
== And, since I so easily fall into Time and Space thinking: When/how/why was it that Time and Space started to matter? Are they a construct of the human mind, entirely? Which is what people with (certain) psychic abilities have claimed for quite some time–see, e.g., Michael Talbot’s introduction to his book The Holographic Universe.

OK, OK, let’s call it a post…