[From Bill Powers (2010.04.15.1013 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2010.04.15.0750) --
I still don't see why people thought that human the "act of observation" had anything to do with these QM phenomena.
I can only guess an answer on the basis of some odd impressions I got while taking physics courses from "real physicists" (I never felt like one). I think they or a pretty good number of them are at least officially, while on duty, completely unconscious of the actual "human act of observing." An observation does not consist of being aware of reading a meter; it is the meter-reading itself. Naturally the meter interacts with that which it measures. In electronics we learned always to check whether this was happening and if so, to apply the correction factors needed to get the "true reading." I put a hyphen in "meter-reading" because without it, we have "the meter reading itself," which is apparently how it looks to an official on-duty physicist. The meter reads itself.
I'm not sure if this is an agreed-on point in the philosophy of science that physicists use, or if it's an example of the problem we ran into a while back concerning dualism. To me, dualism (religious nuances aside) is clearly the correct view; to others, it is clearly the incorrect view. I have been wondering more and more whether this isn't like Galton's observation that the way people use the words pink and blue is strange, because pink and blue are obviously the same kind of color, yet pink is often spoken of as similar to red even though it is quite different from red. It took some courage on Galton's part to conclude that his own perceptions were the ones that were strange: that he was color blind.
Well, not color blind, but differently color-sighted. Is there such a thing as being awareness-blind, or differently awareness-sighted? I fully understand what a delicate subject this is. But I don't assume that somehow I was born with a third eye, or some mystical ability, or an extra level or anything like that. In fact I feel somewhat underdeveloped when it comes to matters like getting a PhD, as all my physics professors had done. I don't feel any smarter than they were, or even as smart. So I think of this problem about awareness as something that could be resolved either way, even while being convinced that I am right. Galton took it for granted that he was right, too.
Nevertheless, likc Galton, if I am the one who is differently-sighted, I want to know that because the truth here really affects a lot of my intellectual life. Have all you people been sort of aghast at things I say about awareness, whispering to each other "What's Bill talking about? Has he gone around the bend?" Or do some of you think it's obviously right, while others find it equally obviously wrong? If I'm the only one among us who thinks he knows that he is observing the things he observes, then either I've been bamboozled by some phoney line of reasoning in which I devoutly believe, or there is something wrong with my brain.
On the other hand, I can be cheered up a little by believing that those who deny knowing they are aware are merely expressing some theoretical principle, and consider their own feelings of being aware as harmless illusions, like afterimages or other ephiphenomena. That's really what I think is going on. It's not that I see something that certain others can't see. The real problem is that the phenomenon I am trying to describe is seen by others, but at least some of them (and I hope not all of them) think I am being fooled by an illusion. I respond by saying I think they are being led by logical reasoning to deny what they can directly experience. I think that physicists observe the same way all of us observe, but that they don't officially believe in awareness, so have to reason and act as if awareness is an illusion. While that explanation, if correct, implies some rather serious intellectual disagreements, at least it means I'm not a freak.
Is that all this is? An intellectual disagreement? Or is it something deeper? I think we need to find out. Let's have a little survey. Please, everybody, hold a hand in front of you so you can see its palm. Now answer a few questions, or make up your own comments about them.
1. Is there a hand in front of you?
2. Are you seeing the hand?
3. Are you aware that you are looking at the hand from another point in space?
4. Are you, the looker, aware of directing the looking (look here, look at the hand)?
5. Are you aware of thoughts about what you're doing and seeing?
6. Can you start and stop the thoughts, or change them (like thinking the words, "This is not thinking")?
7. Are the thoughts all that exist, or are you, in one place, observing them as something other than you, somewhere else?
Just 5,6, and 7 might be all you need to consider. It's really the last one I'm most interested in, though it applies to all the other questions, too. No need for any deep discussion here; the point is simply to find out what you can actually experience, without intellectual analysis. If you have any friends handy, it would be nice to find out what they would say.
Best,
Bill P.