[tpJKhY8Z]

I have no problem with long threads but I often work with 'stream of consciousness', so forgive me if it appears if I'm arguing, I just kind of meander with the ideas as they are presented and go with it. Oh no, on the contrary! This is great! I really enjoy discussing this!

The observer here being my point of view. I don't really see it as the soul, but I do see it as consciousness, whatever that is. And no, I don't know what consciousness is, I don't think it's a field, and I don't think it's energy, unlike most spiritually minded people. I also agree that consciousness is not a field and it is not energy. See, the best explanation- in my opinion- come from Hameroff & Penrose. I explained this but let me clarify it again. My English - my second language - sometimes is not clear.
See when two classical information interacts with each other, something happens. I think of it this way, when two hydrogen atoms and One oxygen atom interacts than they create water. So water is H20 and it is wet...Wet is wet, it is just the property of two type of information (hydorgen and oxygen) meeting with each other
Hameroff argues that when quantum information and classical information interacts with each other (in given suitable conditions) something strange happens, it creates a consciouss event. Consciousness here is just like "wetness". So what is consciousness? It is the collpase of the wave function itself. In humans, these numerous consciouss events that happen in each nanosecond are organized by brain and creates the stream of consciousness as we know it.

Our brains constantly make decisions, and these decisions are constantly affected by Quantum events, as you said, through the microtubulins, and just simply by the fact that neurons fire at the subatomic level and sometimes the rates of decay will make the difference between a neuronal discharge and not, causing changes in macro (classical) experience. But to say there is no observer is to deny the ability to receive this information and observe it in the first place- true, the physical part of what science considers consciousness to be is a side effect of brain function, but experimental information constantly shows us that decisions are being made sometimes before having the thought, and something is making the decision. So I still see the brain as an interface with whatever 'I' am, even if I don't call it 'consciousness' See, this is the main disagreement...There is no observer...There is only information. One classical type and one quantum type. Brain is only a reciever. It collects classical data and quantum data. Brain is also a platform where these two types of information can interact with each other. And when they do, 'consciouss' experience occurs. It may be hard to grasb but this is exactly what Hameroff and Penrose suggesting. And to me, it makes a lot of sense.

During OBE:
1-I meditate, and then my brain tune into different frequencies
2-Microtubilins start to collect quantum information - there is no observer going out of the body - It is like Television, your brain changed the channel and start getting information at different frequencies .
3-When I wake up, then brain does his chemical magic and allow DOWNLOADED quantum data interact with the EXISTING classical data.
4- When quantum data interacts with classical data, quantum data collapse and consciousness occurs.
5- Brain instantly integrates all collapsed information into experience, and you got an OBE experience.

But it doesn't clash, and is often validated. So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since I do agree that the brain collects and processes this information- I just don't see where the clash happens. Ok, it seems they are very identical theories. But they are really different at the fundamental level.
Because I don't assume an observer. The only fundamental thing is "information" and their interaction with each other.
There is no observer to observe the information...There are only information.

wow...this is really hard to explain...lol