quote:
Most civilizations theorized they were spiritual phenomenon, not physiological. That's why i suggested you research the topic before jumping to conclusions

I figured that they had a spiritual explanation as we only recently began to have the capability to study the brain. I understand why they believed that, but I'm not sure why their explanations without the knowledge we have today, has any bearing.

I mean civilizations of the past had lots of spiritual or just plain strange explanations for the unknown which today is very well known (what stars are; what germs are, etc.). Their views, besides as a study of history and culture, shouldn't be considered some sort of valid evidence to refute the knowledge that has accumulated since.

quote:

I haven't seen psychics mentioned once in this thread

Well between that and telepathy, it's probably the most mainstream. They've done the same thing with people that have purported astral projections with comparably poor results for the "astral projection" hypothesis.

quote:
Was speaking in general quantum physics terms.

But physics generally provides the explanation, but we can test something without knowing the exact physical mechanisms. As mentioned before, quantum entanglement is not well-understood, but it can be shown nonetheless. If someone is truly telepathic, I wouldn't NEED to know the physical mechanisms to actually test whether they may have telepathic abilities. Just like we don't always know the exact mechanisms of drugs to know that they work.

quote:
Do you think that it has any merit to investigate why some particles behave differently when observed vs unobserved?

Sure. But attaching any explanation to the truly unexplainable is tricky. At least some explanations have a valid basis in the explained and therefore, following old Occam's Razor are more logically consistent. When you start to present explanations that have not had that basis, then while interesting, it's not any more valid than a thousand (maybe infinite) other explanations with no basis.

quote:
"The Awakening of Intelligence" is a good book to gain more insight on theories about "observers

It sounds like an interesting read, but I think you and I have vastly different views on what is evidence, beyond philosophical theory.

While I'm sure it's interesting and insightful, from a philosophical standpoint, just like topics like existentialism, free will, etc., but none of these seem to really provide input into the validity of the topic at hand.