Why is it that some very clever prominent physicists proposed that consciousness is a factor in quantum measurement, while others equally prominent dismissed this as nonsense? How is it that there is such a sharp divide, as opposed to the more usual reasoned debate?
Why is it that in this case there did not seem to be an experiment which could decide between the approaches?
How is that some were certain it could in theory be the resolution and some equally certain it could NOT be, when this was supposedly a scientific question?
In my opinion, all this is an indication that those who proposed it had an inner sense which the others did not possess.
And furthermore, that it was a sense about the existence of that which is of the right type to be a catalyst of the measurement-jump from many possibilities to the one that is actually observed.
And so, the argument between the sides is futile, there is no way to bridge the divide.
Perhpas if a brain-correlate is discovered, there will at least be a way to both predict who will be on which side, and also a reason to accept that this split in opinion about the possible relevance of awareness to the quantum measurement issue is inevitable.
...
The same is also the case with the philosophical argument:
I feel it would be interesting from the point of view of "categorization of philosophical discussions and arguments" to analyze whether the differences among philosophers regarding Mind, and about the existence of Absolutes and Direct Knowledge etc is of a different category than those regarding other types of issues; perhaps for example one could observe more of a heated debate, or different types of language or of argumentation.... - my own claim would be that where there is claim on one side that the issue is KNOWN to be one way, then it is likely that this is a reflection of the proponents' sense of direct knowledge rather than an ordinary opinion, and the other side will react as would be expected if they did NOT possess this direct knowledge.
In this way, one could use the type or tone of disagreement as an indication of when what is involved is not in itself subject to detection.
ie one's awareness is indetectable to others, but the existence of awareness can be detected in an argument about the existence of awareness between one who does and another whose not posses it! And the same regarding the possible relevance of awareness to the quantum question (not whether it is or not but whether it is even possibly relevant).