Baffling questions such as "What is Consciousness" or "What is Intelligence" require a lot of consideration, or it should be. These questions have been lingering on the minds of very great thinkers since the dawn of civilization. Often great revelations in science force us to reconsider our place in the universe. For instance, Darwins's greatest work "Origin of Species" has decreased our "importance" in the universe. Along with the finding that Homo sapiens, just like other species, evolved from simpler life forms through natural selection on mutant variants, understanding the inner workings of living organisms, specifically, the fact that they do not need some extra physical rules on top of those that govern everyday objects have lowered our confidence in the belief that we are somehow special among all the other particles in the universe. Not only biology and chemistry but also, cosmology contributed to this notion by showing that the Earth is not the center of the universe but it is one of the myriad planets in a vast universe.
Through this and numerous essays on top of this, I will try to deconstruct two of the remaining "specialty arguments" or simply narratives as I call them. I want to first start off by defining the most important but often neglected element of the scientific inquiry, The Observer. It may sound redundant to do at first but as I lay out my axioms concerning observers you should give credit to this endeavor.
So, what is an observer in my point of view? It is a common belief that an observer is just "quote on quote" observing a system(System: This will be discussed in the following essays but briefly it refers to either a physical object or a collection thereof that are causally related ). This definition subtly posits that an observer does not interact with the system in any way which is wrong. In reality, an observer is interacting with the system in various ways. Suppose that you are in front of a great landscape with tweeting birds' twitters in the background. If you were the formerly described observer, where the observer does not interact with the system, you would not be an observer at all as you will not be able to absorb the photons reflected from the landscape and the vibrations that are supposed to be interpreted by you as sounds would just pass you by without your ears interacting with them. In short, If you do not change the system by absorbing the photons with the receptor proteins in your retina cells or absorb the energy with your ear cells, your brain would not have a model of the current world(at least not an accurate one). So, you have to be able to interact with the system and change its parameters in order to "observe" it. This first essay described my definition of an observer and will be used regularly in the following essays. In the next essay, I will talk about the implication of our new definition of observer regarding everyday objects and the vague distinction between observing and just being part of a system.
Doga