>I'd say, let's ignore the notion of human for now. We agree that the carrier of information is a (photon) particle, by means of which the observer receives information.


If we're not talking about a human, what kind of observer are we talking about?


>Back to the observer: As you said, we don't have a class definition for the observer, but we know we'll need one at some point.


Do we know that?

It seems to me that this is the question of relating mind to matter. Does mind follow from matter? Do they sit on equal footing?

The common view, I would guess, of anyone following along would tend to believe that mind, observation, is a result of matter doing its things; there is nothing supernatural about our minds.

In that case, we probably wouldn't have a class for observation.