Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

Assert, assert, assert.

Whatever.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
The issue then becomes, when speaking of the experienced world, does the experienced world actually exist when not being observed by any individual. Asdjkl says no. I think Jamest answers it exists in blueprint form, but I answer that it exists just as it does when observed by an individual - this is not because it is independent of observation, but rather because it is observed by World Mind. It is independent of individual observation. This is why we can find rocks which can be dated to times before individual entities lived on Earth.

That just shows, once again, that idealists are forced to assume their conclusions, which is that entities only exist when being observed. Therefore (thus! hence!) since we talk in terms of entities (rocks) that existed before we observed them, we conclude that the World Mind must have been observing them. Now that we've taken over in the observation department, with all these latter-day rocks being observed, the World Mind can go on well-deserved holiday. Thanks for the memories.

Hard to pick the serious points from the venom.
If the observation is that 'rocks appear to be older than the time we figure individual entities have been around', there are several ways this could be explained. One of which is that World Mind observed them, one is that they existed only in blue print form, one is that they are not experienced at a time before individuals, only experienced now so we dont know for sure of its actual age. There are probably others, but these three show that an idealist is not forced to a conclusion that World Mind was the observer.
The rest is straw, World Mind is not on holiday. Why do trees falling in a deserted forest make noise? I say World Mind is the observer. Others may not agree...

Little Idiot wrote:The computer is an observer.

This is the kind of nonsense one obtains from interpreting interpretations of QM, rather than studying QM deeply enough to make a QM calculation. Shut up, LI, and calculate. Studying QM experiments enough to perform the necessary calculations would convince you that the position and momentum of a probe which measures a micro-system's position and momentum is of the same scale as the system being investigated. If you don't understand what this means, you just don't. You can measure one very precisely, and the other with no precision at all, or you can measure each one with limited precision. The computer that records the results from instrumentation is there to show you that a conscious human observer is superfluous in recording measurements. Go study.

I made no mention of scale, as we were not discussing a specific experiment. GrahamH spoke of a case where a computer recorded results and held the information for some years before a conscious observer became involved.
A camera taking pictures in the box with Schrodingers cat would count as an observer, collapsing the wave form into either 'cat is alive' or 'cat is dead' at time t, it could be a web-cam connected to a computer. In which case, why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer' making a measurement on a system collapsing its 'probability wave function'?

Little Idiot wrote:
A camera taking pictures in the box with Schrodingers cat would count as an observer, collapsing the wave form into either 'cat is alive' or 'cat is dead' at time t, it could be a web-cam connected to a computer. In which case, why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer' making a measurement on a system collapsing its 'probability wave function'?

What determines the behaviour of the poison dispenser in the thought experiment is the disposition of a quantum-scale system. Your interpretive 'commentary' is merely an apologetic for your world view, devoid of intellectual merit. You describe as 'venom' any response that doesn't accord your wibbling apologetics the respect you think it deserves. Respect is earned. Go study. You've gone beyond interpreting quantum theory to trying to explain how quantum experiments actually are conducted. Try your funk in a science forum, and see the general disapprobation you receive. You assume you're safe from that criticism here, surrounded by fellow wibblers. Too bad.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

Assert, assert, assert.

Cito, if you dont understand an exchange of ideas in the format used by Jamest and I, why not leave us to wibble our wibble and bend our spoons in peace?

Its a comparison between different models, an exercise in abstract reasoning, its not beyond your capacity to see that. Just because you dont accept the framework being used has no bearing on the comparison.

My wife and her friend can spend hours talking about the merits of different types of bags. To me there is one factor, the carry capacity of the bag. But my frame of reference doesn't invalidate theirs.

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

Assert, assert, assert.

Cito, if you dont understand an exchange of ideas in the format used by Jamest and I, why not leave us to wibble our wibble and bend our spoons in peace?

Its a comparison between different models, an exercise in abstract reasoning, its not beyond your capacity to see that. Just because you dont accept the framework being used has no bearing on the comparison.

My wife and her friend can spend hours talking about the merits of different types of bags. To me there is one factor, the carry capacity of the bag. But my frame of reference doesn't invalidate theirs.

If you want an echo chamber for 'exchange of ideas', don't post in an open forum. I thought you understood the rules.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
A camera taking pictures in the box with Schrodingers cat would count as an observer, collapsing the wave form into either 'cat is alive' or 'cat is dead' at time t, it could be a web-cam connected to a computer. In which case, why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer' making a measurement on a system collapsing its 'probability wave function'?

What determines the behaviour of the poison dispenser in the thought experiment is the disposition of a quantum-scale system. Your interpretive 'commentary' is merely an apologetic for your world view, devoid of intellectual merit. You describe as 'venom' any response that doesn't accord your wibbling apologetics the respect you think it deserves. Respect is earned. Go study. You've gone beyond interpreting quantum theory to trying to explain how quantum experiments actually are conducted. Try your funk in a science forum, and see the general disapprobation you receive. You assume you're safe from that criticism here, surrounded by fellow wibblers. Too bad.

let me ask again; why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer'
Educate me, seriously.
But do so by answering the question, if you would be so kind.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

Assert, assert, assert.

Cito, if you dont understand an exchange of ideas in the format used by Jamest and I, why not leave us to wibble our wibble and bend our spoons in peace?

Its a comparison between different models, an exercise in abstract reasoning, its not beyond your capacity to see that. Just because you dont accept the framework being used has no bearing on the comparison.

My wife and her friend can spend hours talking about the merits of different types of bags. To me there is one factor, the carry capacity of the bag. But my frame of reference doesn't invalidate theirs.

If you want an echo chamber for 'exchange of ideas', don't post in an open forum. I thought you understood the rules.

I though not answering simple questions (like mine on observer) and being pointlessly provocative was called 'trolling' in the rules?

Are you (Cito) saying the term observer only applies to quantum scale objects?

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
A camera taking pictures in the box with Schrodingers cat would count as an observer, collapsing the wave form into either 'cat is alive' or 'cat is dead' at time t, it could be a web-cam connected to a computer. In which case, why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer' making a measurement on a system collapsing its 'probability wave function'?

What determines the behaviour of the poison dispenser in the thought experiment is the disposition of a quantum-scale system. Your interpretive 'commentary' is merely an apologetic for your world view, devoid of intellectual merit. You describe as 'venom' any response that doesn't accord your wibbling apologetics the respect you think it deserves. Respect is earned. Go study. You've gone beyond interpreting quantum theory to trying to explain how quantum experiments actually are conducted. Try your funk in a science forum, and see the general disapprobation you receive. You assume you're safe from that criticism here, surrounded by fellow wibblers. Too bad.

let me ask again; why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer'
Educate me, seriously.
But do so by answering the question, if you would be so kind.

I explained it to you already. An 'observation' in QM is the resolution of one of the observables, e.g., position or momentum, of a quantum system. Because quantum phenomena are observed at quantum scales of length, energy, and so on, the amounts of momentum or energy for changes in quantum systems are very tiny when compared with the energy or momentum of an automobile or a bowling ball. Because the energies and momenta in QM experiments are small, they can only be measured with probes of similar energy or other physical variables.

So, when you want to measure the momentum of an electron, you have to use electromagnetic radiation or particles of the same wavelength as the characteristic length scale of electron orbitals, which are around 10-9meters. That means you cannot use visible light (which has a wavelength thousands of times larger) to perform measurements at the length scale of electron orbitals. The Schrödinger experiment has nothing to do with making a macroscopic observation of the state of the cat, after the fact. The collapse of the wave function of the electronic system that determines how the poison dispenser operates is accomplished by the emission of a particle of the same scale as the business end of the poison dispenser. Understanding the stochastic nature of the particle emission that triggers the poison dispenser operation is critical for understanding why you cannot predict the state of the cat without looking inside the box. If the emitted particle has up-spin, the cat is dead, and the cat is alive if the emitted particle has down-spin. But it is the emitted particle that operates the poison dispenser and it is the collapse of the WF of the emitted particle that we are talking about, and not, I might add, the 'wave function of the cat'. Once you study a little QM, you will understand the complexities of doing QM calculations on many-particle systems, such as cats. You don't have to do QM calculations to predict that a poisoned cat is dead. That's biology.

Little Idiot wrote:
I though not answering simple questions (like mine on observer) and being pointlessly provocative was called 'trolling' in the rules?

You've been posting the same drivel in this forum for years, apparently hoping that an identical approach will eventually give you different results. I think it suggests that you believe that your recitation of dogma is capable of convincing other people to accept the same dogma. What do you think I take away from that?

Apparently you also have dialed up your trolling meter until the least lack of respect for your drivel sets it off. I've responded seriously to your query about basic theory of QM. I respond seriously to serious discourse.

As soon as you post a follow-up question on the Schrödinger thought experiment indicating that you are thinking about it in terms of my simple technical description, you'll get another serious response. Otherwise, your credibility with me is still shot.

jamest wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
The issue then becomes, when speaking of the experienced world, does the experienced world actually exist when not being observed by any individual. Asdjkl says no. I think Jamest answers it exists in blueprint form, but I answer that it exists just as it does when observed by an individual - this is not because it is independent of observation, but rather because it is observed by World Mind. It is independent of individual observation. This is why we can find rocks which can be dated to times before individual entities lived on Earth.

From which perspective does the 'whole' [world mind] observe something like a rock?

Given that space and time are relative to one's particular perspective, you have a major problem with this. You see, one cannot observe a rock without having a particular relative perspective (frame of reference), since this is what lends value to the concepts of space/distance and time. Thus, it doesn't seem possible, from an 'absolute' perspective (whatever that would entail) that space and time would have any specific value, meaning that 'a rock' could not be observed.

Good question.
I will straighten out my explanation and get back to you on that.

Further, if one adopts your narrative of things, we lose the wave/particle consistency exhibited in my own. That is, for you, something definite is always something definite, even when not observed by our consciousnesses, which means that there's no scope for matter having a wave/particle dual nature.

I dont think that we do. Only to our dualistic form of logic and thinking must a thing be either A, or be B. We (humans) have even come up with three-state logical systems that we can do some work within. If you look it up, dont confuse tri-state logic with ternary logic. I am speaking of the later with three states; true, false and indeterminate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

So my point is that you are mistaken to say that 'for me something is always definite'.
Mentalism is very much at peace with wave particle duality, 'light is a wave' and 'light is a particle' are both half-truths, and a fuller understanding of the nature of light is neither one of them alone.

The idea that there can be a 'God's eye view' of specific objects in space and time, doesn't gel at all, imo.

Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

It doesnt gel because I think you are probably applying a single view point thinking to a trans-personal viewpoint, but I will get back to you when I fine tune my wording.
Dont want to feed the trolls

Little Idiot wrote:
Dont want to feed the trolls

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV28AL0k1kY[/youtube]

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I though not answering simple questions (like mine on observer) and being pointlessly provocative was called 'trolling' in the rules?

You've been posting the same drivel in this forum for years, apparently hoping that an identical approach will eventually give you different results. I think it suggests that you believe that your recitation of dogma is capable of convincing other people to accept the same dogma. What do you think I take away from that?

We have exchanged these ideas a while back. I dont expect to convince others, I am here to sharpen my own understanding and my own expression of my experience of the mentalistic nature of the cosmos. I know the cosmos is mental, but seriously; Shit man, how the fuck do I set about convincing anyone who doesnt already know or at least suspect and thus feel open to the possibility that its all mental

Apparently you also have dialed up your trolling meter until the least lack of respect for your drivel sets it off. I've responded seriously to your query about basic theory of QM. I respond seriously to serious discourse.

Nah, I just made that quip as a point of humor, a quick come-back.

As soon as you post a follow-up question on the Schrödinger thought experiment indicating that you are thinking about it in terms of my simple technical description, you'll get another serious response. Otherwise, your credibility with me is still shot.

Lucky for me I dont value credibility with atheist materialist/physicalists then.
If I did, I wouldnt post on this forum, methinks thats obvious enough.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
Dont want to feed the trolls

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV28AL0k1kY[/youtube]

Ouch, bet that hurt.

Little Idiot wrote:Are you (Cito) saying the term observer only applies to quantum scale objects?

Cito has given you a clear answer on this. In QM an 'observeration' is anything that establishes position or momentum of a quantum particle. In the double slit experiment some part of the particle position detector does that, and can be considered as part of the quantum system. The detector is a device to scale up from QM to macro scale. The other detector in the DS exp is the particles int photographic plate, or electrons in the semiconductor image sensor, or whatever else might be used to detect interference patterns and map to macro scale. It doesn't matter how the fringes are detected. What matters is quantum interaction to detect position.

I think you have confused 'observe' with 'look at'. In QM they are not the same thing.

The web cam is not an observer of the quantum event under study. It might be considered part of other interconnected quantum systems, but no more or less so than a rock or lint in your pocket.

It doesn't matter if the camera is on or not. It doesn't matter if anybody is watching or not. It doesn't matter is a random circuit inverts a result signal that one of two lights activate after the experiment to say [particle detector in and no fringes detected] or [particle detect out and fringes detected]. Conscious experience of the result might be true or false, but subsequent examination of a log file will show that what the human observer saw the result to be made no difference. What counted was whether the particle detector was interacting with the quanta to determine position, or not.

Some may want to argue that the result is still undetermined until the log file has been read and all possible information has been 'observed', but that looks like clutching at straws to me.

Little Idiot wrote:

jamest wrote:
Further, if one adopts your narrative of things, we lose the wave/particle consistency exhibited in my own. That is, for you, something definite is always something definite, even when not observed by our consciousnesses, which means that there's no scope for matter having a wave/particle dual nature.

I dont think that we do. Only to our dualistic form of logic and thinking must a thing be either A, or be B. We (humans) have even come up with three-state logical systems that we can do some work within. If you look it up, dont confuse tri-state logic with ternary logic. I am speaking of the later with three states; true, false and indeterminate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

So my point is that you are mistaken to say that 'for me something is always definite'.
Mentalism is very much at peace with wave particle duality, 'light is a wave' and 'light is a particle' are both half-truths, and a fuller understanding of the nature of light is neither one of them alone.

Afaik, QM lends itself to the notion that quanta exist in either definite particle form [when observed/measured], or in some blurry wave-like probablistic potential form [when not observed/measured]. The problem, as I see it, is that if 'things' are always in a state of being observed (by individual consciousnesses and/or the totality of the 'world mind'), then there doesn't appear to be any scope for the "blurry wave-like probablistic potential form" which scientists claim to have knowledge of... since all things are being persistently observed - and therefore must be in their particle state at all times.

Anyway, my main concern is how 'X' can have an all-encompassing observation of a material body. Get back to me on that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
A camera taking pictures in the box with Schrodingers cat would count as an observer, collapsing the wave form into either 'cat is alive' or 'cat is dead' at time t, it could be a web-cam connected to a computer. In which case, why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer' making a measurement on a system collapsing its 'probability wave function'?

What determines the behaviour of the poison dispenser in the thought experiment is the disposition of a quantum-scale system. Your interpretive 'commentary' is merely an apologetic for your world view, devoid of intellectual merit. You describe as 'venom' any response that doesn't accord your wibbling apologetics the respect you think it deserves. Respect is earned. Go study. You've gone beyond interpreting quantum theory to trying to explain how quantum experiments actually are conducted. Try your funk in a science forum, and see the general disapprobation you receive. You assume you're safe from that criticism here, surrounded by fellow wibblers. Too bad.

let me ask again; why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer'
Educate me, seriously.
But do so by answering the question, if you would be so kind.

I explained it to you already. An 'observation' in QM is the resolution of one of the observables, e.g., position or momentum, of a quantum system. Because quantum phenomena are observed at quantum scales of length, energy, and so on, the amounts of momentum or energy for changes in quantum systems are very tiny when compared with the energy or momentum of an automobile or a bowling ball. Because the energies and momenta in QM experiments are small, they can only be measured with probes of similar energy or other physical variables.

So, when you want to measure the momentum of an electron, you have to use electromagnetic radiation or particles of the same wavelength as the characteristic length scale of electron orbitals, which are around 10-9meters. That means you cannot use visible light (which has a wavelength thousands of times larger) to perform measurements at the length scale of electron orbitals. The Schrödinger experiment has nothing to do with making a macroscopic observation of the state of the cat, after the fact. The collapse of the wave function of the electronic system that determines how the poison dispenser operates is accomplished by the emission of a particle of the same scale as the business end of the poison dispenser. Understanding the stochastic nature of the particle emission that triggers the poison dispenser operation is critical for understanding why you cannot predict the state of the cat without looking inside the box. If the emitted particle has up-spin, the cat is dead, and the cat is alive if the emitted particle has down-spin. But it is the emitted particle that operates the poison dispenser and it is the collapse of the WF of the emitted particle that we are talking about, and not, I might add, the 'wave function of the cat'. Once you study a little QM, you will understand the complexities of doing QM calculations on many-particle systems, such as cats. You don't have to do QM calculations to predict that a poisoned cat is dead. That's biology.

So is the computer an example of an observer in his post, as I originally said or not, in which case I may stand corrected?
I am a simple binary entity, yes or no is good in a response.

If you check back to post 177 where I actually said this, I was saying (agreeing with GrahamH) that an observer does not need to be a conscious observer. The quote I posted showed that some physicists ascribe special status to conscious observers, others do not.

If some can (and do) say a conscious observer (i.e. scientist) is required, then clearly the observer refers to the scientist and is a macro scale word, so it seems quite fair to refer to the computer taking the data to be an observer, all be it a non-conscious one. However, if 'observer' means exclusively the microscopic scale, as you seem to be saying, that means the scientist doing the experiment is not an observer, (you dismiss in a stroke these silly physicists and their silly view) in which case nor is the computer.

Little Idiot wrote:
Its a comparison between different models,

Exactly. A comparative exploration of the internal consistency of particular models. This started with the utter demolition of naive realism and has progressed towards more suave and sophisticated models... especially my own.

Nobody has presented a proof for anything here. The annoying vultures and flies can scarper.

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

What determines the behaviour of the poison dispenser in the thought experiment is the disposition of a quantum-scale system. Your interpretive 'commentary' is merely an apologetic for your world view, devoid of intellectual merit. You describe as 'venom' any response that doesn't accord your wibbling apologetics the respect you think it deserves. Respect is earned. Go study. You've gone beyond interpreting quantum theory to trying to explain how quantum experiments actually are conducted. Try your funk in a science forum, and see the general disapprobation you receive. You assume you're safe from that criticism here, surrounded by fellow wibblers. Too bad.

let me ask again; why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer'
Educate me, seriously.
But do so by answering the question, if you would be so kind.

I explained it to you already. An 'observation' in QM is the resolution of one of the observables, e.g., position or momentum, of a quantum system. Because quantum phenomena are observed at quantum scales of length, energy, and so on, the amounts of momentum or energy for changes in quantum systems are very tiny when compared with the energy or momentum of an automobile or a bowling ball. Because the energies and momenta in QM experiments are small, they can only be measured with probes of similar energy or other physical variables.

So, when you want to measure the momentum of an electron, you have to use electromagnetic radiation or particles of the same wavelength as the characteristic length scale of electron orbitals, which are around 10-9meters. That means you cannot use visible light (which has a wavelength thousands of times larger) to perform measurements at the length scale of electron orbitals. The Schrödinger experiment has nothing to do with making a macroscopic observation of the state of the cat, after the fact. The collapse of the wave function of the electronic system that determines how the poison dispenser operates is accomplished by the emission of a particle of the same scale as the business end of the poison dispenser. Understanding the stochastic nature of the particle emission that triggers the poison dispenser operation is critical for understanding why you cannot predict the state of the cat without looking inside the box. If the emitted particle has up-spin, the cat is dead, and the cat is alive if the emitted particle has down-spin. But it is the emitted particle that operates the poison dispenser and it is the collapse of the WF of the emitted particle that we are talking about, and not, I might add, the 'wave function of the cat'. Once you study a little QM, you will understand the complexities of doing QM calculations on many-particle systems, such as cats. You don't have to do QM calculations to predict that a poisoned cat is dead. That's biology.

So is the computer an example of an observer in his post, as I originally said or not, in which case I may stand corrected?
I am a simple binary entity, yes or no is good in a response.

If you check back to post 177 where I actually said this, I was saying (agreeing with GrahamH) that an observer does not need to be a conscious observer. The quote I posted showed that some physicists ascribe special status to conscious observers, others do not.

If some can (and do) say a conscious observer (i.e. scientist) is required, then clearly the observer refers to the scientist and is a macro scale word, so it seems quite fair to refer to the computer taking the data to be an observer, all be it a non-conscious one. However, if 'observer' means exclusively the microscopic scale, as you seem to be saying, that means the scientist doing the experiment is not an observer, (you dismiss in a stroke these silly physicists and their silly view) in which case nor is the computer.

How many times are you going to ask the same question, despite having good clear answers?

The Schroedinger's cat 'experiment' isn't to be taken too seriously. Even if consciousness was somehow involved in the cat being alive or dead the cat would be the conscious observer and so either be alive or dead long before the box was opened.

Dual slit is easier to deal with in this regard because it is clear that what determines whether wave-like interference fringes appear is simply whether a particle detector is in place or not. Nobody needs to observe the output of the particle detector, or know before or during the experiment whether it is in place or not.

Quantum interaction sufficient to detect position of particles leads to no fringes.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

let me ask again; why is the computer and web cam not an example of an 'observer'
Educate me, seriously.
But do so by answering the question, if you would be so kind.

I explained it to you already. An 'observation' in QM is the resolution of one of the observables, e.g., position or momentum, of a quantum system. Because quantum phenomena are observed at quantum scales of length, energy, and so on, the amounts of momentum or energy for changes in quantum systems are very tiny when compared with the energy or momentum of an automobile or a bowling ball. Because the energies and momenta in QM experiments are small, they can only be measured with probes of similar energy or other physical variables.

So, when you want to measure the momentum of an electron, you have to use electromagnetic radiation or particles of the same wavelength as the characteristic length scale of electron orbitals, which are around 10-9meters. That means you cannot use visible light (which has a wavelength thousands of times larger) to perform measurements at the length scale of electron orbitals. The Schrödinger experiment has nothing to do with making a macroscopic observation of the state of the cat, after the fact. The collapse of the wave function of the electronic system that determines how the poison dispenser operates is accomplished by the emission of a particle of the same scale as the business end of the poison dispenser. Understanding the stochastic nature of the particle emission that triggers the poison dispenser operation is critical for understanding why you cannot predict the state of the cat without looking inside the box. If the emitted particle has up-spin, the cat is dead, and the cat is alive if the emitted particle has down-spin. But it is the emitted particle that operates the poison dispenser and it is the collapse of the WF of the emitted particle that we are talking about, and not, I might add, the 'wave function of the cat'. Once you study a little QM, you will understand the complexities of doing QM calculations on many-particle systems, such as cats. You don't have to do QM calculations to predict that a poisoned cat is dead. That's biology.

So is the computer an example of an observer in his post, as I originally said or not, in which case I may stand corrected?
I am a simple binary entity, yes or no is good in a response.

If you check back to post 177 where I actually said this, I was saying (agreeing with GrahamH) that an observer does not need to be a conscious observer. The quote I posted showed that some physicists ascribe special status to conscious observers, others do not.

If some can (and do) say a conscious observer (i.e. scientist) is required, then clearly the observer refers to the scientist and is a macro scale word, so it seems quite fair to refer to the computer taking the data to be an observer, all be it a non-conscious one. However, if 'observer' means exclusively the microscopic scale, as you seem to be saying, that means the scientist doing the experiment is not an observer, (you dismiss in a stroke these silly physicists and their silly view) in which case nor is the computer.

How many times are you going to ask the same question, despite having good clear answers?

That depends.

First, unless I missed it, he didnt give an actual direct answer in the specific case of the computer. He spoke of observation rather than observer. He spoke of quantum scale requirements to do this observation, he implied but refused to state that therefore observers are quantum scale systems.
However, assuming the answer is 'no (the computer is not an observer) because observation must be on the quantum scale therefore observers are on the quantum scale' which is what I read in what he said, then: You may notice that in my post above, I have gone beyond asking the question (although I do seek clarification that this is what he means) to drawing a conflict beteen what Cito says and what other very clever people say.
If, as Cito says, only quantum scale systems can be observers, then the scientist is not an observer. This goes directly against some models such as those which ascribe significance to the conscious observer. Therefore, what Cito wishes to present as if its a statement of scientific fact, is in-fact not so, rather its his opinion of one model over another.

Which is why, if he doesn't give a direct answer to the question, or respond to the apparent conflict between his statement and other models, I may be asking it again. Or some alternative, to get clarification such as; 'so is a scientist an observer?'

The Schroedinger's cat 'experiment' isn't to be taken too seriously. Even if consciousness was somehow involved in the cat being alive or dead the cat would be the conscious observer and so either be alive or dead long before the box was opened.

Dual slit is easier to deal with in this regard because it is clear that what determines whether wave-like interference fringes appear is simply whether a particle detector is in place or not. Nobody needs to observe the output of the particle detector, or know before or during the experiment whether it is in place or not.

Quantum interaction sufficient to detect position of particles leads to no fringes.

Correct.
Which I believe shows (as we both said) that an observer does not need to be a conscious observer.