Dear Professor Held, I apologize for the long delay in replying: your letter was inadvertently misplaced. In my book I note that whereas Heisenberg makes a distinction between the `transition from potential and actual' and the `collapse of the wave function' I make the link tighter: I regard the `collapse' as the `representation within the material aspect of nature' (described in my quantum ontology by the quantum state) `of an actual happening in nature'. This happening is a choice of an actual from among the available possibilities. I do not consider `measurements' in the usual sense. Rather (quantum) events occur under certain conditions: these events are `actualization events', as described above. They are always, in some deep sense, connected to `mind': i.e., to the `actualization of a possibility' represented in the material aspect of nature. Under certain conditions (e.g., those occurring in brains of alert human beings) these actual happenings (or at least some of them) have the character of a human conscious experience. Whether the `ontologicalization of quantum theory' has already taken place probably depends on one's perspective: most practicing physicists probably would not agree that the quantum state should be interpreted in a realististic way; their approach is decidedly pragmatic. Bohr's interpretation, although `basically' idealistic in some sense, rests fundamentally on the empirical fact that there is a certain concordance in the experiences of a community of communicating observers: there is a rough agreement about those aspects of their experiences that they `describe in the language of classical physics'. From a purely idealistic standpoint this agreement might be a difficult thing to explain, but Bohr takes it as the foundation of his approach to science. There is in this foundation a certain element of `objectivity' that is central to Bohr's approach. If one starts from a purely idealistic starting point one can have problems here. My approach is more dualistic, taking the `actual' things in nature to be `mental', but ascribe a certain propensity-type of reality to the material aspects of nature, which are represented by the evolving wave function. The two aspects of this duality are tightly linked by the fact that the propensities are objective tendencies for the occurrence of the next actual event, which in turn redefines the propensities for the succeeding event. I do not have your paper with me: it became separated somehow from your letter. I will look for it tomorrow (Monday) and send any comments that I think you might find useful. Sincerely yours, Henry Stapp P.S. I send also my most recent paper: it has references to others (e.g., The Hard Problem: A Quantum Approach) that may be of more interest to you.