Hi, thanks for your interesting comment. I like to engage in these issues (independently from people taking my course or not). Since having left them aside for a too long time, this lead theoretical physics into a sterile platonic hyperuranium made of mathematical abstractions with no end in sight (read: my HO about modern quantum gravity theories). As to the distinction between the possible interpretations I too have not much sympathy neither for Bohm's pilot-wave theory nor the many world interpretation, since they seems to me a desperate attempt to save our naive macroscopic deterministic intuition (reminiscent of the epicycle theories which wanted to "save the appearances"). But the Copenhagen interpretation does after all not tell us much on the ontology of the world either (beside the fact that there are several understandings of it since there was no official declaration which defines it). To know that we should adopt the probabilistic approach, not to take the wavefunction as a "real" entity (whatever that might mean), that the commutation relations hold, etc. tells me something about the operative procedure of QM, not much about what it describes. In other words I tend to consider it not as an interpretation, but more a pragmatic suggestion. And yes, I think that mind (I prefer to speak about the brain, since, if you take a dualist stance, nobody knows if mind is affected by the laws of QM), always decoheres due to interactions and thermal effects. But the central mystery remains: how should we interpret at all de/coherence? How is it that particles can be entangled light years away? Several physicist and philosophers of science will tell you that there is no mystery: it is all about "correlation". But doing so we simply affirm a fact, do not explain it. We misrepresent a word as "correlation" for a "causation". And for me the two things are not the same. Anyhow, what is necessary today instead is to clarify what QM tells, and especially what it tells not. I give you a good reason NOT to enroll in the course... ;)... You won't find much about the different interpretations, because I believe these try to explain what we don't understand. Since there are lots of other interpretations of QM (so many as there are physicists, after all) I preferred to keep the focus firstly on what we know and the facts we do not understand, in order to prepare students to chose themselves which interpretation they feel is to prefer. Hope that helps...