From hpstapp@lbl.gov Thu Apr  6 12:32:34 2006
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry P. Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
To: kristoft <kristoft@ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Quantum Ontology on Free Will

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, kristoft wrote:

> Dear Professor Stapp
> 	My name is Kristof Toth and am currently completing a B.A. in 
> Philosophy at the University of Florida. I have completed a B.S. in 
> biochemistry here and have read several of your writings regarding the 
> implications of quantum physics on the brain and consciousness. As part of my 
> degree I am writing a thesis paper on a subject of my choosing. I have chosen 
> to discuss free will but unfortunately there seem to be few voices that 
> consider how quantum effects influence the brain and thus capacities such as 
> freedom of the will. I was hoping you might illuminate how exactly Quantum 
> ontology evades the both horns of the determinism/indeterminism problem with 
> respect to freedom of the will (Appendix D of Quantum Ontology and 
> Mind-Matter Synthesis). It would seem to me that even in considering quantum 
> effects the the idea of a clock isn't too far fetched. It might be a clock 
> with some gears that function on a purely random or statistically determined 
> basis. However you later write in your comments on Townes Symposium Session 
> on Consciousness and Free will Oct. 8th 2005 that there is an unknown process 
> (Von Neumann's Process 1) that is in play here which is not determined (by 
> any known theory). Would this unknown process really help? It would seem that 
> either Process 1 is mechanical in the classical physics sense, random (in a 
> statistically distributed sense) or purely random. None of these types of 
> processes would seem be much help for the possibility of free agency. If you 
> have any thoughts on what this 4th type of process might be if not the 
> preceding three, it would be greatly appreciated.
> 	I am not a physicist  so please bare with me if I have misunderstood 
> what you have said. I understand you're probably very busy and I would 
> greatly appreciate if you could address my questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Kristof Toth
> (kristoft@ufl.edu)
>
>
Dear Mr. Toth

Perhaps the best explanation is in my book-in-progress,
Mindful Universe (See my website
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html )

and also in Chapter 12 of my book "Mind, Matter,
and Quantum Mechanics". (Second edition 2004)

See also "Quantum Interactive Dualism: an Alternative
to Materialism". (JCS 2005)

However, von Neumann's Process 1 is not "unknown": it
plays a central role in von Neumann's description
of the process of measurement, in his book
"Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics".
What is unknown is what determines when each particular
Process 1 event occurs, and what determines what the
"form" of that particular Process 1 event will be.
[If the Process 1 event is the von Neumann process
S--->PSP + (1-P)S(1-P),
where PSP represents the outcone "Yes" and
(1-P)S(1-P) represents the outcome "No".
then what determines the operator P?]

This Process 1 action is a "decision" (a "cutting off"
of some potentialities/possibilities). But what chooses
*what* potentialities will be excluded, and #when# those
possibilities will be eradicated? I accept the principle
of sufficient reason: nothing happens without a sufficient
reasion. Randomness is antithetical to sufficient reason:
there must be a reason why this P is selected and not some
other one. But no law of QM specifies what this P will be,
or when this Process 1 event will occur. I hold the view
that conscious thoughts are real elements of nature.
Indeed, QM (and ultimately all science) is built around
conscious experiences. They provide the ultimate data,
and it is the structure of our experiences that science
needs to explain. And experiences are related to other
experiences in ways not yet fully understood, and in ways not
fully explainable within classical physics, which does not
bring our conscious thoughts into the dynamics. So it is
rationally possible that the choice of P and of the timing of
the associated Process 1 action should have its REASON partially
in the conscious thought associated with the Process 1 act.
Each Process 1 is supposed, in Orthodox QM, to be associated
with an "increment in knowledge": it has an *experiential*
aspect. So it is not unreasonable to believe that the choice
of P---the *reason* that this particular P is chosen---is tied
up with the experiential side of nature, and of these events.
But "reason" is antithetical to "random". So it is rational
to believe that the choice of P, and the choice of when the associated 
Process 1 action occurs, has a *reason* that is tied up with the
experiential aspect of reality. The physical aspect, represented by
the quantum state of the universe, evolving in accordance with
the Schroedinger equation, is insufficient, by itself, to make
the selection of P,  or of the timing of the associated
Process 1 action.

The action of P on the state of the brain is, I believe,
to actualize (by cutting out incompatible possibilities)
a pattern of brain activity that is a "template for action".
If the timings of the Process 1 action can be influenced by mental
effort, in a way that can activate the quantum Zeno effect, then
reason-generated mental effort can influence the activities the brain
via the von Neumann process 1.

I hope this quick summary of things spelled out in more detail
in my writings collected on my web site will be helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Henry