Draft Beginning of the New Book. Contents 1. Science and the Human Person. 2. Mind and the Classical Brain. 3. The Failure of Classical Physics. 4. Bohr Brings In The Human Person 5. Von Neumann's Non-anthropocentric Fix 6. How Thoughts Can Influence Behavior? 7. Inadequacies of Other Approaches 8. Societal Ramifications 1. Science and the Human Person. A revolution in science occurred during the twentieth century. At the end of the nineteenth century both man and nature were understood terms of the ideas of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Maxwell. The world was conceived to be a giant machine, with each human person a machine-like part of the machine-like whole. But by the beginning of the twenty-first century nature, at the basic level, was seen in terms of the ideas of Bohr and Heisenberg, and the world appeared to be, in the words of Sir James Jeans, more like a giant mind than a giant machine, with each human person a mind imbedded in that mindlike whole. The basic idea of nature that reigned in science in the year 1899 is called classical physics. According to that mathematical idea, the world is {\it mechanical}, in the sense that its evolution over the course of time is completely determined by {\it contact interactions between tiny neighboring mechanical elements}: all causation is via local interaction between tiny neighboring mechanical parts. According to this picture of nature, each human being is basically a robotic automata: his or her behavior is completely determined by these mechanical contact interactions between tiny mindless parts, with no need ever to acknowledgement the existence of that person's thoughts, feelings, judgements, or efforts. During the twentieth century his classical picture of nature was found to be profoundly incorrect: it was shown to be logically incompatible with huge amounts of empirically reproducible data. Classical physics was replaced by a new understanding of man and nature called quantum mechanics. This new understanding accounts beautifully both for all the successes of the earlier classical physics, and also, as far as we now know, for all of the reproducible data that conflicts with classical physics. The most radical innovation made by founder's of quantum theory was to bring human beings directly into the structure of the basic theory; these agents served both as actors in, and observers of, the course of physical events. This injection of participant/observers into the physical theory is contrary to the ideals of classical physics, and many efforts have been made to formulate an adequate alternative theory of nature that preserves the classical ideal of a self-determining mechanistic universe, but none of those efforts have succeeded. On the other hand, John von Neumann, the eminent mathematician and logician, formulated quantum theory in a clean and rigorous way that brings human beings and their experiences into the dynamics in a highly controlled way concordant with quantum principles, yet also allows the essential dynamical role played by human beings to be played equally well by nonhuman systems. This eliminates the anthropocentric aspect that marred the original formulation of quantum theory while preserving the essential role of {\it experience} in the causal workings of nature. According to von Neumann's formulation we are no longer robotic automata. In his formulation a person's experiences, such as his or her feelings, evaluations, judgements, and efforts, can influence that person's bodily actions without themselves being causally determined by mechanical processes. Experiences can thereby become essential and irreducible aspects of the dynamics: parts that can causally affect the course of events in an associated `brain' without themselves being controlled by any purely mechanical process. This quantum view of nature that allows the mechanical and experiential aspects of reality to enter in dynamically different ways into the determination of the flow of events, has important ramifications within science. I shall describe them later in this book. But the way science views nature, and the place of human being within it, has important consequences also in the philosophical and intellectual foundations of the social order. Philosophers and other thinkers have been wrestling for over three hundred years with the dilemma thrust upon them by what they had imagined to be the final verdict of science, namely that human beings are basically just mechanical parts of a mechanical universe. This mechanistic conception of human beings undermines traditional moral precepts by undercutting the concept that a person is responsible for actions, at least to the extent that those actions are suseptible to conscious control. For if conscious control is fundamentally indistinguishable from mechanical action then any moral principle that pits conscious effort against mechanical process becomes essentially irrational, So is any appeal to the notion that we human beings, by virtue of our mind-like aspects, are linked to nature in ways that supercede the purely mechanical linkage. Most quantum physicist prefer to stick close to the engineering applications of quantum theory, and to skirt as far as possible the broader issues broached above. But I believe that in this time of moral challenge we scientists must squarely face and discuss the profound societal ramifications of the overturning of the mechanistic premises that had ruled the thoughts of philosophers and intellectuals for three hundred years. The aim of this book is to lay out as clearly as we can the profound changes wrought by science during the twentieth century in our conception of man and his role nature, and to note the important societal implications of these changes.