%REPORTMASTER (revised 8/24/88)
\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
%\input math_macros.tex
\def\baselinestretch{1.2}
\def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{center}

%IN PROGRESS

\today     \hfill    LBNL-xxxxx \\

\vskip .5in

{\large \bf The Emergence of Consciousness}
\footnote{This work is supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, 
Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, 
of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098}

\vskip .50in
Henry P. Stapp\\
{\em Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\
      University of California\\
    Berkeley, California 94720}
\end{center}

\vskip .5in

\begin{abstract}

ABSTRACT

\end{abstract}

\end{titlepage}

\newpage
\renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}
\setcounter{page}{1}
%THIS IS PAGE 1 (INSERT TEXT OF REPORT HERE)

\noindent {\bf Introduction}

It is widely believed by both scientists and philosophers that
consciousness, as we experience it, was not always present in
this universe, but emerged gradually from a more purely 
physical stratum in conjunction with the development of 
biological systems, and, in particular, nervous systems. 
But if one assumes that the physical foundation from which 
consciousness emerged is adequately described by classical 
physical theory  then one is put in a quandry by the 
deterministic character of that theory. For the dynamical 
completeness of classical physical theory entails that 
either the emerging structure causes actual violations of 
the deterministic laws or that this emerging structure makes 
no actual difference to the course of physical events. The 
second option seems implausible, because then there could be 
no feed back that would allow survival considerations to 
lead to the gradual development and improvement of this 
emerging structure of the basis of its fitness. And the
close coordination that we can recognized in our own 
conscious process and the capacities of our bodies to behave 
in ways that can actualize our mental intentions would have 
no natural explanation. On the other hand, the laws of 
classical physics are so tightly and beautifully woven into 
a rigid rational structure that the idea that something can 
step in from the outside and simply over-ride them seems ad 
hoc and unnatural.

We know, of course, that classical physical theory is 
basically invalid: it has been replaced at the fundamental 
level by quantum field theory. The indeterministic character 
of this latter theory obviously opens up the possibility for 
the gradual emergence of structures that would act strictly 
within the bounds allowed by quantum theory, and yet exhibit 
the two-way causal connection between the emerging structures
and the underlying physical organism that would permit a 
rationally understandable development of an emergent 
structure from rudimentary beginnings to human-type 
consciousness.

A misunderstanding that has blocked the development of this 
natural idea has been the notion that the indeterminism
of quantum theory is exclusively  random. There is indeed one
aspect  of this quantum indeterminism that is intrinsically 
random, and any tampering or biasing of  that randomness 
would destroy the very fabric of quantum theory, and replace 
it by some ad hoc and arbitrary mutant that would not be 
quantum theory at all, but some mutilated structure that 
would lack the cohesiveness and beauty that places quantum 
theory apart from all pretenders. 

However, there is a second, and very important, element of 
indeterminism in  quantum theory, and this second element is 
perfectly suited to accomodate an emerging structure that 
could arise from the physical organism, and maintain a two-way
causal connection to it within the strict confines of quantum 
field theory. This second element of indeterminism is the 
general form of the freedom that is called, within quantum 
theory, the freedom of the experimenter to choose which 
aspect of nature he wants to probe, or, at a more impersonal 
level, the indeterminism of the ``basis''. This
``basis problem'' is the root of the controversies about how 
quantum theory should  be ``interpreted''.

The thesis of this paper is that this second element of 
indeterminism of quantum theory is precisely the ingredient 
of quantum theory that underlies the process of the emergence 
of proto-consciousness in the primitive organisms, and then
the gradual evolution of such rudimentary systems with 
proto-consciousness into higher forms such as thinking 
human beings.

\noindent {\bf The Principles} 

The main first principle is that ``feelings'' are primordial
ingredients of nature. They are causally connected to the 
physical aspects of nature, but are not reducible to, or 
re-expressible in terms of, the physical aspects. This is in 
line with Wm. James's position that it is logically possible 
for experiential-type realities to be prior to any observing
entities that ``experience'' them. Indeed, since we are aware 
of, or know, the ``self'', that self must be *within* thought,
and part of it, not something that stands behind the thought, 
or the act of knowing [See MMandQM, p. 21].

The ``self'' that appears in human experience is assumed,
in this theory, to be a slowly changing `fringe' part of 
a stream of human conscious experience [MMandQM p. 160]. This
``self'' is perhaps ubiquitous in human experience, but the 
concept of a ``knower'' is asserted to be inessential to 
the primordial concept of a``feel''. Each quantum collapse 
has a ``feel'', or perhaps one should say a ``proto-feel'', 
regardless of whether there is a larger ``feel'' that
feels, or knows, both the feel and a ``self'' that 
``feels'' it.

The second key element is the body-world scheme [MMandQM p. 41,
150ff], which is the (human) brain's representation
of the body it controls, and the world around that body.
There are the ``current'', ``projected'', and ``historical''
body-world schemata. The first one is the system's 
representation of the current state of the body and world, 
the second is the system's representation of an intended state,
and the third one is the system's representation of the 
history known to it. These are described in MMandQM.

The third key ingredient is the ``top-level process'',
which is called the  top-level `code' in MMandQM. It accesses 
and acts upon, the body-world schemata.

The problematic element in quantum theory is the choice
of ``basis''. This choice can be reduced to the choice of 
projection operator P. In the Copenhagen interpretation
this choice is done by the human experimenter. I carry
this idea over to the von Neumann-Wigner formulation
of quantum theory. In order to have a simple definite model
I assume that the operator P(t) is defined to
be the possible P that maximizes $Tr P S(t)$, where the
`possible' P's are those such that the collapse 
$S(t)\longrightarrow PS(t)P$ has a definite ``feel''.
The operator P(t) is presented to nature if and only if the
system gives its `consent'. This consent is either
given or withheld on the basis of an evaluation of the
feel of P(t).

I have conjectured that the operator P acts on the low 
frequency elecromagnetic field, and in particular
on the ``coherent state'' part of that field, and more
specifically on the coulomb part of that field in the
radiation gauge, in the rest frame of the cosmic background
radiation. Then the ``feel'' of the component picked out
by P(t) is essentially the feel of a ``quasi classical''
state consisting of a host of `oscillators' distributed
over the body/brain of the individual: the `feel' would be
like the `feel' of a symphony orchestra.

The evaluation of this `feel', and the action of collapsing
the state $S(t)$ to $PS(t)P$, or to $(1-P)S(t)(1-P)$, requires
that the state and the `feel' be aspects of some enveloping
reality that has the capacity to do this evaluation and action.
No attempt is made in this model to describe this enveloping 
reality: the model simply describes the rules of operation
at the level of the dynamics of the quantum state S(t). The
question of exactly what it is that makes the state  behave
in the way it does is like the question of why Newton's 
laws hold. Thus the model no more aspires to be a complete 
description of the totality of reality than Newton's theory
was intended, in Newton's view, to be the complete and final
last word of science: it strives to be a scientific theory 
with significant explanatory power.
 
This is the outline of my vN/W QT model of human mind-brain
dynamics. The question here is how this model of
the human mind-brain dynamics fits into a general theoretical 
structure that can encompass the evolutionary predecessors 
of human beings, and provide an account of how human 
consciousness, and the brains that support it, could develop, 
jointly and naturally, from very simple beginnings, via the 
quantum dynamics described by this model together with
considerations of fitness and survival.


The principal observation here is that there is in 
the model nothing fundamental that cannot be present also 
in very simple systems. The essential features of collapse
based in `consent' based on `evaluation' based on `feel', 
can be present also in rudimentary systems. In human beings the
collapses act on the top-level process, which accesses and acts
upon the body-world schemata, which act upon the motor
centers, and upon other low-level brain processes, whereas in
a primitive system the collapses act directly to select 
a course of action. Thus although there is a huge difference 
as regards the complexity of the state selected by the 
operator P in the case of human beings as contrasted to a 
rudimentary system, and hence a huge difference in the 
quality of the `feel' of the events associated with the 
collapse, the basic forms are the same for primitive systems 
and human mind/brains. So the evolutionary advantage that
is given to systems that exploit this quantum process
can be effective for both rudimentary and complex systems. 
In particular, the effect of the quantum collapses---in 
conjunction with the quantum Zeno effect---of keeping the 
behaviour of a system focussed on a task can be beneficial 
for both simple and complex systems.

\end{document}