From stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Fri May 12 13:38:13 2000 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) From: stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Reply-To: hpstapp@lbl.gov To: Stan Klein Subject: Re: Colloquium in Paris - May 20th (fwd) Dear Stan, You asked about my May 20 talk in Paris. It is not yet prepared, but I send you here the note about it that I sent to Jean Staune. Henry On Wed, 10 May 2000, [iso-8859-1] Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris wrote: > Dear Henry, ..... > > ... I would like a lot to know if the lecture you are going to > give in Paris isn't to far from your text of Vancouver. Because this is the > text that inspired the title of this meeting at the UNESCO. It is, > therefore, important that the ideas expressed by your-self in Vancouver > will be found here too... > > With my friendship. > > Jean > > ********************************************** > Universite Interdisciplinaire de Paris > Interdisciplinary University of Paris > 29, rue Viala > 75015 Paris > FRANCE > Tel : +33 (0)1 45 78 85 52 > Fax : +33 (0)1 45 78 85 09 > Email : uipfra@worldnet.fr > > My lecture will cover essentially the same ideas as my Vancouver talk. The quantum theory of consciousness has progressed a lot since Vancouver, and I plan to explain more about that theory, and the evidence supporting it. This theory explains how, in complete accord with the basic principles of physics, a person's mind influences his brain, and hence his behaviour. It contradicts the idea, derived from classical physical theory, that we are essentially robots completely controlled by bottom-up microlocal causation. This altered science-based conception of the basic nature of man impacts strongly on the question of human values. A person's values rest on his conception of what he is, and his relationship to the universe around him; on whether he is, in a profound sense, a free agent capable of acting on the basis of reason, and high-level comprehesion and evaluation that goes beyond local mechanistic explanation in essentially classical-physics terms, or is, in essence, merely an automaton, rigidly controlled by microlocal atomic-level causation. The notion that a person is responsible for his acts makes no sense if he is basically a mechanical robot. This logical conflict between the conception of man derived from classical physics and the notion of personal responsibility has been a root cause of a serious erosion of moral philosophy: one cannot build a coherent world view on an absurdity. But quantum theory, by replacing the classical idea of a microcausality, and erecting in its place a coherent conception of a natural world in which human beings can act as free agents, guided by reason and high-level comprehension and evaluation, provides the scientific underpinnings for a rational consideration of moral issues. From stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Fri May 12 13:38:52 2000 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:35:47 -0700 (PDT) To: Stan Klein Cc: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey , On Thu, 11 May 2000, Stan Klein wrote: > Darn, Time is running out on preparing for that Paris symposium > titled "Quantum Physics and Human Values". I will be joining Henry > in giving a presentation. I have been wanting to get something > written for that to distribute to the group but the last few weeks of > teaching and conferencing have intruded. So at this point let me make > just a few comments. > > [Kathryn (I hope it's okay to use first names)] > I believe that a physical theory like Stapp's paves the way for a > more informed social consensus on certain important kinds of value > judgments. It would be useful to have a better scientific > understanding of what aspects of our behavior we have volitional > control over to what extent, and just how difficult it is to control > certain kinds of behavior. > > [Stan] > The behavioral neurosciences are flourishing in the last few years > with many advances in the biochemistry, neurophysiology, > neuroanatomy, etc. of the brain structures involved in the volitional > control of behavior. They are operating in a classical (not quantum) > framework and seem to be making good progress. I fully expect that in > another hundred years or so they will have come to a good > understanding of that area. I just wanted to be sure that you were > aware that Henry's enterprise with the quantum Zeno effect is a > longshot. It might be correct, but most present neuroscientists don't > feel quantum mechanisms are needed. > The differences between quantum and classical dynamics in a complex warm wet system such as the brain, although profound in principle, are not easy to detect empirically, particularly if one does not have fairly well developed quantum and classical models that can be compared. The tremendous statistical uncertainty at the classical level, coupled with the extreme complexity of the brain, render the predictions of classical computations very loose. "Most present neuroscientists" do not know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to discern the differences between the predictions of the two theories. In fact, I have had to struggle very hard to exhibit just a few empirical features of our psycho-physical behaviour that quantum theory would naturally explain a priori (See "A quantum theory of mind"), but that classical theory does not obviously explain a priori (but may be able to accomodate a posteriori, with some ad hoc, or empirically based, assumptions about the neural correlates of consciousness.) So the fact that mind-brain studies are making advances in certain areas does not say very much about the role of quantum effects. On the other hand, there are strong evolutionary arguments for believing that consciousness must make a real difference in behaviour. > I am a very big believer in the relevance of the quantum duality to > the issues of human values. Those who know me are aware of my > continued insistence on the relevance of the quantum duality to these > theological type issues. However, I have often expressed a worry that > if people think that the relevance of quantum physics depends on a > specific mechanism like the Zeno effect or microtubules, or quantum > tunneling then they will ignore the quantum metaphysics that I > believe is mechanism independent. All that I need to make my point is > an interpretation of QM such as what Henry is proposing (or a > Copenhagen variant). > > But there is a problem reconciling your apparent suggestion that classical physics will be able to provide an adequate basis for mind-brain science with the claim that quantum theory is relevant to human values. If classical physical theory provides for a satisfactory scientific understanding of the mind-brain system (apart from atomic-level microcausation) then why should anyone believe that quantum theory is pertinent to understanding human beings. And if quantum theory is not important to the scientific understanding of human beings then there is no scientific basis for believing that quantum theory is relevant to human values. I believe one must show that quantum theory is important to the scientific understanding of the effects of conscious human effort on human brains---i.e., must show that we are not microcausal mechanical robots---in order to be able to claim that quantum theory is relevant to human values. I do not believe that it is logically within the power of classical physical theory to show such a causal connection, except insofar as conscious effort is IDENTIFIED with a microlocally determined brain activity. But this identification reduces us to microcausal machines. Stated differently, I think one must identify mechaninisms that allow quantum effects to be not microcausally determined yet macroscopically efficacious in warm, wet brains, in the face of strong environmental decoherence, in order to justify any claim that quantum metaphysics is really relevant to human values. > On another topic. In my Paris talk I plan to discuss my belief that > there is a need for increased dialog between people of faith and > people of reason. I see a need to convince scientists (people of > reason) that they should become involved with religion because the > religion/spirituality leaders (people of faith) tend to be the > community value setters or value transmitters. I believe that the > development and transmission of values could use input from the > people of reason community. I'd be very interested in getting > feedback on whether people think that I should not dwell on this > latter topic in Paris. > > thanks, > Stan > Well, if quantum theory really does provide a scientifically based and empirically supported understanding of the mind-brain connection that contradicts the classical-physics claim that human beings are essentially mechanical devices controlled by bottom-up microlocal causation, and that yields, instead, a conception of nature in which a person can have thoughts that are, within the structure of the currently understood laws of nature, essentially free, and able to influence the person's brain activity, and hence bodily behaviour, then I think all thinkers interested in moral issues ought to be informed about this pertinent development in science. Henry