From hpstapp@lbl.gov Fri Dec 2 15:22:22 2005 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:22:11 -0800 (PST) From: Henry P. Stapp To: Paavo Pylkkanen Cc: Tere Vadén , Tarja Kallio-Tamminen , Stefan Berglund , Sakari Kallio , Per Hansell , Monica Bergman , Katja.valli@utu.fi, Hans Sjöberg , Antti Revonsuo , anna-karin.selberg@his.se, Anders Milton , Ron Chrisley , Anna-Mari Rusanen , Otto Lappi , PetteriTre Limnell , Janne Karimäki , Stuart Hameroff , Jack Tuszynski , Nancy Woolf , Globus Gordon , Prof. Ted Honderich , David Chalmers , Hans Liljenström , Peter Århem , B. Ingemar B. Lindahl , Barbara Piechocinska , Andrei Khrennikov , Henry Stapp , B. J. Hiley , Timo Laiho Subject: Re: Fw: reprint pdf On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Paavo Pylkkanen wrote: > Hi all > > here's a recent paper by Basil & me; there is also an editorial which > provides a background > > best > Paavo > > > Dear Paavo, Many thanks for the paper, which I have read with interest. It seems to me that your proposal to redefine the quantum potential (which formerly was defined in terms of the wave function, and hence involved no real addition of information) is not very economical because it involves, now, adding to standard QM not only the classical world line, which formerly served to specify which branch of the branching wave function was associated with human consciousness, also a mind-field that is also supposed to be connected to human consciousness. There is some sort of doubling up of the connection to mind. Also, you tie your discussion to Eccles' theory, which involves changing the structure and predictions of QM in order to accommodate the influence of mind (self) upon brain. Once one allows violations of the orthodox predictions of QM one opens the door to faster-than-light SIGNALLING. Certainly a chief virtue of orthodox QM is that it neatly accommodates the ERP-Bell-type nonlocalities while being relativistic in the sense of forbidding FTL signalling. You say near the end that in the standard interpretation it is difficult to discuss the idea that the self controls its brain because individual quantum processes are supposed to be indeterministic and therefore not determined by anything, including the self. But a crucial aspect of the standard theory is what von Neumann called "Process 1". It is not specified by any rule of quantum theory, statistical or otherwise, and is determined in actual scientific practice by a "free choice on the part of the experimenter". In von Neumann's formulation this free choice on the part of the experimenter of how he or she will act must be implemented by a reduction of the state of his or her brain to a part representing an appropriate brain template for action. Thus orthodox theory already contains the basic effect of mind on brain that is needed to account for the self's control of its brain, and this effect is described as a "free" choice, not the random choice of OUTCOME. The idea of a collapse or reduction is in no way objectionable if the quantum state is understood to specify probabilities for the next event; when this event occurs the new set of probabilities is of course different from the old set. The details are described in my article "Quantum Interactive Dualism: an Alternative to materialism" in the Nov. issue of J. Consc. Studies. and a companion article to appear in ERKENNTNIS. I have appended pdf files of both, for your convenience. Best regards, Henry. [ Part 2, "JCS Article." Application/PDF 164KB. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ Part 3, "ERKENNTNIS Article" Application/PDF 194KB. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] From hpstapp@lbl.gov Sat Dec 3 13:09:36 2005 Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:09:24 -0800 (PST) From: Henry P. Stapp To: Paavo Pylkkanen Cc: Henry P. Stapp , Tere Vadén , Tarja Kallio-Tamminen , Stefan Berglund , Sakari Kallio , Per Hansell , Monica Bergman , Katja.valli@utu.fi, Hans Sjöberg , Antti Revonsuo , anna-karin.selberg@his.se, Anders Milton , Ron Chrisley , Anna-Mari Rusanen , Otto Lappi , PetteriTre Limnell , Janne Karimäki , Stuart Hameroff , Jack Tuszynski , Nancy Woolf , Globus Gordon , Prof. Ted Honderich , David Chalmers , Hans Liljenström , Peter Århem , B. Ingemar B. Lindahl , Barbara Piechocinska , Andrei Khrennikov , B. J. Hiley , Timo Laiho Subject: Re: Fw: reprint pdf On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Paavo Pylkkanen wrote: > Dear Henry (and the others), > > Thank you very much for your comments and the two papers, I will read them > soon. Basil probably can provide a more detailed answer to your criticisms / > questions, but let me ask one thing. > > You mention that "Once one allows violations > of the orthodox predictions of QM one opens the door to faster-than-light > SIGNALLING". Thus, you suggest that insofar as the extended Bohm > interpretation allows violations of those orthodox predictions, there is the > risk of faster-than-light signalling, and the well known paradoxes as a > result. Perhaps Basil could comment on that. > > However, you also invoke von Neumann's Process 1 and say that > > "It is not > specified by any rule of quantum theory, statistical or otherwise, and > is determined in actual scientific practice by a "free choice on the > part of the experimenter" > > Now, if this "free choice" is allowed to affect the wave function (and thus > interfere with the orthodox predictions) I do not see how it differs, in > principle, from our proposal (or other similar proposals) according to which > quantum theory needs to be extended to allow for something "higher level" to > affect the Schrödinger evolution, and its "collapse", which otherwise would > take place according to the purely probabilistic predictions of orthodox > quantum theory. > > very best > Paavo > > Von Neumann's Process 1 is an integral part of orthodox QM, and is needed to get the orthodox predictions. Process 1 is the physical expression of the "choice of basis". The Schroedinger evolution generates a continuous smear, and in order to extract a (statistical) connection to human experience, a "basis" must be selected. The most radical shift from classical physics, in orthodox QM, is to introduce the human being as an active agent (as opposed to an impotent witness): it is the human agent who does what the (continuously smeared out) evolving wave function does not do. He or she chooses the basis that is needed to extract the (statistical) prediction. This choice of what a human being will do, must, it would seem, be represented as a choice of one single brain template-for-action from among the continuous smear of such templates generated by the Schroedinger equation. And the timing of this action must also be selected. In actual scientific practice the origin/cause/source of this choice is best described in psychological terms:in terms of the motives of the person who makes the choice, and this is how quantum theory is used in actual scientific practice. There is no contradiction with the rest of the theory, because the uncertainty principle prevents a purely physical determination. And the collapse is no problem because the quantum state is conceived to represent only potentialities for psychophysical events to occur, and once such an event occurs the potentialities for the next such event are understandably changed. Thus orthodox QM, unaltered, but merely elaborated in a completely rational and natural way, seems to automatically provide a useful and useable solution to the problem of the connection of mind to matter. The predictions of the theory are exactly the orthodox predictions, which prevent FTL signalling. The details are give in the two "Quantum Interactive Dualism" papers, and also, in less detail, in my recent paper with J. Schwartz and M. Beauregard in Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (Biol. Sect.) Many thanks for your pertinent query. All the best, Henry