Quantum Theory of the Human Person Henry P. Stapp For Presentation at Center for Frontier Science Conference "Quo Vadis Quantum Theory" An International Conference on Possible Developments in Quantum Theory During the 21st Century Sept 24-27, 2002 Abstract The scientific conception of the human person has, from the time of Newton until the rise of quantum theory, been, been plagued by the fact that the existence of conscious ideas, thoughts, and feelings---the experiential or phenomenal dimension of man---is not a logical, rational, or dynamical consequence of the essentially geometric concepts of classical physics. Examination of the details of brain dynamics, particularly the mechanism for the release of neurotransmitter at nerve terminals, shows that the quantum mechanical wave nature of the ions that govern brain dynamics is very important: brain dynamics is an essentially quantum process in a warm, wet, living brain. At least one crucial quantum effect is not inhibited or weakened by the powerful environmental decoherence effects. Von Neumann's formulation of quantum theory is built on two separate processes, Process I and Process II. The latter arises from quantization of the classical laws, whereas the former is von Neumann's counterpart of the Copenhagen-mandated intervention of the human experimenter, who selects which aspect of nature will be probed. This Process I is transferred to the mind-brain in von Neumann's treatment, and becomes what is called a top-down process. In quantum theory, in contrast to classical mechanics, this top-down process is not fully controlled by the bottom-up process, Process II. Dynamical consequences of this essential difference between the quantum and classical treatments of the brain will be described. Outline. 1. Philosophical Problems with the Classical Conception of the Human Person. A. The Phenomenal/Experiential aspect is not a logical, rational, or dynamical consequence of the geometrical concepts of classical physics: there is a conceptual disconnect. B. Consequently, the Phenomenal/Experiential aspect can be stripped away without affecting the dynamics. Hence: The experiential aspect has no survival value. The experiential aspect is epiphenomenal. The apparent power of your effort to influence your actions is an illusion. Human beings are robotic automata. C. All top-down effects are consequences of bottom-up effects. 2. Dynamical Inadequacy of Classical Physics in Brain Dynamics. A. The wave properties of calcium ions migrating from narrow ion channels to small trigger sites for the release of neurotransmitter into synaptic clefts. B. The wave properties of ions engender wave properies of brain: The brain becomes a smeared out superposition/mixture of quasi-classical-type brains. C. This leads to the "measurement problem", at the level of the brain-mind. 3. Von Neumann's Process I and Process II. A. Process II is the quantized version of the classical dynamical laws of motion, and like it classical cousin it is local and deterministic. But it is not directly connected to human experience. B. Process I is von Neumann's counterpart of the action of the experimenter, who "freely chooses" which of the alternative possible experiments he will perform. C. Process I reduces the continuously infinite set of overlapping possibilities generated by Process II into a finite (or at most countable) set of alternative (non-overlapping) possibilities. 4. Processes I and II as genuine top-down and bottom-up processes. A. Process II is the local-deterministic quantum counterpart of the local-deterministic classical laws of motion. It is a genuine bottom-up dynamical process. B. Process I can be reduced to elementary bifurcations of the form S-->PSP + (1-P)S(1-P), where: S is a quantum state (statistical-operator/density-matrix), P is a projection operator, 1 is the unit operator. C. P acts on a macroscopic part of the brain that encodes or represents (in the physical universe) a conscious event. D. Process I is top-down because it expresses in the physical universe (as it is represented in quantum theory) the consequence of a mental (= experiential/phenomenal) event, and this representation acts directly on a macroscopic part of the brain, and thus indirectly on the microstructure as well. E. This Process I is a "genuine" top-down process in the sense that it it not a dynamical consequence of the bottom-up Process II: It arises from "free choices" that are "free" in the sense that they are not determined by Process II dynamics. 5. The Efficacy of Mental Effort and the Quantum Zeno Effect. A. Suppose P acts on slowly changing degrees of freedom in the brain. Suppose the (mental) intention of a Process I event is to initiate a (mental or physical) action that is represented in the physical world (i.e., in brain of the person) by P, in the sense that PSP tends to produce the intended state. B. Suppose that PSP is a state in which there is a mental effort to focus on or attend to this task, and that the effect of such effort increases the rapidity of the Process I events with this same (i.e., repetitiously repeated) P. C. Then the transition of the state PSP to the alternative possible state (1-P)S(1-P) in the limit of very rapid repetition is lim t-->0 [(1-P)(exp -iHt)PSP(exp iHt)(1-P)]/t = 0. The transitions out of the set of states of the form PXP is suppressed: If mental effort increases the rapidity of these Process I events then mental effort can have significant dynamical consequences in the brain of the person. D. This well-known effect of a rapid repetition of similiar Process I events is called "The Quantum Zeno Effect." 6. The connection between a mental effort and its physical consequences is learned by experience, through feedback.