MY FLAGSTAFF TALKS PART I: Panel-Discussion Talk: Why quantum theory is necessary to explain Consciousness. PART II: Talk on Ontology: How thought can influence action: The tripartite structure of brain process. PART III: Answering Chalmers' Queries on Quantum Ontology. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Part I Panel Discussion Topic: "Are quantum approaches necassary to explain consciousness?" Panelists: Chalmers, Hameroff, Klein, Stapp. Date: July 29, 1999. My (10 minute) talk: "Why quantum theory is necessary to explain consciousness. 1. Our culture encourages us to believe a fairy tale: "The world is made of Tiny Bits of Matter". 2. This notion, though useful in many practical ways, is fundamentally false. 3. It fails in two important ways: It cannot explain the properties of the Tiny Bits of Matter; and It cannot explain the CAUSAL properties of Our Conscious Thoughts. 4. But scientists have created a theory that CAN explain these things: ORTHODOX QUANTUM THEORY.(i.e., von Neumann/Wigner quantum theory) 5. According to this theory---which reproduces all the validated predictions of the earlier classical theory---the world is built NOT out of tiny bits of matter but rather out of tiny bits of knowledge: The objective physical world is an evolving state of knowledge that is a "compendium" of subjective knowings. 6. This switch to a knowledge-based physical theory has important ramifications not only for atomic physics, but also for the CAUSAL PROPERTIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. --------------------------------------------------------------- I give three reasons why quantum theory is needed to explain consciousness. (1) QT PROVIDES A NEEDED LOGICAL CONNECTION: Quantum theory specifies a LOGICAL CONNECTION between CONSCIOUSNESS and BRAIN that classical physical theory lacks. This lacuna renders classical physical theory unable to EXPLAIN the facts of consciousness: they are, conceptually, EXTRA FACTS. (2) QT AVOIDS EPIPHENOMENALISM: Taking the classical approximation (i.e., setting Planck's Constant equal to zero) CAUSES EPIPHENOMENALISM: it converts our thoughts, which are causally efficacious in orthodox quantum theory---with Planck's constant having its true physical value--- to causally impotent slaves of locally deterministic aspects of nature. (3) QT CAN ACCOUNT FOR PHENOMENAL REPORTS: Quantum theory can provide a NATURAL CAUSAL EXPLANATION of OUR VERBAL REPORTS OF OUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES, whereas classical physical theory cannot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reason #1: QT PROVIDES A NEEDED LOGICAL CONNECTION. Major advances in science usually involve creating a LOGICAL CONNECTION between related phenomena that had formerly been regarded as LOGICALLY DISTINCT. Witness: Celestial and Terrestial Dynamics; Heat and Motion; Elecromagnetism and Light; Space and Time; Spacetime and Gravity; Mass and Energy; Particles and Waves. Chalmers has emphasized that EXPLANATION, being in terms of concepts, demands a conceptual (i.e., logical) connection. vN/W quantum theory gives such a connection: The PHYSICAL WORLD is an OBJECTIVE COMPENDIUM of SUBJECTIVE KNOWINGS. Hence, given the full history of the evolution of the physical world, all of the individual increments that feed into the growing accumulation of these increments are determined. But in classical physical theory consciousness does not `logically supervene' in this way on the physical. Hence any EXPLANATION of the facts of consciousness must go OUTSIDE classical physical theory: psycho-physical laws must be ADDED. [There is no conceivable way to explain the "greeness" of a green experience exclusively in terms of the geometric facts and laws that, according to the precepts of classical physical theory, completely characterize and define the physical aspect of nature.] Quantum theory resolves this problem of logical disjunction by unifying the two great categories of philosophy, Ontology and Epistemology: What Exists is Knowledge! If one must go OUTSIDE classical physical theory, and bring consciousness into physical theory in a logically coherent way, then quantum theory is obviously the right way to go: QT has already replaced CM as the basic physical theory, and has been extensively tested as regards logical and mathematical coherence. It encompasses all of the valid predictions of the classical physical theory that it replaced, and it fits all empirical data up the presently achievable limits of empirical and theoretical precision. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reason #2: QT AVOIDS EPIPHENOMENALISM. Quantum theory allows consciousness to be causally efficacious, whereas setting Planck's Constant to zero renders consciousness causally impotent, as regards its effects on the physical. Science seeks CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS. Kepler DESCRIBED the orbits, but Newton EXPLAINED them CAUSALLY. Leibniz accused Newton of of resorting to "mysticism", because he did not EXPLAIN the CAUSE of his action-at-a-distance gravity' Newton offered (feigned) no hypothesis about the cause, but insisted that there was a cause: "...that one body should act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and though which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers." Einstein succeeded in giving such a CAUSAL EXPLANATION of gravity. Science seeks CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS. But Chalmers shows that IF ONE ACCEPTS THE PRECEPTS OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS, then "Any view that takes consciousness seriously will at least have to face up to a limited form of EPIPHENOMENALISM." "Epiphenomenalism may be counterintuitive, but it is not obviously false, so IF A SOUND ARGUMENT FORCES IT ON US we should accept it. Of course, a counterintuitive conclusion may give us reason to go back and reexamine the argument, but we will NEED TO FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ARGUMENT on independent grounds. Is anything wrong with the argument? Well how about the PREMISE that classical theory is adequate to deal with the mind-brain connection? This PREMISE constitutes a gigantic extrapolation from a domain where the conscious observer stands OUTSIDE the system being studied to the case where the observer IS the system being studied. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- REASON #3. QT CAN ACCOUNT FOR PHENOMENAL REPORTS: Quantum theory can give a NATURAL CAUSAL EXPLANATION of VERBAL REPORTS OF OUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES, whereas classical physical theory cannot. Consider (following Searle) the following sequence of events: You hit your finger with a hammer. Nerve impulses carry a message to your brain. Your come to know that a painful experience is occurring. You initiate a verbal report: "I am consciously examining my feelings and am able to report, truthfully. on the basis of this introspection that I know that a feeling of a painful finger now exists. Science seeks CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS. To explain causally this verbal report, I propose the following "CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS": The pain CAUSES---or at least causally influences--- the verbal report of the pain. If a news reporter truthfully reports the occurrence of an event then a scientific account of the relationship of that event to the report of that event requires the existence of a causal chain that conveys the information about that event to the report of that event. But this CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS `conflicts' with the ASSUMED adequacy of classical physical theory in mind-brain research: Classical physical theory asserts that there is causal explanation of the connection of the `hitting of the finger' to the `reporting of the pain' in physical terms alone. But then the CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS entails the existence TWO *different* causal explanations of this connection: One in physical terms alone, as required by classical physics; The other involves the pain itself, as required by the causal hypothesis. Chalmers' arguments show that, within classical physical theory, these two causal explanations are not logically equivalent --- i.e., they not mere restatements of the same connection in different terms, such as the microscopic and macroscopic descriptions of a classically describable hurricane. Chalmers recognizes this causal overdetermination to be a serious problem, He notes that it can be resolve by either: (1) REJECTING THE `CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS'; or (2) EMBRACING what is ESSENTIALLY THE QUANTUM APPROACH of taking consciousness, not matter, to be basic. But ACCEPTING the CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS is surely more sensible, as a guide to scientific research, than accepting a gigantic extrapolation of KNOWN-TO-BE-FALSE classical physical theory into a fundamentally new domain. That is, it is far more reasonable, from a scientific perspective, to EMBRACE the BASIC physical theory and retain the CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS, than to REJECT the CAUSAL HYPOTHESIS in order preserve a fundamentally false theory. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PART II: My Ontology Talk. %REPORTMASTER (revised 8/24/88) \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \input math_macros.tex \def\baselinestretch{1.2} \begin{document} HOW THOUGHT CAN INFLUENCE ACTION:\\ THE TRIPARTITE STRUCTURE OF BRAIN PROCESS\\ ACCORDING TO QUANTUM THEORY THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS A REPRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE.\\ Hendry says:\\ \sc{ ``Dirac, in discussion, insisted on the restriction of the theory's application to our knowledge of a system, and on its lack of ontological content." Hendry summarized the concordance by saying: ``On this interpretation it was agreed that, as Dirac explained, the wave function represented our knowledge of the system, and the reduced wave packets our more precise knowledge after measurement." Heisenberg (1958a): ``The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior." Heisenberg (1958b): ``...the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function...takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function." Heisenberg (1958b:) ``When the old adage `Natura non facit saltus' is used as a basis of a criticism of quantum theory, we can reply that certainly our knowledge can change suddenly, and that this fact justifies the use of the term `quantum jump'. " Wigner (1961): ``the laws of quantum mechanics cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness." Bohr (1934): ``In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of our experience. ----------------------------------------------------------- "Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation. He said: ``What does not satisfy me, from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude toward what seems to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation)." (Einstein, 1951, p.667) and ``What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic attitude, which from my view is untenable, and which seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley's principle, esse est percipi." (Einstein, 1951, p. 669).[Translation: To be is to be perceived] Einstein struggled until the end of his life to get the observer's knowledge back out of physics. But he did not succeed! Rather he admitted that: ``It is my opinion that the contemporary quantum theory...constitutes an optimum formulation of the [statistical] connections." (ibid. p. 87). He referred to: ``the most successful physical theory of our period, viz., the statistical quantum theory which, about twenty-five years ago took on a logically consistent form. ... This is the only theory at present which permits a unitary grasp of experiences concerning the quantum character of micro-mechanical events." (ibid p. 81). \newpage THREE PROBLEMS WITH COPENHAGEN QUANTUM THEORY;\\ (1) MERELY A SET OF RULES.\\ (2) QUANTUM SYSTEM IS SMALL, AND DISCONNECTED FROM BRAINS.\\ (3) NO DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDIATING SYSTEM.\\ VON NEUMANN/WIGNER QUANTUM THEORY.\\ (1) THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS THE QUANTUM SYSTEM.\\ (2) EACH SUBJECTIVE `KNOWING' IS ASSOCIATED WITH A BRAIN.\\ (3) EACH SUBJECTIVE `KNOWING' REDUCES THE STATE OF ASSOCIATED BRAIN TO A FORM COMPATIBLE WITH THAT `KNOWING'.\\ (4) THIS REDUCTION AUTOMATICALLY REDUCES THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE TO A FORM COMPATIBLE WITH THAT `KNOWING'. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE TWO ROLES OF THE OBSERVER. Niels Bohr (1951, p.223), in recounting the important events at the Solvay Conference of 1927, says: ``On that occasion an interesting discussion arose also about how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only predictions of a statistical nature can be made. The question was whether, as regards the occurrence of individual events, we should adopt the terminology proposed by Dirac, that we have to do with a choice on the part of `nature' or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a choice on the part of the `observer' constructing the measuring instruments and reading their recording.'' Bohr stressed this choice on part of the observer: ``...our possibility of handling the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different complementary types of phenomena we want to study.'' The observer in quantum theory does more than just read the recordings. He also chooses which question will be put to Nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer `The Heisenberg Choice', to contrast it with the `Dirac Choice', which is the random choice on the part of Nature that Dirac emphasized. According to quantum theory, the Dirac Choice is a choice between alternatives that are specified by the Heisenberg Choice: the observer must first specify what aspect of the system he intends to measure or probe, and then put in place an instrument that will probe that aspect. In quantum theory it is the observer who both poses the question, and recognizes the answer. Without some way of specifying what the question is, the quantum rules will not work: the quantum process grinds to a halt.\\ ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Copenhagen formulation the Heisenberg choice was made by the mind of the external human observer. In the vN/W formulation this choice is not made by the local deterministic Schroedinger process nor by the global stochastic Dirac process. So there is still an essential need for a third process, the Heisenberg process. Thus the agent's mind can continue to play its key role. But the mind of the human agent is now an integral part of the dynamical body/brain/mind. We therefore have, now, an intrinsically more complex dynamical situation, one in which a person's conscious thoughts can --- and evidently must, if no new element is brought in, --- play a role that is not reducible to the combination of the Schroedinger and Dirac processes. \newpage THE TRIPARTITE PROCESS:\\ (1) SCHROEDINGER EVOLUTION.\\ (2) HEISENBERG PROCESS. (POSES THE QUESTION)\\ (3) DIRAC PROCESS. (ANSWERS THE QUESTION)\\ I IDENTIFY THE "POSING OF THE QUESTION" WITH ``ATTENTION'':\\ WHAT QUESTION IS ``ATTENDED TO''?\\ IT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY SCHROEDINGER OR DIRAC PROCESS. } \end{document} Overhead Projector--- Diagram ----------- ----------- -->| |INTENTION----------------------->ATTENTION| |--> | KNOWING | | KNOWING | | | | | -->| |-----------SCHROEDINGER------------------>| |--> ----------\ -----------\ \ \ \-------------MOTOR---------> The top line represents the Heisenberg process that acts directly in the experiential realm, and poses, on the basis of the intention of the earlier knowing (conscious thought) the question associated with the second knowing. The Schroedinger evolution generates, via evolution of the brain state actualized by the earlier knowing, the potentialities for the second knowing, but quantum uncertainties cause a diffuse set of potentialities. The posings of the questions can focus the physical process! Can Mere` Choice of The Question Posed' Influence the Dynamics? The example of the Quantum Zeno Effect shows that the answer is YES! Asking the right questions can focus the quantum brain process! This dynamics is formulated completely WITHIN the quantum rules: There is NO BIASING of the Quantum Statistical Rules that govern the Dirac Choice!. Any such baising would destroy the tight consistency of quantum theory! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART III Discussion with Chalmers about this Quantum Ontology. One of Chalmers' question can be posed as follows: Is this ontology an idealistic monism or an interactive dualism? Answer: Both! Fundamentally it is an idealistic monism: all elements are idea-like. But there are TWO DIFFERENT knowledge-like aspects: (1) The subjective knowings. (2) The evolving objective state of knowledge, which is the accumulation of the subjective knowings. The evolution of the objective state of knowledge, which is the physical aspect of nature, proceeds via an "interaction" with the subjective aspects via accumulation. Chalmers asks: What about the Hilbert space vector? It REPRESENTS the evolving state of absolute or objective knowledge. But what is its ontological status? I distinguish between `pragmatic approach' and `ontological approach'. In the pragmatic approach it is recognized, explicitly, that theoretical constructs are ideas that we use to represent to ourseves our IDEA of something, such as "what exists objectively outside of the conscious experience of any single person, and outside of the collection of what is being consciously experienced now by all human beings, and outside of what has been, over the course of history, consciously experienced by human beings." vN/W QT can be conservatively interpreted in this pragmatic way. vN/W QT, pragmatically interpreted, is a viable foundation for the study of the connection between human consciousness and human brains: it provides a theoretical model of the two-way causal connection between human thoughts/knowings and human brains. Ontological issues are thereby avoided. The ontolgical issues are not of *immediate* relevance to this research. In the ontological approach one assumes that the theoretical representation of the objective world is in close correspondence with some really existing aspect of nature: i.e., the objective vN/W state of the universe "really exists", in some sense, outside of our human thoughts. Chalmers suggested that there could be no ontological reality that was `the evolving state of knowledge' because at the beginning of time, before the first knowing, there was no knowledge. But perhaps there is no beginning. (e.g., as in a steady state universe, or if there is an infinite sequence of big bangs followed by big crunches). Or perhaps there is co-evolution of knowing and being from simpler proto-knowing and proto-being. The essential difference between classical and quantum theory is that the classical theory is based on enduring matter-energy, whose beginnings are a problem, whereas quantum theory is based on information, which can more naturally emerge from humble beginnings, both as regards creation and storage. Chalmers noted that whereas I focussed on classical physical theory, and its contrast with orthodox quantum theory, his argument really did not single out classical physical theory in contrast to quantum theory: the important question was whether or not consciousness supervened on the physical, and that question cuts across the quantum-classical divide. It is true that the question can be posed on both sides of the divide. But the answers on the two sides differ. Chalmers' actual arguments were based on the language and concepts of classical physical theory, in which the physical aspect of nature is ontologically complete. But the physical aspect is not ontologically complete in quantum theory The point is subtle, but the physical aspect of QT is incomplete because that aspect is not dynamically/causally complete. Chalmers tries to avoid the causality aspect. This is possible in the classical idealization because consciousness (i.e ., the subjective knowing aspect) plays no causal role in the evolution of the physical (i.e., the objective being) aspect. The objective part is dynamically/causally complete, and the subjective part just knows what the objective part is doing. This it becomes "unnatural" to say that two knowings could differ if that which is known is the same: consciousness "supervenes" on the physical. But it would be unreasonable to hold, in the classical case, that if one were to leave out half the particles that complete knowledge of the retained half completely determines the left-out half. But in vN/W QT the subjective knowing aspect plays an essential role in the dynamics. It is not clear that a given collapse can be caused only by one unique thought: the collapse is specified by a projection operator (e.g., the pointer lies between 6 and 7 on the dial.) But many different experiences might be represented by this projection operator. Yet, indeed, Chalmers' arguments do apply equally well to all the forms of quantum theory in which "the physical" is related to consciousness in essentially the same way as in classical physical theory: his arguments DO cover those forms of quantum theory in which one tries to follow classical ideas and keep conscious out of our scientific description of nature. The important distinction is INDEED between classical-type theories in which "the physical" does not logically, or conceptually entail consciousness, and theories like vN/W QT that make consciousness both dynamically essential and not determined by the physical ALONE, plus chance. Chalmers says that his approach is not epiphenomenalism. He suggests, in somewhat vague terms, some ways that epiphenomenalism might possibly be avoided. But his suggestions all involve giving up the normal concepts of classical physical theory, with its idea of strict deterministic causation by means of physical CONTACTS that MAKE the next event or situation happen, and with its exclusion of any conscious underpinning to the physical entities and properties. These normal classical physical concepts were the basis of Chalmers' arguments that, in classical physical theory, consciousness does not supervene on the physical. But I believed that Chalmers has not successfully evaded epiphenomenalism, staying within the strict confines of classical physical theory as it is normally conceived. Yet if one is going to look beyond classical physical theory, then the first thing to try is the alternative that physicists have already discovered and worked out, and that accounts for all the valid predictions of classical physical theory, and that APPEARS to be pertinent, namely vN/W QT. Indeed, Chalmers' positive suggestions (e.g., in his section "Strategies for avoiding epiphenomenalism") all seem to point in that direction. ----------------------------------------------------------------