[A later version of this paper is at  
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/paris2n.txt]

Science, Values,  and the Nature of the Human Person.
(May 21, 2001, Paris)

Science has improved our lives in many ways. It has lightened the
load of tedious tasks and multiplied our physical powers,
and thus contributed to a greater flowering of our creative capacities.

But it has also contributed to a sense of malaise
among those who sometimes stand back from the pursuit of material
ends and seek to satisfy their yearning for a better understanding
of how we fit into the scheme of things, and how we should conduct
our lives.

This problem stems from the fact that physical science has, until now,
focused on describing the behavior of matter.

But the important and exciting news is that this study has revealed
fundamental flaws in our earlier understanding of the nature of matter,
and our new understanding impacts strongly on these human issues.

My intention is to introduce you to the vistas opened up by
this deeper understanding of the nature of matter.

These advances lead me to believe that, in the end, the 
greatest gift of science to humanity will be not its
material benefits, but rather a shift in values generated
by what it reveals about ourselves, and our connection
to the rest of nature. 

It is often claimed that science has no connection to values.
To counter that idea I shall begin by sketching out a
bit of human intellectual history. 

I divide this history into five periods:
traditional, modern, transitional, post-modern, and contemporary.

During the "traditional" era our understanding of ourselves and our
relation  to nature was based on "ancient traditions" handed down from 
generation to generation. "Tradition" was the chief source of wisdom about 
our connection to nature.

The "modern" era began in the seventeeth century with the rise
of what is called "modern science". That approach was based
on the ideas of Bacon, Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and it
provided a new source of knowledge, which came to be regarded
by many thinkers as more reliable than tradition.

The basic idea of the modern era was "materialism". This is
the idea that the physical world is composed basically of 
tiny particles of matter interacting with each other
according to "laws of nature", and that these laws completely
determined the course of physical events, for all time,
from the initial conditions. These laws did not acknowledge
the existence of our conscious thoughts, ideas, feelings,
and efforts, and even excluded the possibility that
supernatural agencies, such as gods or spirits, could
influence the course of physical events. Matter was asserted
to be governed by matter alone, acting in accordance with
impersonal, local, mechanical laws.

This materialist conception of reality began to crumble at the beginning
of the twentieth century with Max Planck's discovery of the quantum of
action. Planck announced to his son that he had, on that day, made a 
discovery as important as Newton's. That assessment was certainly correct: 
the ramifications of Planck's discovery were soon to cause Newton's
materialist conception of physical reality to come crashing down. Planck's 
discovery marks the beginning of the "transitional" period.
 
A second devastating development soon followed: In 1905  Einstein
announced his special theory of relativity. It denied the validity our 
intuitive idea of the instant of time "now", and promulgated the thesis that 
even the most basic quantities of physics had no objective "true values", 
but were definite only "relative" to the observer's point of view.

Planck's discovery led by the mid twenties to a complete break-down, 
at the fundamental level, of the material conception of nature. The new 
basic physical theory was developed principally by Werner Heisenberg,
Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, and Max Born, and it brought "the observer"
explicitly into physics: physics was viewed as a HUMAN ENDEAVOUR
designed to make predictions about how the results of human observations
were correlated with each other. It involved a renunciation of all
efforts to describe or understand the physical reality that is the 
cause of these correlations between our observations. This approach is 
called "Copenhagen quantum theory".

 
This overturning by science itself of the tenets of the objective
materialist philosophy lent support to  Post-Modernism.
That view, which emerged during the second half of the twentieth century,
promulgated, in essence, the idea that all "truths" were relative
to one's point of view, and were mere artefacts of some particular
social group's struggle for power over competing groups. Thus each social
movement was entitled to its own "truth", which was viewed simply as a
socially created pawn in the power game.

The connection of Post-Modern thought to science is that both
Copenhagen Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity had retreated
from the idea of observer-independent objective truth. Thus
science, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, had
not only knocked out materialism as a possible foundation for
objective truth, but had moreover discredited the very idea
of objective truth in science. But if even the community of
scientists have renounced the idea of absolute truth in favor
of the pragmatic value of what works for one's group, then
every group is licensed to do the same:

If an idea is useful to a group with a certain agenda, then
that is true for that group.

This point of view  has had profound  social ramifications.

The physicists who had started this mischief were generally
too interested in the practical developments in their own
field to get involved in these philosophical issues. Thus
they failed to broadcast an important fact;
already by mid-century, a development in physics had occurred
that provides an effective antidote to both the `materialism'
of the modern era, and the `relativism' and
`social constructionism' of the post-modern period.
John von Neumann developed, during the early thirties, a form
of quantum theory that brought the physical and mental aspects
 of nature together as two aspects of a rationally coherent
whole. This theory was elevated by the work of Tomonaga and
Schwinger, during the late forties, to a form compatible with
the physical requirements of the Theory of Relativity.
Von Neumann's theory, unlike the transitional ones,
integrated the data from both the physical sciences and
psychology, and was compatible with the
existence of observer-independent objective truth.

Let me explain how von Neumann accomplished these things.

The earlier Copenhagen approach applied the principles of
quantum theory only to relatively small systems, and used
classical concepts to describe the rest of nature.
This procedure of treating different parts of the physical
world in logically incompatible ways worked beautifully at
the practical level, but it introduced severe logical
difficulties. But these logical difficulties were evaded in
Copenhagen quantum theory by renouncing the search for
objective reality: "if it works, that's good enough."
But von Neumann demanded logical coherence, and this meant
treating the entire physical universe, including our bodies
and brains, quantum mechanically, and connecting
a person's conscious thoughts to activities in his brain in
accordance with laws provided by the theory itself.

This new integral conception of the human person departs
radically from the earlier scientific picture of man in
three important ways:

1. It is based on A NEW CONCEPTION OF MATTER that differs
   profoundly from the old one, which is provably false.

2. It automatically produces a bona fide, rather than
   illusory, FREE WILL.

3. This free will can CAUSALLY INFLUENCE the person's brain. 

4. It allows for THE EVOLUTION OF MIND from a primitive
   beginning to its present form.
 
These four changes add up to a rationally coherent conception
of the human person that differs profoundly from the
caricature that arose from materialism.

And this new conception provides a new basis in science
for moral philosophy.

Each of these four points constitutes a very deep change from
earlier ideas.  Although they are expressions of mathematical
conditions, I want to explain them to you in simple  terms.

The first point is the new idea of "matter".

By this new idea of "matter" I mean the new idea of the
"stuff" out of which the physical universe is  made.

The properties of this stuff are radically different from
the properties of matter postulated by Isaac Newton and
his successors. The properties of "quantum matter" 
lie "mid-way" between those of classical matter and mind:
"matter" has moved toward "mind".
  

But how can that possibly be? It seems at first  
inconceivable that anything could lie between  
mind and classically conceived matter:
the two seem too utterly different to be combined.
Indeed, it was only with great difficulty that this new idea
of the nature of the physical universe was hammered
into the minds of physicists by the incessant beating of
the empirical data.

The two aspects are joined as follows.

The classical-matter aspect arises from the fact that the
quantum universe can be described as a cloud of "virtual"
classical-type universes that evolves "almost always" in
accordance with the Schroedinger equation. This equation
is the quantum  analog of Newton's equations of motion.
Thus many features of the Newtonian idea of the universe
are transferred to the quantum universe by the fact the
latter is a cloud of "possibilities" for the former.

The mind-like features then enter through the cracks
opened up by the words "virtual" and "almost always".

The word "virtual" signifies that the copies are not fully real:
they are real only as "potentialities for an `event' to occur".

What kind of Event?

A Psycho-Physical Event!

What is that?

It is the occurrence of a  "Mental Event" that grasps a
whole unit of structural information, and injects it into the
quantum state of the universe.

This injection is called by physicists "the reduction of the
wave-packet, "or "the collapse of the wave function." 
It converts the existing physical world of potentialities or
possibilities to a new form that incorporates 
the newly grasped structural information.

This thumb-nail description is enough to reveal the huge
difference between the classical and quantum descriptions
of the universe:
the former is  in terms of LOCALIZED BITS OF "SUBSTANCE",
whereas the latter is in terms of NONLOCALIZED BITS
OF "INFORMATION", which are mentally grasped as wholes,
and physically represented by changes in an evolving cloud of
virtual classical universes.

Von Neumann's work associates each Psycho-Physical event
with the mind/brain of an observer/participant,
and ties the mental event of grasping a new bit of information
to the brain event that incorporates that bit of information
into the physical universe.

This brain event "actualizes", or saves, precisely the
"neural correlate" of the mental event, and eliminates
from the cloud of virtual possibilities all contributions
that are incompatible with the information grasped
by the mental event. This reduction of the cloud of virtual
possibilities constitutes a direct action of mind on matter.

This first feature of the theory is important: it describes
the action of mind on matter. But two key questions then arise:

Is mind FREE in any sense, and, if so, in what sense?

Can mind influence the behavior of average values of physical
properties of the brain? [i.e., IS MIND CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS?]


It is sometimes suggested that the statistical aspect of
quantum theory could justify the idea of "free will".
However, the inclusion of a statistical or random element
into the dynamics makes the situation worse: it makes it even
more difficult for our mental resolves to control our physical
actions. The intrusion of true randomness, which is what
quantum theory demands, tends to decrease the effectiveness
of mind, rather than increasing it.

Quantum theory accommodates "free will", but this freedom does
not arise from  an exploitation of the randomness of quantum
theory. It arises, instead, from two facts:

**quantum dynamics proceeds via the posing of questions, and

**the known laws of quantum theory do not determine which
questions are asked, or when they are asked.

These two facts inject an essential element of freedom
right into the basic dynamics!

Let me explain.

Orthodox quantum theory is similar to the parlor game
"twenty questions". In the quantum case the game is played
between an observer/participant and Nature.
The observer/participant first devises, and then
"puts to nature", a specific question that can be answered
"Yes" or "No", where the "Yes" must correspond to a
Psycho-Physical event of the kind described before,
and "No" is its complement.

Nature then returns an answer. The rules of quantum theory
specify the relative probabilities of the two possible
answers, "Yes" and "No".

The key point is that although NATURE'S ANSWERS are governed,
at least in the statistical sense, by the laws of quantum
theory,

THE OBSERVER/PARTICIPANT'S QUESTIONS ARE NOT CONTROLLED
IN ANY WAY BY ANY *KNOWN* LAW  OF NATURE.

Let me explain this.

In the original Copenhagen quantum theory each
observer/participant is given the freedom to choose
which question he will put to  nature: which experimental
apparatus he will set in place. That theory places the
observer/participant who makes this choice outside the
physical system described by the known quantum rules:
this choice is a FREE VARIABLE, insofar as the
known laws of quantum theory are concerned.

Von Neumann reformulated the theory: He put the BODY AND BRAIN
of the observer/participant inside the physical universe.
But what about the MIND of the observer/participant?
In the application of quantum theory, it is the MIND that
registers the observation and makes the conscious choices.
von Neumann, in order to show the equivalence of his theory
to the Copenhagen version at the practical level, must
maintain a formal correspondence between the two versions.
Accordingly he leaves the abstract "ego" of the observer
outside the physical universe. This abstract "ego" must be
identified with the MIND OF THE OBSERVER/PARTICIPANT, in
order to maintain the needed correspondence between the
two theories. This makes the choice of question a FREE
CHOICE within von Neumann's theory in the same sense as it
is free in Copenhagen quantum theory.

Von Neumann's  theory, as he describes it, places the
choice of the question OUTSIDE the laws of quantum theory
that he describes.
 
This element of freedom allows "the questions", which are
necessary parts of the game, to "bootstrap" themselves into
being: whatever laws control the selection of the questions
can be completely compatible with all the known laws of
quantum theory, both statistical and otherwise, yet not be
entailed by these laws. von Neumann quantum theory contains
this essential element of freedom.

But can this element of freedom DO ANYTHING?
 
Can the exercise of this freedom INFLUENCE average values
of properties of the brain?

The answer is YES!

There is a well known property of quantum theory called
the  quantum Zeno effect, which works as follows:
if the SAME question is repeatedly posed VERY RAPIDLY,
on the time scale of the subsystem that is carrying the answer
to the question, then the answer, YES OR NO, gets held in
place much longer, on the average, than it would if the
question were not being asked rapidly!

Asking a question is making an inquiry about something, and
making an inquiry about something activates the psychological
process of "attending". Thus a rapid-fire sequence of consents
to ask some particular question will have the effect of holding
one's attention fixed on some item: the exercise of one's
freedom to ask questions can have the effect of keeping one's
brain and mind focused on some intention, rather than drifting 
off as it otherwise would.

For example, the rapid repetition of the question "Shall
I consent to continued focusing attention on plan of action P?"
can have the effect of keeping attention focused on that
plan, instead of being diverted by competing brain processes.

But focusing one's attention normally influence one's behaviour.

Free Will is thereby made causally efficacious.

Both Copenhagen quantum theory and von Neumann's reconstruction
of it focused  on human consciousness and human behaviour.
But the universe evidently existed long before human beings
appeared on the scene. So I assume that human beings are
just one special kind of observer/participant, and that the von Neumann
theory is universal: it covers of these agents. This means that the
theory must, in due course, be expanded to specify exactly what physical 
conditions are necessary or sufficient to allow a  physical system to 
be a quantum agent. 

One way to investigate this question is study the evolution
of the human mind/brain from its  presumed primitive
beginnings.  Human minds and brains evidently function in a
closely coordinated way. But why are they connected in this way?

The natural way to explain this close coordination is via the theory
of evolution:  the effect of mind could have a survival advantage,
provided mind and brain are properly connected.

However, there could be no advantage of a close coordination
between mind and brain if mind had no causal efficacy:
mind could become totally disconnected from brain with
no effect on survival prospects.

Thus the causal efficacy of mind that von Neumann theory allows
is a necessary prerequisite for this naturalistic
explanation  of the close coordination between our thoughts
and activities in our brains.
 
Let me recap the central  points.

My first main point is that the  "Materialism" of "modern physics"
is strictly incompatible with the empirical evidence:
it is scientifically inaccurate to say that mind MUST BE matter,
as matter was conceived  at  the beginning of the twentieth
century. MIND CANNOT BE CLASSICAL MATTER, because that kind of matter
does not exist in our part of the universe.

My second main point is that von Neumann quantum theory
is the only physical theory that makes a  serious attempt to
incorporate mind. It gives a radically new idea of the physical
world: the physical world, as represented in the mathematics of QT,
is an accumulation of BITS OF INFORMATION, grasped by observers,
and preserved in an evolving  cloud of  potentialities for
future graspings. This quantum conception of nature  DEMANDS a process
of posing questions, in order to keep the universe from speading out into
an ever-expanding set of potentialities. none of which are ever seized. 
And this DEMAND leads automatically to "free will", which
consists of elements of freedom that are NOT GOVERNED BY THE KNOWN
LAWS OF NATURE, but that CAN INFLUENCE BRAIN activity.


My third main point is that  any support that post-modern
thought might try to draw from the breakdown of the idea of
objective truth within science is negated by the fact
that this breakdown arose, during the transitionary period, from
the incomplete integration of the observer into the theory.
Bringing mind into physics in a rationally coherent way leads to
a theory that is completely compatible with the existence of
objective truth.

My fourth main point is one not mentioned so far.
It concerns the nonlocal entanglement
of the human person with  the rest of nature

The thing that drove the final nail into the coffin of
materialism was the debate between Einstein and Bohr,
and the subsequent contribution of John Bell.

Einstein, and two colleagues, Podolsky and Rosen, came up
with a tight argument that proved, on the basis of an
assumption that nature allowed no causal influence to
travel faster-than-light, that quantum theory could
not be complete.

Bohr was hard  pressed to rebut this argument.
He was finally forced to assert that although "mechanical"
influences could not propagate faster than light, certain
other more subtle kinds of influences pertaining to
information  could.

This way of evading Einstein's conclusion, by admitting
faster-than-light influences, was taken by many
critics to be tantamount to admission that Einstein was right!

However, Bell proved conclusively that no theory that
conforms to the ideas that Einstein espoused,
could possibly fit certain predictions of  quantum theory.

The empirical validity of these predictions have by now
been essentially confirmed by many experiments.

Hence Einstein's position has been proved wrong.

This suggests that Bohr's quantum-theoretic answer is correct.
Indeed, his conclusion can be proved by  direct argument.

The subtle faster-than-light influences whose existence
Bohr acknowledged are explicitly present in
von Neuman-Tomonaga-Schwinger objective quantum theory.
These influences entail that our human experiences
are entangled with faraway events in ways that are totally
incompatible with the tenets of materialism. Thus, according
to this objective quantum theory, the human person is much
more deeply entangled with nature than the local
materialistic ideas of pre-quantum physics could ever allow.

Many of the ills that afflict humankind today stem from
the seeming pointlessness of life that arises from looking
at ourselves through the eyes of science. For centuries science has 
been proclaiming that the human person is  naught but a mechanical 
automaton whose every act was pre-ordained before he was born.
More recently, in the  early twentieth century, basic science, in an about
face, renounced the search for objective truth and settled for practical 
results. Thus the attempt to base conduct on reason and empirical
evidence led, seemingly, into a abyss of confusion and moral relativism.
However, those particular approaches to science systematically avoided, 
as too difficult, or beyond its scope, the basic question at issue, which 
is the nature of the intertwining of our material and mental aspects. This 
is the mind/body problem, and the closely connected problem of free will. 
Science, rationally pursued, with the aim of uncovering the nature of the 
human person, reveals a far richer conception of what we are than earlier 
scientific or philosophical thought imagined. The new quantum conception 
of the human person, with its causally efficacious free will, and its profound 
nonlocal intertwining of man and nature, can propel a shift in human 
values away from the narrow ones thrust upon us by the earlier scientific 
images of man, and toward ones more concordant with our intuitive and 
traditional image of ourselves as agents deeply entwined with nature in 
ways that transcend materialist science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

May 21 Paris Talk (Outline)

Part I: The Physics of Consciousness (ala Bohr/von Neumann).

MIND
 1) Mind is basic! 
    (Science is about regularities in human experience:
     Matter is a theoretical construct.)
 2) The stream of conscious experiences is NOT made out of brain stuff.
 3) Experience is TWO-WAY dynamically connected to brain.

MATTER
 1) Quantum matter is midway between classical matter and mind.
 2) The physical world is a cloud of possible classical worlds.
 3) "Events" inject INFORMATION into the physical world.
 
FREEDOM
 1) There are TWO KINDS of "free" choices.
 2) Nature's "free" choices are subject to statistical regularities.
 3) Human "free" choices are subject to no KNOWN laws.
 
WILL
 1) Human "free" choices  can influence brain activity.
 2) Mental effort can keep attention focussed.
 3) This "explains" much psychological and psychiatric data.

NONLOCALITY
 1) Human "free" choices have "instantaneous" effects far away.
 2) The world is "nonlocally entangled".
 3) The "end of science" is not imminent! 

Part II: Moral Impact.

A. "Personal responsibility" is rescued.
B. "Objective truth" is rescued. 
C. Human consciousness is an integral part of the nonlocal
   process that creates the evolving informational universe.
------------------------------------------------------------