From: SMTP%"PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org" 23-SEP-1996 19:07:17.75 To: STAPP CC: Subj: Re: QM in Stapp&Sarfatti vs Penrose and Hameroff Approved-By: PATRICKW@CS.MONASH.EDU.AU Approved-By: STAPP@THEORM.LBL.GOV Message-Id: <960923125525.22201a83@theorm.lbl.gov> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:55:25 -0700 Reply-To: PSYCHE Discussion Forum Sender: PSYCHE Discussion Forum From: Henry Stapp Subject: Re: QM in Stapp&Sarfatti vs Penrose and Hameroff To: Multiple recipients of list PSYCHE-D The postings of Sept 22 from Goodman, Robinson, and Stern all ask in various ways the same question: What good is quantum mechanics to the science of consciousness? These questions are perhaps fueled in part by Stan Klein's continual assertions that the matter is all metaphysical speculation with no empirical content. If that were so then I would not be involved in these discussions, and would not be always emphasizing that I am discussing the issues from the context of the the *science* of consciousness: science rests on both theory and experiment, and both must be involved if an activity is to be called science. Another source of confusion is that different physicists have different ideas about how quantum theory should be interpreted, and in particular about the role of experience in the dynamics. These two issues, the question of empirical validation and of the role of consciousness, are closely tied together. For it is certainly true that it is not an easy task to define and carry out experiments that will distinguish between the theoretical options. That is the reason why, today, reasonable scientists can hold different views: the needed experimental information lies still in the future. The theoretical problem today is to identify, in close collaboration with experimental workers---who are probing the boundaries of what is within the realm of the experimentally possible, and who are perhaps identifying phenomena where, on statistical grounds, the classical paradigm may be inadequate---the places where it might be possible to detect high-level quantum effects of the kind called for by, for example, the Bohr/Heisenberg/von-Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum theory. [This string of names identifies a particular interpretation that draws in important ways on the ideas of these four men---Pauli and William James should also be included---and that I think is particularly coherent, and that with sufficient experimental effort, should eventually be testable] So the essential point is that this theorizing is not sheer metaphysical speculation, with no possibility of empirical testing. Quantum mechanical process at high levels can have huge effects that could make a critical difference---a life or death difference---in biological systems. I am not talking here about the fact that quantum theory is needed to account for the microscopic atomic and molecular aspects of biological: I am talking about possible high-level effects---associated with the wholeness of thoughts---that go beyond what can be accounted for within classical mechanics, or within a quantum mechanical interpretation---such as that of David Bohm's causal ontological pilot-wave interpretation---that does not bring in high-level collapses in human brains in association with human experiences, and analogous high-level collapses in other systems. These discussions on Psyche-D might seem peripheral to the main task of identifying the relevant experiments and performing them. But in a larger sense these discussions can be of real importance. For the experiments will be difficult, and no one is going to be able to mount a big experiment unless the theoretical motivation is strong. So it is important to get the logical situation straightened out, in order for researchers to understand the issues and the possibilities, and hence be able to contribute to the discussion of the experimental possibilities, and be motivated, and be able to motivate others to provide resources and manpower. Getting the theoretical situation straightened out *is* important to progress in science. I have been pointing out in my recent papers where these huge effects that I speak of can come from. The main point is that the analysis of the measurement process by von Neumann was in the very specialized case of so-called good measurements, and in such cases his analysis, fortified by more recent studies of the effects of interactions of systems with uncontrollable environments, shows that "for all practical purposes" (to use John Bell's phrase), it makes no difference whether the collapses occur at the high level where consciousness comes in, or at some much lower level. These results are the basis of Stan Klein's assertions that the whole business is nothing but metaphysics. But once one allows that the collapses are to states that correspond properly to thoughts then it is not clear that the situation conforms to the "good measurement' requirement that scientists normally impose on the experiments that they themselves consciously design. The point is that the condition of proper correspondence with thoughts is a different condition, and one that can permit thoughts to have huge effects that can be achieved neither within classical mechanics, nor within Bohm's no-collapse model of quantum theory, nor within a quantum model with collapses only at low levels. It is this possibility that makes the discussion of quantum mechanics of great possible relevance to the science of consciousness. Quantum mechanics provides a ready-made framework that can very naturally allow our thoughts, per se, to enter in crucial and efficacious ways into the production of our actions, and, if human experiences have counterparts in other biological systems, in the survival of species. I have discussed these matters at some length in my recent papers, which are available on my web site. Henry P. Stapp http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html