Science and the Human Person [Outline of Dec 8 talk at SSQII workshop in NYC on "Science and the Human Person"] 1. My topic is the physics of the human person. 2. The scientific data pertaining to the human person is basically of two kinds: 1) Reports about the body/brain of the person: e.g., reports about readings of instruments that probe the person's physical body/brain: These are reports about spacetime locations, motions, and shapes of observable physical objects and systems. 2) Reports by the person about what he or she is experiencing: e.g., personal reports about feelings, perceptions, etc. 3. To discuss the internal dynamics of a human person two physical theories can be considered: Classical (physical) theory. (CT) Quantum theory. (QT) 4. Classical theory is limited in principle to cases in which the observer is essentially a PASSIVE WITNESS: it is limited cases in which the process of observation does not significantly affect the system being observed. 5. Quantum theory covers the general case of an ACTIVE OBSERVER. It covers classical theory as a special case. 6. Consider the case of a human person engaged in reporting his introspections. 7. This activity involves an active interplay between the person's experiences and his body/brain. 8. It would be prejudicial to ASSUME in this that we can use classical theory in this case. 9. Philosophical argument for using QT: Quantum theory does not require mind to be either PASSIVE (%) or IDENTICAL with something of a different logical type (#). 10. However, no appeal to philosophy is needed to justify the need to use QT: PHYSICS, by itself, shows that classical theory is IN PRINCIPLE INAPPLICABLE to the study of the mind-brain system. An important feature of brain dynamics is the occasional sudden release of neurotransmitter at (cortical) nerve terminals. The release is triggered by the arrival of calcium ions at trigger sites. An analysis of the consequences of the QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE in the motion of calcium ions from ion-channel exits to trigger sites shows that quantum effects inject significant uncertainty into whether or not the neuro transmitter is released: Consequently, classical determinism CANNOT hold.. 11. Quantum theory can describe a two-way interaction between mind and body/brain. How is that possible? 12. I shall explain how this works---without using formulas--- by means of A COOKIE-DOUGH ANALOGY. Imagine a chunk of cookie dough spread out evenly on a cookie tray. Each point on the tray corresponds to a classical state of the entire body/brain of the person (or perhaps an entire organism or biological cell): i.e., each point on the tray is imagined to determine the position and velocity of EVERY particle in that system (and also the values of the EM and GRAV fields at each spacetime point in the system.) In CLASSICAL theory the changing state of the system is represented by the motion on the cookie tray of A MICROSCOPIC BALL OF DOUGH. But in QUANTUM theory the changing state of the system is represented by AN ENTIRE CHUNK OF DOUGH, whose parts are flowing about on the tray. An "observation" of the system corresponds to taking a cookie cutter, of some specified shape and location, and applying it to the dough, thus separating the chunk of dough into two parts: one part inside the cutter and the other part outside the cutter. The basic REDUCTION POSTULATE of quantum theory says that when this "observation" is performed either all the dough outide the cutter will suddenly vanish. or all the dough inside the cutter will suddenly vanish: This is the famous "reduction of the wave packet" or "collapse of the wave function". The basic PROBABILITY POSTULATE asserts that the ratio of the probabilities that the parts inside or outside the cookie cutter will survive is directly proportional to ratio of the amounts of dough inside or outside the cookie cutter. THREE KEY DYNAMICAL QUESTIONS are: 1) What determines the SHAPE of the cookie cutter? 2) What determines the LOCATION where it is applied? 3) What determines WHEN it is applied? The deterministic equation of motion, the Schroedinger equation, answers none of these questions: OTHER DYNAMICAL PRINCIPLES ARE NEEDED! 13. The main mind-blowing answer give by the founders of quantum theory is this: The shape of the cookie cutter and the location where it is applied is such that every point on the cookie tray what lies inside the applied cookie cutter corresponds to the same EXPERIENCE OF THE OBSERVER. And the TIME of the application is time when the observation occurs. This brings the EXPERIENCE OF THE OBSERVER into the dynamics in an essential way. 14. Originally the theory was promulgated as merely a set of practical rules connecting human experiences. 15. But von Neuman and Wigner said a dynamics involving human experience should involve the human brain; our cookie dough represents the brain/body of the person. 16. The quantum uncertainties cause the cookie dough to spread out. But then it spreads into regions of the cookie tray corresponding to different possible experiences: e.g., to different `perceptions', or to different felt `intentions' about future actions. 17. Suppose there is a cookie cutter for each possible experience. Some rule is needed to specify WHICH of these possible cookie-cutters will be applied to the dough. and WHEN it will be applied.. I have cooked up a conceivable set of reasonably natural rules. They are basically illustrative, yet explain a lot of data. 18. The brain constructs a set of possible appropriate course of action. The best one to try first is the one with greatest "weight": a lot possible random choices led to that plan of action. This rule is a physically deterministic (determined by the dough), but not micro-local deterministic rule. 19. But what rule determines WHEN that "best" cutter is applied? 20. Based on some ideas and results of Ben Libet I propose that the cutter will be applied only when a "consent" is given. 21. And CONSENT IS BASED ON FEEL. 22. I assume that "mental effort" can speed up the RATE at which the observations occur. ( i.e., the rate at which the cookie-cutter cuts cookies) 23. Then the mathematics shows that mental effort can influence behaviour by keeping the dough from spreading as fast as it would in the corresponding classical theory. Mental effort can keep an intention in place. 24. This effect can give organisms that exploit the quantum possibilities a survival advantage. 25. If there is a maximum rate at which the cookies can be cut then this constitutes a "mental capacity" or "mental resource", which can be divided among different tasks. 26. Two processes: Schroedinger is parallel processing, Mental is linear. 27. Pashler: A lot of empirical data about interference between different simultaneously performed tasks shows two processes. Classically puzzling. Many detailed connection found. Parallel-Linear-Effort-Speed-... My theory seems to be compatible with everything in Pashler's book, including many details that Pashler described as puzzling. The theory has significant explanatory power. [See http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/vnr.txt Final Section] 28. I am NOT claiming that mind is a free agent. 29. I am claiming that quantum theory can give a rationally coherent dynamical linkage between mind and body/brain, IN SPITE OF THE HUGE CONCEPTUAL DISPARITY BETWEEN THESE TWO ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON. 30. And the specific proposed dynamics seems to be in accord with 1) all known physical laws, 2) all presently available empirical data, and 3) our intuitive idea of the effect of a person's mental effort on his actions. 31. This physics-based conception of the human person can be useful as a framework for research connecting neuroscience to psychology. 32. It is also a rational antidote to the morally corrosive material conception of the human person, which is often promulgated as the only possibility compatible with science. -------------------------------------------------------------- (%) Reasons for believing that mind is not passive: 1) Wigner: Every action has a reaction. 2) James: Evolution of mind/brain requires feed-back. 3) Parsimony: Nature would not create a whole new ontological type that has no effect. (#) A Counter argument: Identity Theory. There is only one ontological type: Each experience IS a body-brain activity. Argument against identity theory WITHIN CLASSICAL PHYSICAL THEORY. The defining characteristics that identify a hurricane, an oak leaf, physical temperature, physical light, a physical computer running a certain program, a biological cell, etc. are, according to the ideas of classical physics, logical constructs formed from the properties of the classical micro-elements out of which these things are formed. [All well-defined physical properties are, according to the ideas of classical physical theory, logical constructs formed from properties of collections of micro-elements that have no properties other than those spelled out in classical physics.] But the defining characteristic of a painful experience, namely that it is an experience of the painful kind, is not a logical construct of this kind: given that all the structural conditions are met there is no logical assurance that the specified feeling exists.