A model of the quantum-classical and mind-brain connections, and of the role of the quantum Zeno effect in the physical implementation of conscious intent
A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurement and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.
A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurement and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.
Recent theoretical and experimental papers support the prevailing opinion that large warm systems will rapidly lose quantum coherence, and that classical properties will emerge. This rapid loss of coherence would naturally be expected to block any critical role for quantum theory in explaining the interaction between our conscious experiences and the physical activities of our brains. However, there is a quantum theory of mind in which the efficacy of mental effort is not affected by decoherence effects. In this theory the effects of mental action on brain activity is achieved by a Quantum Zeno Effect that is not weakened by decoherence. The theory is based on a relativistic version of von Neumann's quantum theory. It encompasses all the predictions of Copenhagen quantum theory, which include all the validated predictions of classical physical theory. In addition, it forges two-way dynamical links between the physical and experiential aspects of nature. The theory has significant explanatory power.
A quantum mechanical theory of the relationship between perceptions and brain dynamics based on von Neumann's theory of measurments is applied to a recent quantum theoretical treatment of binocular rivaly that makes essential use of the quantum Zeno effect to give good fits to the complex available empirical data. The often-made claim that decoherence effects in the warm, wet, noisy brain must eliminate quantum effects at the macroscopic scale pertaining to perceptions is examined, and it is argued, on the basis of fundamental principles. that the usual decoherence effects will not upset the quantum Zeno effect that is being exploited in the cited work.
In the context of theories of the connection between mind and brain, physicalism is the demand that all is basically purely physical. But the concept of "physical" embodied in this demand is characterized essentially by the properties of the physical that hold in classical physical theories. Certain of these properties contradict the character of the physical in quantum mechanics, which provides a better, more comprehensive, and more fundamental account of phenomena. It is argued that the difficulties that have plaged physicalists for half a century, and that continue to do so, dissolve when the classical idea of the physical is replaced by its quantum successor. The argument is concretized in a way that makes it accessible to non-physicists by exploiting the recent evidence connecting our conscious experiences to macroscopic measurable synchronous oscillations occurring in well-separated parts of the brain. A specific new model of the mind-brain connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intent.
The original Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was offered as a pragmatic methodology for making predictions about future experiences on the basis of knowledge gleaned from past experiences. It was, therefore, fundamentally about mental realities, and refrained from speaking about a more inclusive reality. Von Neumann created, later, what is called the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics. It incorporates all of the Copenhagen-based predictions about connections between experiences into a rationally coherent conception of a dynamically integrated psychophysical reality. Von Neumann’s formulation allows the same laws and concepts that are used to make predictions about atomic phenomena to account for the capacity of our mental intentions to influence our bodily actions. Danko Georgiev claims to have found logical flaws in my use of von Neumann’s theory to explain this causal effectiveness of our mental intentions. The bulk of Georgiev’s paper gives a detailed discussion of a system with just two base states, up and down. This is not an adequate model of the pertinent physical system, a human brain. Georgiev’s attempt to relate his two-state work to the case at hand is flawed by statements such as “…in von Neumann’s formulation there are no such things as minds, spirits, ghosts, or souls, …” Von Neumann’s formulation certainly does involve minds. Georgiev’s choice of words seems designed to suggest that I am introducing mental qualities and assumptions that go beyond what are already parts of von Neumann’s theory. I explain here why these allegations, and all his other allegations of errors, are incorrect.
NeuroQuantology | December 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 4| Page 601-605
In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrodinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.