The Heisenberg–James–Stapp (quantum mechanical) mind model is surveyed and criticized briefly. The criticism points out that the model, while being essentially consistent concerning (human) consciousness, fundamentally lacks the evolutional point of view both onto- and phylogenetically. Ethology and other than Jamesian psychology is quoted and a quantum mechanical theoretical scheme is suggested to essentially extend Stapp’s frame in an evolutionary context. It is proposed that its central supposition, spontaneous quantum measurement can be better utilized in an investigation of the origin of the “subjective” process, having come about concomitantly with the chemistry of the origin of life. We dwell on its applicability at this latter process, at its heart standing, it is supposed, the endophysical nonlinear “self-measurement” of (quantum mechanically describable) matter, and so our investigation is extended to this primeval phenomenon. It is suggested that the life phenomenon is an indirect C* → (W*) → C* quantum algebraic process transition, where the (W*) system would represent the living state. Summarized also are our previous results on an internalized, “reversed”, time process, introduced originally by Gunji, which is subordinated to the external “forwards” time evolution, driving towards symmetry by gradual space-mappings, where the original splitting-up must have come about in a spontaneous symmetry breaking nonlinear “self-measurement” of matter in an endophysical World.
The Heisenberg–James–Stapp (quantum mechanical) mind model is surveyed and criticized briefly. The criticism points out that the model, while being essentially consistent concerning (human) consciousness, fundamentally lacks the evolutional point of view both onto- and phylogenetically. Ethology and other than Jamesian psychology is quoted and a quantum mechanical theoretical scheme is suggested to essentially extend Stapp’s frame in an evolutionary context. It is proposed that its central supposition, spontaneous quantum measurement can be better utilized in an investigation of the origin of the “subjective” process, having come about concomitantly with the chemistry of the origin of life. We dwell on its applicability at this latter process, at its heart standing, it is supposed, the endophysical nonlinear “self-measurement” of (quantum mechanically describable) matter, and so our investigation is extended to this primeval phenomenon. It is suggested that the life phenomenon is an indirect C* → (W*) → C* quantum algebraic process transition, where the (W*) system would represent the living state. Summarized also are our previous results on an internalized, “reversed”, time process, introduced originally by Gunji, which is subordinated to the external “forwards” time evolution, driving towards symmetry by gradual space-mappings, where the original splitting-up must have come about in a spontaneous symmetry breaking nonlinear “self-measurement” of matter in an endophysical World.
The symbol-matter problem of biological systems, posed clearly by H. H. Pattee, is followed up to its origin in a quantum mechanical framework. The two complementer descriptional mode (i.e. dynamical versus symbolic or quantum mechanical versus ''classical'') are defined as connected in a Copenhagen–type quasiclassical (h → 0) dynamics (internal time-dependent discrete projection operator formalism). The concept of natural symbol as constraint is described in the form of a quasiclassical wavefunction with classical measurement records as variables while the basic projectors are defined as a quasiclassical dynamical "bra" Hilbert vector acting on a quantum dynamical "ket" vector. The origin problem is touched necessarily upon, as a split between measurement record (so its quasiclassical wavefunction, natural symbol) and the quantum mechanical dynamical wavefunction. The concept of symmetry-restoring internal time process is introduced, following from compelling internal retrocausality of a time evolution (advocated several times elsewhere). While adopting basically the Copenhagen view, using some ideas of Everett and other aspects of non–orthodox formulations of quantum measurement, it is shown that the necessary imbedding of internal (-τ) time evolution into the split off external (+t) one and internal time ’’quantizations’’ (leading to a discrete total semigroup) results in a converging chain of quantum internal measurement transitions, similar to those introduced by H. P. Stapp in his symbolic (human mind-) model, ultimately leading to a model of an elementary, very special self-reproducing quantum automata, where the state transition functions are internally determined (programmed) from the very origin of their emergence. It is shown that only off-diagonal statistical matrix elements are to be used in the internal projectionally evoluting time–series (metabolism), ’’self’’-reproduction (diagonality) being the fixed point of the recursion of the internal state transitions of the proposed quantum mechanical automata model (’’metaphor’’).
Henry Stapp attempts to resolve the Cartesian dilemma by introducing what the author would characterize as an ontological dualism between mind and matter. His model for mind comes from William James` description of conscious events and for matter from Werner Heisenberg`s ontological model for quantum events (wave function collapse). His demonstration of the isomorphism between the two types of events is successful, but in the author`s opinion fails to establish a monistic, scientific theory. The author traces Stapp`s failure to his adamant rejection of arbitrariness, or `randomness`. This makes it impossible for him (or for Bohr and Pauli before him) to understand the power of Darwin`s explanation of biology, let along the triumphs of modern `neo-Darwinism`. The author notes that the point at issue is a modern version of the unresolved opposition between Leucippus and Democritus on one side and Epicurus on the other. Stapp`s views are contrasted with recent discussions of consciousness by two eminent biologists: Crick and Edelman. They locate the problem firmly in the context of natural selection on the surface of the earth. Their approaches provide a sound basis for further scientific work. The author briefly examines the connection between this scientific (rather than ontological) framework and the new fundamental theory based on bit-strings and the combinatorial hierarchy.
Contemporary physics finds itself pondering questions about mind and consciousness, an uncomfortable area for theorists. But historically, key figures at the founding of quantum theory assumed that reality was composed of two parts, mind and matter, which interacted with each other according to some new laws that they specified. This departure from the prior (classical-physicalist) assumption that mind was a mere side effect of brain activity was such a startling proposal that it basically split physics in two, with one camp insisting that mind will ultimately be explained via physical processes in the brain and the other camp embracing mind as innate in creation and the key to understanding reality in its completeness. Henry Stapp made important contributions toward a coherent explanation by advocating John von Neumann’s orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics. von Neumann postulated that at its basis, quantum mechanics requires both a psychological and physical component. He was left, however, with a dualist view in which the psychological and physical aspects of QM remained unresolved. In this article, the relevant issues are laid out with the aim of finding a nondual explanation that allows mind and matter to exist as features of the same universal consciousness, in the hope that the critical insights of Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, and Stapp will be recognized and valued, with the aim of an expanded physics that goes beyond physicalist dogma.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
A number of modern scientists adheres to the point of view that, despite the fact that quantum mechanics does not allow to explain the existence of mental phenomena in the physical world, with the help of its inherent ontological principles and mathematical formalism, it is possible to understand the functioning of consciousness and the unconscious. Based on the analogy between quantum and mental processes, the unconscious can be represented as a superposition of mental states, and consciousness — in the form of decoherence of unconscious experiences. From an evolutionary point of view, consciousness can be considered as a consequence of the accumulation of a sufficient amount of information during the interaction of the organism with the surrounding environment, when the transition from the quantum state of the unconscious to the classical state of consciousness is carried out at the psychic level of being, by analogy with the accumulation of a sufficient amount of information by a quantum system during interaction with the environment, when at the physical level of being the collapse of the wave function. In psychotherapy and psychodiagnostics, one can see an analogy with the measurement process in quantum mechanics and a quantum leap from one mental state to another. However, the analysis of this point of view carried out in the article shows that the parallels between quantum mechanics and psychology today look insufficiently substantiated, since the mathematical model of the psyche, which allows describing human behavior on the basis of the laws of quantum mechanics, has not yet been built, which is why, firstly, the use of quantum-physical terminology in the understanding of mental experience does not rise to the level of scientific theory, remaining a metaphor, and, secondly, quantum psychology has a predictive potential, in contrast to the psychology of the classical type.
This note was written by a theoretical physicist currently working on physical aspects of consciousness, mind-matter relationships, and mind-body interactions. My purpose here is to inform the readers of this journal, in not too technical terms, of some recent ideas relating quantum mechanics, gravitation, and psychological phenomena. Attempts to relate the nature of consciousness to quantum mechanics have been known almost from the be+g of quantum mechanics. For an extended discussion and earlier references see, e.g., Stapp (1982). The common thread of the majority of the suggested hypotheses linking consciousness to a quantum level of description is a drawing of a between the spontaneous localization of mental patterns and (spontaneous or induced) reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The latter essentially means that quantum systems are inherently described in probabilistic terms and any external observation reduces the manyfold of all potential possibilia to a single given realization. Interpretation of this process is one of the most difficult and controversial topics of quantum mechanics since in quantum mechanics it is thus far essentially impossible to demarcate unambiguously the observer from the quantum system itself. Despite that gravitational effects are usually deemed to be too weak at atomic level, a few authors recently discussed gravity as an inherent route used by nature to achieve an automatic spontaneous reduction of the wave functions of extended objects. In his recent book, Roger Penrose (1989) looks for the possible connections between consciousness, quantum mechanical reduction and gravitational phenomena. To simplify, the essence of these hypotheses is that subtle gravitational effects at the atomic-molecular level lock the brain into a particular mental state, thereby providing the materialization of the potential (quantum) mental image by the route similar to the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Isotopic diversity of chemical elements can substantially contribute to this picture, as well as to life processes in general (Berezin, 1988). Since gravity is a mass-sensitive effect, the fact that different stable isotopes of the same element (e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen) have different atomic masses may affect the path of mental processing.