arXiv:q-bio/0401019

Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A New Theory With Respect to Mind/Brain Interaction

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Henry Pierce Stapp, M. Beauregard

Published Jan 14, 2004• 5 citations

Abstract

The cognitive frame in which most neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior is conducted contains the assumption that brain mechanisms per se fully suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms must therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. One consequence of this stance is that psychological terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (terms such as "feeling," "knowing," and "effort") have not been included as primary causal factors in neuropsychological research: insofar as properties are not described in material terms they are deemed irrelevant to the causal mechanisms underlying brain function. However, the origin of this demand that experiential realities be excluded from the causal base is a theory of nature that has been known for more that three quarters of a century to be fundamentally incorrect. It is explained here why it is consequently scientifically unwarranted to assume that material factors alone can in principle explain all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience. More importantly, it is explained how a key quantum effect can be introduced into brain dynamics in a simple and practical way that provides a rationally coherent, causally formulated, physics-based way of understanding and using the psychological and physical data derived from the growing set of studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.q-bio/0401019

Related papers

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysicalmodel of the mind/brain interaction

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Henry Pierce Stapp, Mario Beauregard

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g., ''feeling,'' ''knowing,'' and ''effort'') are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classical physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, due to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analyzing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classical-physics-based predecessor is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics, and is able to represent more adequately than classical concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.

Sep 21, 20040 citations

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Henry Pierce Stapp, Mario Beauregard

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. 'feeling', 'knowing' and 'effort') are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesJun 29, 2005305 citations

Physics in Neuroscience

Henry Pierce Stapp

Brain data pertaining to control of emotions through conscious effort is explained by using a quantum mechanical model of the body/brain of the subject. Unlike the classical model, in which all the causal structure is expressed exclusively in terms of the physical variables, the quantum mechanical model involves causal connections between aspects of the subject described in physical termss with aspects described in psychological terms, and it can explain how the latter affects the former. The data is expressed partially in psychological terms of emotions and conscious effort and partially in terms of observations by the scientists of devices that measure physically described properties of the brain. The quantum model allows these differently described aspects to be causally connected, whereas the classical model must reduce everything to the physical description, in order to display the causal links. But the failure of classical mechanics is the failure of the idea that, in situations such as this, where the behaviour of the physical system (the brain) depends sensitively upon the motions of its atomic and ionic constuents, the purely physical descriptions are causally complete.

Jan 1, 20041 citation

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysical model o f mind/brain interaction

Henry Pierce Stapp, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Mario Beauregard

Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human beings about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual structure for describing neural processes.

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryJun 1, 20047 citations

The Brain Knows More than It Admits: a Quantum Model and its Experimental Con

Elio Conte, Nunzia Santacroce, Vincenza Laterza +3 more

Neuroscience has realized valuable advances.As example, it has identified brain regions performing learning, memory, feeling and still more.The current tendency in neuroscience retains that adding pieces of knowledge day by day, we will finally arrive to an unified understanding of brain including the manner in which mind and consciousness arise and explain their functions.Also a number of empirical psychological results have been collected.However a profound gap remains between neuroscience advances and empirical psychological data .We retain that such existing gap is due to a missing theoretical model linking neuroscience to psychology .We have arrived to formulate a basic theoretical quantum model particularly of the perceptive -cognitive functions.The result is that quantum mechanics has a decisive role in human cognition.Our quantum model relates directly our mind entities.The model also finds the existing correlations between the brain time dynamics operating without direct awareness and the subsequent behaviour that is induced determining our subsequent behaviours.In the present paper we discuss in detail and for the first time such further basic features of the model.We perform one experiment on priming showing that its results agree with the given quantum mechanical basic model.

Electronic journal of theoretical physicsJan 1, 201212 citations

Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics

Henry Pierce Stapp

How is mind related to matter? This ancient question in philosophy is rapidly becoming a core problem in science, perhaps the most important of all because it probes the essential nature of man himself. The origin of the problem is a conflict between the mechanical conception of human beings that arises from the precepts of classical physical theory and the very different idea that arises from our intuition: the former reduces each of us to an automaton, while the latter allows our thoughts to guide our actions. The dominant contemporary approaches to the problem attempt to resolve this conflict by clinging to the classical concepts, and trying to explain away our misleading intuition. But a detailed argument given here shows why, in a scientific approach to this problem, it is necessary to use the more basic principles of quantum physics, which bring the observer into the dynamics, rather than to accept classical precepts that are profoundly incorrect precisely at the crucial point of the role of human consciousness in the dynamics of human brains. Adherence to the quantum principles yields a dynamical theory of the mind/brain/body system that is in close accord with our intuitive idea of what we are. In particular, the need for a self-observing quantum system to pose certain questions creates a causal opening that allows mind/brain dynamics to have three distinguishable but interlocked causal processes, one micro-local, one stochastic, and the third experiential. Passing to the classical limit in which the critical difference between zero and the finite actual value of Planck's constant is ignored not only eliminates the chemical processes that are absolutely crucial to the functioning of actual brains, it simultaneously blinds the resulting theoretical construct to the physical fine structure wherein the effect of mind on matter lies: the use of this limit in this context is totally unjustified from a physics perspective.

May 17, 19993 citations