[Ethos_]

To be honest, I see nothing less reasonable in the above than Stapp's proposal. But I suspect it would not appeal to someone looking for a bridge to a mystical realm or hoping to incorporate their religious views into science.

Quite appropriate for this time, place, and personalities I must say!

[alancalverd]

I might be convinced to read Stapp on the subject if someone can provide a one-line quote: what is Stapp's definition of consciousness?

Don't hold your breath alan, Doc. Don is quite incapable of meaningful and efficient one liners................................

I gave up reading most of Don Q's repetitive drivel several pages ago, but I was hoping that someone might have found just one reasonably selfconsistent, or at least published, definition of consciousness that might provide some kind of anchor for this otherwise pointless discussion. 

[dlorde]

1 more thing , just concerning the collapse of the wave function : are  the observing or  measuring device + the observer human not made of atoms ,sub-atoms .....themselves ?
So, how can't they not have effects on the observed ?

In the case of the human observer scientist , how can his mind or consciousness not have causal effects on the observed as well ?

How so? are you unaware how vision works?

Did you forget what a measuring device or observer actually is in QM?

[cheryl j]

1 more thing , just concerning the collapse of the wave function : are  the observing or  measuring device + the observer human not made of atoms ,sub-atoms .....themselves ?
So, how can't they not have effects on the observed ?
In the case of the human observer scientist , how can his mind or consciousness not have causal effects on the observed as well ?
In short :

Well, I'm glad you asked that. It brings up another question Donald had:

"Stapp has not explained how he supposes such changes are
limited. Why should they be restricted to changes within a brain? If mental forces can effectively decide the trajectories of atoms or molecules inside a brain, why can they not decide the trajectories of electrons in a laboratory or of prey in the ocean? What determined the point in evolutionary history when brains are supposed to have started to be able to make choices?"

In other words, if my conscious agency can choose which brain state I will experience, why cannot I choose yours as well? Why can I not use the Zeno effect to change the outcome of anything in the macro world that might be have some non-deterministic, quantum element? There would certainly be a huge evolutionary pay off if I could.

 And speaking of evolution, which animals get to have a conscious agency and why?

[dlorde]

To be honest, I see nothing less reasonable in the above than Stapp's proposal. But I suspect it would not appeal to someone looking for a bridge to a mystical realm or hoping to incorporate their religious views into science.

The integrated information hypothesis is a good start  - consciousness clearly involves the integration of information, and but it's debatable precisely what information must be integrated, and how. Unless you're careful, it can end up being a circular argument - the information required by consciousness must be integrated in a way that results in consciousness... but the information theory approach using connectedness & synergy looks promising and does at least give some crude quantifiability.

[cheryl j]

To be honest, I see nothing less reasonable in the above than Stapp's proposal. But I suspect it would not appeal to someone looking for a bridge to a mystical realm or hoping to incorporate their religious views into science.

The integrated information hypothesis is a good start  - consciousness clearly involves the integration of information, and but it's debatable precisely what information must be integrated, and how. Unless you're careful, it can end up being a circular argument - the information required by consciousness must be integrated in a way that results in consciousness... but the information theory approach using connectedness & synergy looks promising and does at least give some crude quantifiability.

There's probably a lot of problems with the theory. But I don't see how it is any more vague or abstract than a physicist saying (as in Don's James Jeans quote) that information, and not physical matter or energy, is the true basis of everything in the universe, and hence explains consciousness.

[dlorde]

The integrated information hypothesis is a good start  - consciousness clearly involves the integration of information, and but it's debatable precisely what information must be integrated, and how. Unless you're careful, it can end up being a circular argument - the information required by consciousness must be integrated in a way that results in consciousness... but the information theory approach using connectedness & synergy looks promising and does at least give some crude quantifiability.

There's probably a lot of problems with the theory. But I don't see how it is any more vague or abstract than a physicist saying (as in Don's James Jeans quote) that information, and not physical matter or energy, is the true basis of everything in the universe, and hence explains consciousness.

I think Integrated Information is a lot less vague and abstract than that pan-informationalism, and it seems to have far greater explanatory and predictive power - it's one of very few high level models that is testable because it's quantifiable. They've applied it to a variety of information handling & processing systems (biological and non-biological), and it appears to correspond well with our native assessment of consciousness in those systems, which suggests it has captured something useful about consciousness. The devil is in the detail, of course.

[dlorde]

More evidence consistent with consciousness as a brain process and inconsistent with the immaterial hypothesis:   two patients who were having conscious-&-aware brain surgery for epilepsy both reported strong sensations of foreboding and determination to overcome adversity when the same part of the brain (anterior midcingulate cortex) was stimulated. When the stimulation stopped, the sensations stopped. See Brain Stimulation Gives Will To Persevere.

[Ethos_]

There's probably a lot of problems with the theory. But I don't see how it is any more vague or abstract than a physicist saying (as in Don's James Jeans quote) that information, and not physical matter or energy, is the true basis of everything in the universe, and hence explains consciousness.

Here is one instance where I can partially agree with Don, but that agreement only refers to the administration of information. Where he comes up short is, he fails to recognize that like anything else, information has to be stored somewhere. The storage of information is processed in the brain and the application of that information is applied there as well.

Mysticism only complicates the natural process we call mental activity.

[alancalverd]

Why can I not use the Zeno effect to change the outcome of anything in the macro world that might be have some non-deterministic, quantum element? There would certainly be a huge evolutionary pay off if I could.

Because all the work that purports to show a connection between observation and behaviour actually involves "active" observation, where the "observer" interferes with the system being observed.

You can't passively observe events in real time - even the simplest quantum transition that emits a photon, has to occur a few nanoseconds before you observe it because the photon has to travel to the detector. Thus a true Zeno effect requires the system to "know" that you are waiting for it to do something, without you having "told" it in any way.

Therefore either the entire universe is predestined down to the last photon, or there is no Zeno effect.   

[cheryl j]

Thus a true Zeno effect requires the system to "know" that you are waiting for it to do something, without you having "told" it in any way.

Therefore either the entire universe is predestined down to the last photon, or there is no Zeno effect.   

Well. That's a bit troublesome, isn't it?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Cheryl : See this : Highly interesting and fascinating : Concerning the consciousness -dependent observation , the original Copenhagen interpretation, How Planck's constant that paved the way to quantum theory replaced numbers by actions , and much more :
If the following does not succeed in convincing you of what i have been saying , then , nothingelse will :

"Human Knowledge
as the Foundation of Science" :


In the introduction to his book Quantum Theory and Reality the
philosopher of science Mario Bunge (1967, p. 4) said:
The physicist of the latest generation is operationalist all right,
but usually he does not know, and refuses to believe, that the
original Copenhagen interpretation – which he thinks he supports
– was squarely subjectivist, i.e., nonphysical.
Let there be no doubt about this point. The original form of quantum
theory is subjective, in the sense that it is forthrightly about relationships
among conscious human experiences, and it expressly recommends
to scientists that they resist the temptation to try to understand
the reality responsible for the correlations between our experiences
that the theory correctly describes. The following brief collection
of quotations by the founders gives a conspectus of the Copenhagen
philosophy:
The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles
has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality
concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics
that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather
our knowledge of this behavior. (Heisenberg 1958a, p. 100)
[. . . ] the act of registration of the result in the mind of the
observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function
[. . . ] takes place with the act of registration, because it is the
discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration
that has its image in the discontinuous change of the
probability function. (Heisenberg 1958b, p. 55)
When the old adage “Natura non facit saltus” (Nature makes
no jumps) is used as a basis of a criticism of quantum theory,
we can reply that certainly our knowledge can change suddenly,
and that this fact justifies the use of the term ‘quantum jump’.
(Heisenberg 1958b, p. 54)
It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics
in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.
(Wigner 1961b, p. 169)
In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the
real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible
relations between the multifold aspects of our experience.
(Bohr 1934, p. 18)
Strictly speaking, the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics
merely offers rules of calculation for the deduction of
expectations about observations obtained under well-defined
classical concepts. (Bohr 1963, p. 60)
[. . . ] the appropriate physical interpretation of the symbolic
quantum mechanical formalism amounts only to prediction
of determinate or statistical character, pertaining to individual
phenomena appearing under conditions defined by classical
physics concepts. (Bohr 1958, p. 64)
The references to ‘classical (physics) concepts’ is explained by Bohr as
follows:
[. . . ] it is imperative to realize that in every account of physical
experience one must describe both experimental conditions and
observations by the same means of communication as the one
used in classical physics. Bohr (1958, p. 88)
[. . . ] we must recognize above all that, even when phenomena
transcend the scope of classical physical theories, the account
of the experimental arrangement and the recording of observations
must be given in plain language supplemented by technical
physical terminology. (Bohr 1958)
Bohr is saying that scientists do in fact use, and must use, the concepts
of classical physics in communicating to their colleagues the specifications
on how the experiment is to be set up, and what will constitute
a certain type of outcome. He in no way claims or admits that there
is an actual objective reality out there that conforms to the precepts
of classical physics.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

In his book The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the Bohr–
Pauli Dialogue, the historian John Hendry (1984) gives a detailed account
of the fierce struggles by such eminent thinkers as Hilbert, Jordan,
Weyl, von Neumann, Born, Einstein, Sommerfeld, Pauli, Heisenberg,
Schroedinger, Dirac, Bohr and others, to come up with a rational
way of comprehending the data from atomic experiments. Each man
had his own bias and intuitions, but in spite of intense effort no rational
comprehension was forthcoming. Finally, at the 1927 Solvay conference
a group including Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and Born come into
concordance on a solution that came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation,
due to the central role of Bohr and those working with
him at his institute in Denmark.
Hendry says: “Dirac, in discussion, insisted on the restriction of the
theory’s application to our knowledge of a system, and on its lack of
ontological content.” Hendry summarized the concordance by saying:
“On this interpretation it was agreed that, as Dirac explained, the wave
function represented our knowledge of the system, and the reduced
wave packets our more precise knowledge after measurement.”
These quotations make it clear that, in direct contrast to the ideas
of classical physical theory, orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory is
about ‘our knowledge’. We, and in particular our mental aspects, have
entered into the structure of basic physical theory.
This profound shift in physicists’ conception of the basic nature
of their endeavor, and of the meanings of their formulas, was not a
frivolous move: it was a last resort. The very idea that in order to comprehend
atomic phenomena one must abandon physical ontology, and
construe the mathematical formulas to be directly about the knowledge
of human observers, rather than about external reality itself, is
so seemingly preposterous that no group of eminent and renowned
scientists would ever embrace it except as an extreme last measure.
Consequently, it would be frivolous of us simply to ignore a conclusion
so hard won and profound, and of such apparent direct bearing on our
effort to understand the connection of our conscious thoughts to our
bodily actions.
Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation. He said:
What does not satisfy me, from the standpoint of principle, is
its attitude toward what seems to me to be the programmatic
aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual)
real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act
of observation or substantiation). (Einstein 1951, p. 667; the
parenthetical word and phrase are part of Einstein’s statement.)
and
What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic
attitude, which from my view is untenable, and which
seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley’s principle,
esse est percipi. [Transl: To be is to be perceived] (Einstein
1951, p. 669)
Einstein struggled until the end of his life to get the observer’s knowledge
back out of physics. He did not succeed! Rather he admitted (ibid.
p. 87) that:
It is my opinion that the contemporary quantum theory constitutes
an optimum formulation of the [statistical] connections.
He also referred (ibid, p. 81) to:
[. . . ] the most successful physical theory of our period, viz., the
statistical quantum theory which, about twenty-five years ago
took on a logically consistent form. This is the only theory at
present which permits a unitary grasp of experiences concerning
the quantum character of micro-mechanical events.
One can adopt the cavalier attitude that these profound difficulties
with the classical conception of nature are just some temporary retrograde
aberration in the forward march of science. One may imagine,
as some do, that a strange confusion has confounded our best minds
for seven decades, and that the weird conclusions of physicists can
be ignored because they do not fit a tradition that worked for two
centuries. Or one can try to claim that these problems concern only
atoms and molecules, but not the big things built out of them. In this
connection Einstein said (ibid, p. 674): “But the ‘macroscopic’ and
‘microscopic’ are so inter-related that it appears impracticable to give
up this program [of basing physics on the ‘real’] in the ‘microscopic’
domain alone.”
These quotations document the fact that Copenhagen quantum
theory brings human consciousness into physical theory in an essential
way. But how does this radical change in basic physics affect science’s
conception of the human person?
To answer this query I begin with a few remarks on the development
of quantum theory.
The original version of quantum theory, called the Copenhagen
quantum theory, or the Copenhagen interpretation, is forthrightly
pragmatic. It aims to show how the mathematical structure of the
theory can be employed to make useful, testable predictions about our
future possible experiences on the basis of our past experiences and
the forms of the actions that we choose to make. In this initial version
of the theory the brains and bodies of the experimenters, and
also their measuring devices, are described fundamentally in empirical
terms: in terms of our experiences/perceptions pertaining to these devices
and their manipulations by our physical bodies. The devices are
treated as extensions of our bodies. However, the boundary between
our empirically described selves and the physically described system
we are studying is somewhat arbitrary. The empirically described measuring
devices can become very tiny, and physically described systems
can become very large, This ambiguity was examined by von Neumann
(1932) who showed that we can consistently describe the entire physical
world, including the brains of the experimenters, as the physically described
world, with the actions instigated by an experimenter’s stream
of consciousness acting directly upon that experimenter’s brain. The
interaction between the psychologically and physically described aspects
in quantum theory thereby becomes the mind–brain interaction
of neuroscience and neuropsychology.
It is this von Neumann extension of Copenhagen quantum theory
that provides the foundation for a rationally coherent ontological interpretation
of quantum theory – for a putative description of what is
really happening. Heisenberg suggested an ontological description in
his 1958 book Physics and Philosophy and I shall adhere to that ontology,
formulated within von Neumann’s framework in which the brain,
as part of the physical world, is described in terms of the quantum
mathematics. This localizes the mind–matter problem at the interface
between the quantum mechanically described brain and the experientially
described stream of consciousness of the human agent/observer.
My aim in this book is to explain to non-physicist the interplay
between the psychologically and physically described components of
mind–brain dynamics, as it is understood within the orthodox (von
Neumann–Heisenberg) quantum framework.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Actions, Knowledge, and Information:
 The Anti-Newtonian Revolution:



From the time of Isaac Newton until about 1925 science relegated
consciousness to the role of passive viewer: our thoughts, ideas, and
feelings were treated as impotent bystanders to a march of events
wholly controlled by microscopically describable interactions between
mechanically behaving microscopic basic elements. The founders of
quantum mechanics made the revolutionary move of bringing conscious
human experiences into basic physical theory in a fundamental way.
After two hundred years of neglect, our thoughts were suddenly thrust
into the limelight. This was an astonishing reversal of precedent because
the enormous successes of the prior physics were due in large
measure to the policy of excluding all mention of idea-like qualities
from the formulation of the physical laws.
What sort of crisis could have forced the creators of quantum theory
to contemplate, and eventually embrace, this radical idea of injecting
our thoughts explicitly into the basic laws of physics?
The answer to this question begins with a discovery that occurred
at the end of the nineteenth century. In December of 1900 Max Planck
announced the discovery and measurement of the ‘quantum of action’.
Its measured value is called Planck’s constant. This constant specifies
one of three basic quantities that are built into the fundamental fabric
of the physical universe. The other two are the gravitational constant,
which fixes the strength of the force that pulls every bit of matter
in the solar system toward every other bit, and the speed of light,
which controls the response of every particle to this force, and to every
other force. The integration into physics of each of these three basic
quantities generated a monumental shift in our conception of nature.
Isaac Newton discovered the gravitational constant, which linked
our understandings of celestial and terrestrial dynamics. It connected
the motions of the planets and their moons to the trajectories of cannon
balls here on earth, and to the rising and falling of the tides. In
sofar as his laws are complete the entire physical universe is governed
by mathematical equations that link every bit of matter to every other
bit, and moreover fix the complete course of history for all times from
physical conditions prevailing in the primordial past.
Einstein recognized that the ‘speed of light’ is not just the rate
of propagation of some special kind of wave-like disturbance, namely
‘light’. It is rather a fundamental number that enters into the equations
of motion of every kind of material substance, and, among other things,
prevents any piece of matter from traveling faster than this universal
maximum value. Like Newton’s gravitational constant it is a number
that enters ubiquitously into the basic structure of Nature.
But important as the effects of these two quantities are, they are,
in terms of profundity, like child’s play compared to the consequences
of Planck’s discovery.
Planck’s ‘quantum of action’ revealed itself first in the study of
light, or, more generally, of electromagnetic radiation. The radiant energy
emerging from a tiny hole in a heated hollow container can be decomposed
into its various frequency components. Classical nineteenth
century physics gave a prediction about how that energy should be
distributed among the frequencies, but the empirical facts did not fit
that theory. Eventually, Planck discovered that the empirically correct
formula could be obtained by assuming essentially that the energy was
concentrated in finite packets, with the amount of energy in each such
unit being directly proportional to the frequency of the radiation that
was carrying it. The ratio of energy to frequency is called Planck’s
constant. Its value is extremely small on the scale of normal human
activity, but becomes significant when we come to the behavior of the
atomic particles and fields out of which our bodies, brains, and the
large physical objects around us are made.
Planck’s discovery shattered the classical laws that had been for two
centuries the foundation of the scientific world view. During the years
that followed many experiments were performed on systems whose
behaviors depend sensitively upon the properties of their atomic constituents.
It was repeatedly found that the classical principles did not
work: they gave well defined predictions that turned out to be flat-out
wrong, when confronted with the experimental evidence. The fundamental
laws of physics, which every physics student had been taught,
and upon which much of the industrial and technological world of that
era was based, were failing. More importantly, and surprisingly, they
were failing in ways that no mere tinkering could ever fix. Something
was fundamentally amiss. No one could say how these laws, which were
so important, and that had seemed so perfect, could be fixed. No one
could foresee whether a new theory could be constructed that would
explain these strange and unexpected results, and restore rational order
to our understanding of nature. But one thing was clear to those
working feverishly on the problem: Planck’s constant was somehow at
the center of it all.
3.2 The World of Actions
Werner Heisenberg was, from a technical point of view, the principal
founder of quantum theory. He discovered in 1925 the completely
amazing and wholly unprecedented solution to the puzzle: the quantities
that classical physical theory was based upon, and which were
thought to be numbers, must be treated not as numbers but as actions!
Ordinary numbers, such as 2 and 3, have the property that the
product of any two of them does not depend on the order of the factors:
2 times 3 is the same as 3 times 2. But Heisenberg discovered
that one could get the correct answers out of the old classical laws if
one decreed that certain numbers that occur in classical physics as the
magnitudes of certain physical properties of a material system are not
ordinary numbers. Rather, they must be treated as actions having the
property that the order in which they act matters!
This ‘solution’ may sound absurd or insane. But mathematicians
had already discovered that logically consistent generalizations of ordinary
mathematics exist in which numbers are replaced by ‘actions’
having the property that the order in which they are applied matters.
The ordinary numbers that we use for everyday purposes like buying a
loaf of bread or paying taxes are just a very special case from among a
broad set of rationally coherent mathematical possibilities. In this simplest
case, A times B happens to be the same as B times A. But there
is no logical reason why Nature should not exploit one of the more
general cases: there is no compelling reason why our physical theories
must be based exclusively on ordinary numbers rather than on actions.
The theory based on Heisenberg’s discovery exploits the more general
logical possibility. It is called quantum mechanics, or quantum theory.
The difference between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics
is specified by Planck’s constant, which is a tiny number on the
scale of human actions. Thus this tweaking of laws of physics might
seem to be a bit of mathematical minutia that could scarcely have
any great bearing on the fundamental nature of the universe, or of
our role within it. But replacing numbers by actions upsets the whole
apple cart. It produced a seismic shift in our ideas about both the
nature of reality, and the nature of our relationship to the reality that
envelops and sustains us. The aspects of nature represented by the
theory are converted from elements of being to elements of doing. The
effect of this change is profound: it replaces the world of material substances
by a world populated by actions, and by potentialities for the
occurrence of the various possible observed feedbacks from these actions.
Thus this switch from ‘being’ to ‘action’ allows – and according
to orthodox quantum theory demands – a draconian shift in the very
subject matter of physical theory, from an imagined universe consisting
of causally self-sufficient mindless matter, to a universe populated by
allowed possible physical actions and possible experienced feedbacks
from such actions. A purported theory of matter alone is converted
into a theory of the relationship between matter and mind.
What is this momentous change introduced by Heisenberg?
In classical physics the center point of each physical object has, at
each instant of time, a well defined location, which can be specified
by giving its three coordinates (x, y, z) relative to some coordinate
system. For example, the location of (the center point of) a spider
dangling in a room can be specified by letting z be its distance from
the floor, and letting x and y be its distances from two intersecting
walls. Similarly, the velocity of that dangling spider, as she drops to
the floor, blown by a gust of wind, can be specified by giving the rates
of change of these three coordinates (x, y, z). If each of these three
rates of change, which together specify the velocity, are multiplied by
the weight (= mass) of the spider, then one gets three numbers, say
(p, q, r), that define the momentum of the spider. In classical physics
one uses the set of three numbers denoted by (x, y, z) to represent the
position of the center point of an object, and the set of three numbers
labeled by (p, q, r) to represent the momentum of that object. These
six numbers are just ordinary numbers that obey the commutative
property of multiplication that we all, hopefully, learned in third grade:
x ∗ p equals p ∗ x, where ∗ means multiply.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The six-dimensional space of all possible values (x, y, z; p, q, r) is
called phase space: it is the space of all possible instantaneous ‘states’
of the particle.
Heisenberg’s analysis showed that in order to make the formulas of
classical physics work in general, x ∗ p must be different from p ∗ x. He
found that the difference between these two products must be Planck’s
constant. (Actually, the difference is Planck’s constant divided by 2π
and multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is a number such that
i times i is minus one.) Thus modern quantum theory was born by
recognizing, or declaring, that the symbols used in classical physical
theory to represent ordinary numbers actually represent actions such
that their ordering in a sequence of actions matters. The procedure of
creating the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics from that
of classical physics, by replacing numbers by corresponding actions, is
called ‘quantization’.
The idea of replacing the numbers that specify where a particle is,
and how fast it is moving, by mathematical quantities that violate the
simple laws of arithmetic may strike you – if this is the first you’ve
heard about it – as a giant step in the wrong direction. You might
mutter that scientists should try to make things simpler, rather than
abandoning one of the things we really know for sure, namely that
the order in which one multiplies factors does not matter. But against
that intuition one must recognize that this change works beautifully in
practice: all of the tested predictions of quantum mechanics are borne
out, and these include predictions that are correct to the incredible
accuracy of one part in a hundred million. There must be something
very, very right about this replacement of numbers by actions.
In classical physical theory each elementary particle is asserted to
have at each instant of time a definite location, defined by a set of three
numbers (x, y, z), and definite momentum, defined by a set of three
numbers (p, q, r). In quantum theory one generally considers systems
of many particles, but insofar as one can consider one particle alone
the state of that particle at any instant of time would be represented
by a cloud of pairs of numbers, with one pair of numbers (called a
complex number) assigned to each point in three-dimensional (position)
space. Someone might choose to perform a phenomenologically
(i.e., experimentally/experientially) described probing action on this
‘particle’. In quantum mechanics each such possible probing action
turns out to have an associated set of distinct experientially distinguishable
possible outcomes. The cloud of numbers taken as a whole
determines the probability for the appearance of each of the alternative
possible outcomes of that chosen probing action. The theory thus
gives specified rules for computing the probabilities for each of the distinct
alternative possible empirically described feedbacks from each of
the alternative possible experimental probing actions that the human
experimenter might chose to perform, but no rules that specify which
probing action he or she will choose.
In classical physical theory when one descends from the macroscopic
world of visible objects to the microscopic world of their elemen
tary constituents one arrives at a world containing the ‘solid, massy,
hard, impenetrable moveable particles’ that Newton spoke of. But in
quantum theory one arrives instead at clouds, or quantum smears, of
numbers that taken as a whole have empirical meaning in terms of
probabilities of alternative possible experiences.
Briefly stated, the orthodox formulation of quantum theory (see
Appendix D) asserts that, in order to connect adequately the mathematically
described state of a physical system to human experience,
there must be an abrupt intervention in the otherwise smoothly evolving
mathematically described state of that system.
According to the orthodox formulation, these interventions are
probing actions instigated by human agents who are able to ‘freely’
choose which one, from among various alternative possible probing actions,
they will perform. The physically describable effect of the chosen
probing action is to separate (partition) the prior physical state of the
system being probed in some particular way into a set of component
parts. Each physically described part corresponds to one perceivable
outcome from the set of distinct alternative possible perceivable outcomes
of that particular probing action.
If such a probing action is performed, then one of its allowed perceivable
feedbacks will appear in the stream of consciousness of the
observer, and the mathematically described state of the probed system
will then jump abruptly from the form it had prior to the intervention
to the partitioned portion of that state that corresponds to
the observed feedback. This means that, according to orthodox contemporary
physical theory, the ‘free’ choices of probing actions made
by agents enter importantly into the course of the ensuing psychologically
and physically described events. Here the word ‘free’ means,
however, merely that the choice is not determined by the (currently)
known laws of physics; not that the choice has no cause at all in the
full psychophysical structure of reality. Presumably the choice has some
cause or reason – it is unreasonable that it should simply pop out of
nothing at all – but the existing theory gives no reason to believe that
this cause must be determined exclusively by the physically described
aspects of the psychophysically described nature alone.
If one sets Planck’s constant equal to zero in the quantum mechanical
equations then one recovers (the fundamentally incorrect) classical
mechanics. Thus classical physics is an approximation to quantum
physics. It is the approximation in which Planck’s constant, wherever
it appears, is replaced by zero. In this approximation the quantum
smearing does not occur – each cloud is reduced to a point – and one
recovers classical physics, along with the physical determinism (the
causal closure of the physical) entailed by classical physics.
In the classical approximation there is no need for, and indeed no
room for , any effect of any probing action. The uncertainty – arising
from the non-zero size of the quantum cloud – that in the unapproximated
theory needs to be resolved by the intervention of some
particular probing action is already reduced to zero by the replacement
of Planck’s constant by zero. Thus all effects upon the physically/
mathematically described aspects of nature’s process that are
instigated by the actions ‘freely’ chosen by agents are eliminated by
the classical approximation. Consequently, any attempt to understand
or explain within the framework of classical physics the physical effects
of consciousness is irrational, because the classical approximation
eliminates the effect one is trying to study.
3.3 Intentional Actions and Experienced Feedbacks
The concept of intentional actions by agents is of central importance.
Each such action is intended to produce an experiential feedback. For
example, a scientist might act to place a Geiger counter near a radioactive
source, with the intention to see the counter either ‘fire’, or
‘not fire’, during a certain time interval. The experienced response,
‘Yes’ or ‘No’, to the query ‘Does the counter fire?’ specifies one bit
of information. The basic move in quantum theory is to shift, fundamentally,
from the airy plane of high-level abstractions, such as the
unseen precise trajectories of invisible elementary material particles,
to the nitty-gritty realities of consciously chosen intentional actions
and their experienced feedbacks, and to the theoretical specification
of the mathematical procedures that allow us successfully to predict
relationships among these empirical realities.
Probing actions of this kind are performed not only by scientists.
Every healthy and alert infant is engaged in making willful efforts that
produce experiential feedbacks, and he or she soon begins to form expectations
about what sorts of feedbacks are likely to follow from some
particular kind of felt effort. Thus both empirical science and normal
human life are based on paired realities of this action–response kind,
and our physical and psychological theories are both basically attempts
to understand these linked realities within a rational conceptual framework.
A purposeful action by a human agent has two aspects. One aspect
is his conscious intention, which is described in psychological
terms. The other aspect is the linked physical action, which is described
in physical terms; i.e., in terms of mathematical entities assigned to
spacetime points. For successful living the physically described action
should be a functional counterpart of the conscious intention: after sufficient
empirical honing by effective learning processes the physically
described aspect of the felt intentional act should have a tendency to
produce the intended experiential feedback.
John von Neumann, in his seminal book, Mathematical Foundations
of Quantum Mechanics, calls by the name ‘process 1’ the basic
probing action that partitions a potential continuum of physically described
possibilities into a (countable) set of empirically recognizable
alternative possibilities. I shall retain that terminology. Von Neumann
calls the orderly mechanically controlled evolution that occurs between
interventions by name ‘process 2’. This process is the one controlled by
the Schroedinger equation. The numbering, 1 and 2, emphasizes the
important fact that the conceptual framework of orthodox quantum
theory requires first an acquisition of knowledge, and second, a mathematically
described propagation of a representation of this acquired
knowledge to some later time at which a further inquiry is made.
There are two other associated processes that need to be recognized.
The first of these is the process that selects the outcome, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’,
of the probing action. Dirac calls this intervention a “choice on the
part of nature”, and it is subject, according to quantum theory, to
statistical rules specified by the theory. I call by the name ‘process 3’
this statistically specified choice of the outcome of the action selected
by the prior process 1 probing action
Finally, in connection with each process 1 action, there is, presumably,
some process that is not described by contemporary quantum
theory, but that determines what the so-called ‘free choice’ of the experimenter
will actually be. This choice seems to us to arise, at least in
part, from conscious reasons and valuations, and it is certainly strongly
influenced by the state of the brain of the experimenter. I have previously
called this selection process by the name ‘process 4’, but will use
here the more apt name ‘process zero’, because this process must precede
von Neumann’s process 1. It is the absence from orthodox quantum
theory of any description on the workings of process zero that
constitutes the causal gap in contemporary orthodox physical theory.
It is this ‘latitude’ offered by the quantum formalism, in connection
with the “freedom of experimentation” (Bohr 1958, p. 73), that blocks
the causal closure of the physical, and thereby releases human actions
from the immediate bondage of the physically described aspects of
reality.
3.4 Cloudlike Forms
The quantum state of a single elementary particle can be visualized,
roughly, as a continuous cloud of (complex) numbers, one assigned to
every point in three-dimensional space. This cloud of numbers evolves
in time and, taken as a whole, it determines, at each instant, for each
allowed process 1 action, an associated set of alternative possible experiential
outcomes or feedbacks, and the ‘probability of finding (i.e.,
experiencing)’ that particular outcome.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle specifies that if one squeezes this
spatial cloud – the spatial region in which the numbers are nonzero –
into a sufficiently small region, it will violently explode outward when
the constricting force is removed.
3.5 Simple Harmonic Oscillators
One of the most important and illuminating examples of this cloudlike
feature of the quantum state is the one corresponding to a pendulum,
or more precisely, to what is called a simple harmonic oscillator. Such
a system is one in which there is a restoring force that tends to push
the center point of the object to a single ‘base point’, and in which the
strength of this restoring force is directly proportional to the distance
of the center point of the object from this base point.
According to classical physics any such system has a state of lowest
possible energy. In this state the center point of the object lies motionless
at the base point. In quantum theory this system again has a
state of lowest possible energy. But this state is not localized at the
base point. It is a cloudlike spatial structure that is spread out over a
region that extends to infinity. However, the probability distribution
represented by this cloudlike form has the shape of a bell: it is largest
at the base point, and falls off in a prescribed manner as the distance
of the center point from the base point increases.
If one were to put this state of lowest energy into a container, then
squeeze it into a more narrow space, and then let it loose, the cloudlike
form would explode outward, but then settle into an oscillating motion.
Thus the cloudlike spatial structure behaves rather like a swarm
of bees, such that the more they are squeezed in space the faster they
move relative to their neighbors, and the faster the squeezed cloud
will explode outward if the squeezing constraint is released. This ‘explosive’
property of narrowly confined states plays a key role in quantum
brain dynamics, as we shall soon see. This explosive property is a
consequence of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which entails that a
severe confinement of the cloud in ordinary (coordinate) space entails
a large spread in a corresponding cloud in momentum (hence velocity)
space.
3.6 The Double-Slit Experiment
There is a crucial difference between the behavior of the quantum
cloudlike form and the somewhat analogous probability distribution
of classical statistical mechanics. This difference is exhibited by the
famous double-slit experiment. If one shoots an electron, a calcium
ion, or any other quantum counterpart of a tiny classical object, at
a narrow slit then if the object passes through the slit the associated
cloudlike form will fan out over a wide angle, due essentially to the
reaction to squeezing mentioned above. But if one opens two closely
neighboring narrow slits, then what passes through the slits is described
by a probability distribution that is not just the sum of the
two separate fanlike structures that would be present if each slit were
opened separately. Instead, at some points the probability value will be
nearly twice the sum of the values associated with the two individual
slits, and in other places the probability value drops nearly to zero,
even though both individual fanlike structures give a large probability
value at that place. This non-additivity – or interference – property
of the quantum cloudlike structure makes that structure very different
from a probability distribution of classical physics, because in the
classical case the probabilities arising from the two individual slits will
simply add.
This non-additivity property, which holds for a quantum particle
such as an electron or a calcium ion, persists even when the particles
come one at a time! According to classical ideas each tiny individual
object must pass through either one slit or the other, so the probability
distribution must be just the sum of the contributions from the two
separate slits. But this is not what happens empirically. Quantum
mechanics deals consistently with this non-additivity property, and
with all the other non-classical properties of these cloudlike structures.
The non-additivity property is not at all mysterious or strange if one
accepts the basic idea that reality is not made out of any material
substance, but rather out of ‘events’ (actions) and ‘potentialities’ for
these events to occur. Potentialities are not material realities, and there
is no logical requirement that they be simply additive. According to
the mathematically consistent rules of quantum theory, the quantum
potentialities are not simply additive: they have a wave-like nature,
and can interfere like waves.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Nerve Terminals
and the Need to Use Quantum Theory:



Many neuroscientists who study the relationship of consciousness to
brain processes want to believe that classical physics will provide an
adequate rational foundation for that task. But classical physics has
bottom-up causation, and the direct rational basis for the claim that
classical physics is applicable to the full workings of the brain rests on
the basic presumption that it is applicable at the microscopic level.
However, empirical evidence about what is actually happening at the
trillions of synapses on the billions of neurons in a conscious brain
is virtually nonexistent, and, according to the uncertainty principle,
empirical evidence is in principle unable to justify the claim that deterministic
behavior actually holds in the brain at the microscopic
(ionic) scale. Thus the claim that classical determinism holds in living
brains is empirically indefensible: sufficient evidence neither does, nor
can in principle, exist.
Whether the classical approximation is applicable to macroscopic
brain dynamics can, therefore, only be determined by examining the
details of the physical situation within the framework of the more general
quantum theory, to see, from a rational perspective, to what extent
use of the classical approximation can be theoretically justified. The
technical questions are: How important quantitatively are the effects
of the uncertainty principle at the microscopic (ionic) level; and if they
are important at the microscopic level, then why can this microscopic
indeterminacy never propagate up to the macro-level?
Classical physical theory is adequate, in principle, precisely to the
extent that the smear of potentialities generated at the microscopic
level by the uncertainty principle leads via the purely physically described
aspects of quantum dynamics to a macroscopic brain state
that is essentially one single classically describable state, rather than
a cloud of such states representing a set of alternative possible conscious
experiences. In this latter case the quantum mechanical state of
the brain needs to be reduced, somehow, to the state corresponding to
the experienced phenomenal reality.
To answer the physics question of the extent of the micro-level
uncertainties we turn first to an examination of the quantum dynamics
of nerve terminals.
4.1 Nerve Terminals
Nerve terminals lie at the junctions between two neurons, and mediate
the functional connection between them. Neuroscientists have developed,
on the basis of empirical data, fairly detailed classical models
of how these important parts of the brain work. According to the
classical picture, each ‘firing’ of a neuron sends an electrical signal,
called an action potential, along its output fiber. When this signal
reaches the nerve terminal it opens up tiny channels in the terminal
membrane, through which calcium ions flow into the interior of the
terminal. Within the terminal are vesicles, which are small storage areas
containing chemicals called neurotransmitters. The calcium ions
migrate by diffusion from their entry channels to special sites, where
they trigger the release of the contents of a vesicle into a gap between
the terminal and a neighboring neuron. The released chemicals influence
the tendency of the neighboring neuron to fire. Thus the nerve
terminals, as connecting links between neurons, are basic elements in
brain dynamics.
The channels through which the calcium ions enter the nerve terminal
are called ion channels. At their narrowest points they are only
about a nanometer in width, hence not much larger than the calcium
ions themselves. This extreme smallness of the opening in the
ion channels has profound quantum mechanical import. The consequence
of this narrowness is essentially the same as the consequence of
the squeezing of the state of the simple harmonic oscillator, or of the
narrowness of the slits in the double-slit experiments. The narrowness
of the channel restricts the lateral spatial dimension. Consequently,
the uncertainty in lateral velocity is forced by the quantum uncertainty
principle to become non-zero, and to be in fact about 1% of the
longitudinal velocity of the ion. This causes the quantum probability
cloud associated with the calcium ion to fan out over an increasing
area as it moves away from the tiny channel to the target region where
the ion will be absorbed as a whole on some small triggering site, or
will not be absorbed at all on that site. The transit distance is estimated
to be about 50 nanometers (Fogelson & Zucker 1985; Schweizer,
Betz, & Augustine 1995), but the total distance traveled is increased
many-fold by the diffusion mechanism. Thus the probability cloud becomes
spread out over a region that is much larger than the size of the
calcium ion itself, or of the trigger site. This spreading of the ion wave
packet means that the ion may or may not be absorbed on the small
triggering site.
Many different calcium ions contribute to the release of neurotransmitter
from a vesicle. The estimated probability that a vesicle on a
cerebral neuron will be released, per incident input action potential
pulse, is far less than 100% (maybe only 50%). The very large quantum
uncertainty at the individual calcium level ensures that this large
empirical uncertainty of release entails that the quantum state of the
nerve terminal will become a quantum mixture of states where the
neurotransmitter is released, or, alternatively, is not released. This
quantum splitting occurs at every one of the trillions of nerve terminals
in the brain. This quantum splitting at each of the nerve terminals
propagates, via the quantum mechanical process 2, first to neuronal
behavior, and then to the behavior of the whole brain, so that, according
to quantum theory, the state of the brain can become a cloudlike
quantum mixture of many different classically describable brain states.
In complex situations where the outcome at the classical level depends
on noisy elements the corresponding quantum brain will evolve into a
quantum mixture of the corresponding states.
The process 2 evolution of the brain is highly nonlinear, in the
(classical) sense that small events can trigger much larger events, and
that there are very important feedback loops. Some neurons can be
on the verge of firing, so that small variations in the firing times of
other neurons can influence whether or not this firing occurs. In a system
with such a sensitive dependence on unstable elements, and on
massive feedbacks, it is not reasonable to suppose, and not possible to
demonstrate, that the process 2 dynamical evolution will lead generally
to a single (nearly) classically describable quantum state. There
might perhaps be particular special situations during which the massively
parallel processing all conspires to cause the brain dynamics to
become essentially deterministic and perhaps even nearly classically
describable. But there is no likelihood that during periods of mental
groping and uncertainty there cannot be bifurcation points in which
one part of the quantum cloud of potentialities that represents the
brain goes one way and the remainder goes another, leading to a quantum
mixture of very different classically describable potentialities. The
validity of the classical approximation certainly cannot be proved under
these conditions, and, in view of the extreme nonlinearity of the
neural dynamics, any claim that the large effects of the uncertainly
principle at the synaptic level can never lead to quantum mixtures of
macroscopically different states cannot be rationally justified.
What, then, is the effect of the replacement of a single, unique, classically
described brain of classical physics by a quantum brain state
composed of a mixture of several alternative possible classically describable
brain states, each corresponding to a different possible experience?
A principal function of the brain is to receive clues from the environment,
then to form an appropriate plan of action, and finally to
direct the activities of the brain and body specified by the selected
plan of action. The exact details of the chosen plan will, for a classical
model, obviously depend upon the exact values of many noisy and uncontrolled
variables. In cases close to a bifurcation point the dynamical
effects of noise might, at the classical level, tip the balance between
two very different responses to the given clues: e.g., tip the balance
between the ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ response to some shadowy form, but in
the quantum case one must allow and expect both possibilities at the
macroscopic level a smear of classically alternative possibilities. The
automatic mechanical process 2 evolution generates this smearing, and
is in principle unable to resolve or remove it.
According to orthodox (von Neumann) quantum theory, achievement
of a satisfactory reduction of the smeared out brain state to a
brain state coordinated with the subject’s streams of conscious experiences
is achieved through the entry of a process 1 intervention, which
selects from the smear of potentialities generated by the mechanical
process 2 evolution a particular way of separating the physical state
into a collection of components, each corresponding to some definite
experience. The form of such an intervention is not determined by the
quantum analog (process 2) of the physically deterministic continuous
dynamical process of classical physics: some other kind of input is
needed.
The choice involved in such an intervention seems to us to be influenced
by consciously felt evaluations, and there is no rational reason
why these conscious realities, which certainly are realities, cannot have
the sort of effect that they seem to have.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Templates for Action:


The feature of a brain state that tends to produce some specified experiential
feedback can reasonably be expected to be a highly organized
large-scale pattern of brain activity that, to be effective, must endure
for a period of perhaps tens or hundreds of milliseconds. It must endure
for an extended period in order to be able to bring into being
the coordinated sequence of neuron firings needed to produce the intended
feedback. Thus the neural (or brain) correlate of an intentional
act should be something like a collection of the vibratory modes of a
drumhead in which many particles move in a coordinated way for an
extended period of time.
In quantum theory the enduring states are vibratory states. They
are like the lowest-energy state of the simple harmonic oscillator discussed
above, which tends to endure for a long time, or like the states
obtained from such lowest-energy states by spatial displacements and
shifts in velocity. Such states tend to endure as organized oscillating
states, rather than quickly dissolving into chaotic disorder.
I call by the name ‘template for action’ a macroscopic brain state
that will, if held in place for an extended period, tend to produce some
particular action. Trial and error learning, extended over the evolutionary
development of the species and over the life of the individual agent,
should have the effect of bringing into the agent’s repertoire of intentional
process 1 actions the ‘Yes–No’ partitions such that the ‘Yes’
response will, if held in place for an extended period, tend to generate
an associated recognizable feedback corresponding to the successful
achievement of the intent. Successful living demands the generation
through effort-based learning of templates for action.
My earlier discussion of the quantum indeterminacies that enter
brain dynamics in association with the entry of calcium ions into the
nerve terminals was given in order to justify the claim that the brain
must be treated as a quantum system. However, the fact that quantum
indeterminacies enter brain dynamics at the microscopic/ionic
level does not mean that the process 1 interventions that are needed
to link the evolving state of a person’s brain to his or her conscious
experiences must act microscopically. According to von Neumann’s
formulas, each process 1 intervention is specified by a set of nonlocal
projection operators. This means that the effect of a process 1 action
on a person’s brain is generally macroscopic. Thus the quantum indeterminacies
that enter brain dynamics at the microscopic/ionic level
propagate via the Schroedinger equation (process 2) up to the macroscopic
level where they produce a smear of potentialities that needs to
be reduced to a form compatible with the occurrence of a conscious
thought, if that thought is to enter a stream of consciousness. This dynamics
expresses the core idea of the quantum theory of observation,
which is that the reduction events are associated with increments in
knowledge, and correspondingly reduce the physical state to the part
of itself that is compatible with the knowledge entering a stream consciousness.
On the other hand, the only freedom provided by the quantum
rules is the freedom to select the next process 1 action, and the instant
at which it is applied. Thus a person’s ‘free choice’ of what he or she
intends to do can certainly enter the brain dynamics at the macroscopic
level , but only as a process 1 action. This is where the ‘latitude’ offered
by the quantum formalism, and associated with the ‘free choice’ of the
experimenter emphasized by Bohr, enters the dynamics. This process
1 action can in fact be one whose ‘Yes’ alternative selects the set of
brain states such that the template for the intended action is active.
But this ‘free choice’ merely sets the stage for the entry of the statistical
choice between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ alternatives whose relative statistical
weights are specified by the quantum rules.

Source : "Mindful Universe and Quantum Mechanics " By Henry P.Stapp

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :
Try to read the above , even though they are lengthy excerpts : it's worth it though :
You are still looking at the universe through the fundamentally incorrect classical physics , and hence you have been believing in the false causally closed universe classical assumption  , not to mention the fact that most non-physicists scientists ,especially neuroscientists and biologists such as our dlorde   here , have been thinking and behaving as if QM do not exist .
The Copenhagen interpretation itself is in fact subjective , in the sense that it is observer or consciousness-dependent , which also means that we only get  our own expected interpretations of the objective reality out there , through our own a -priori held beliefs : we also design experiments as to fit what we expect to find ...
Quantum theory thus depends largely on the intrinsic interventions of our minds ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

1 more thing , just concerning the collapse of the wave function : are  the observing or  measuring device + the observer human not made of atoms ,sub-atoms .....themselves ?
So, how can't they not have effects on the observed ?

In the case of the human observer scientist , how can his mind or consciousness not have causal effects on the observed as well ?

How so? are you unaware how vision works?

Did you forget what a measuring device or observer actually is in QM?

Try to read the above , dlorde : highly interesting fascinating stuff really : you can't argue with that , that might change your classical views :
Biology neurobiology and modern physics have been moving in totally different directions : the formers have been becoming more and more mechanical materialist , while QM have been dualist :  the QM's quest at the level of the fundamental components of matter has been discovering  the mind -body interaction at the quantum level,paradoxically enough  .
See in those above displayed excerpts how Von Neumann ,for example , could not explain the problem of measurements in QM but through the factual  intervention of somet non-physical process outside of the laws of physics : the mind ,and much more .

[cheryl j]

 However, the boundary between
our empirically described selves and the physically described system
we are studying is somewhat arbitrary. The empirically described measuring
devices can become very tiny, and physically described systems
can become very large, This ambiguity was examined by von Neumann
(1932) who showed that we can consistently describe the entire physical
world, including the brains of the experimenters, as the physically described
world, with the actions instigated by an experimenter’s stream
of consciousness acting directly upon that experimenter’s brain.

The dividing line in process one might be arbitrary, but I don't see how it is meaningless or not arguable. In fact, this is what I don't get - von Neumann incorporated consciousness into his model, and therefore it's no longer a big issue,  but then Stapp seems to turn around and exempt the conscious agency from all physical laws, in a sense taking it back out of the whole system, but at the same time using Von Neumann's position as proof that consciousness matters.

I may be hopelessly confused, but at least I make some attempt to understand this stuff myself, instead of just letting my physicist beat up your physicist.