Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections; also quantum Zeno effect questions

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
19,141
Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has written a paper titled "A Model of the Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections, and of the Role of The Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical Implementation of Conscious Intent." It is available here:

http://sts.lbl.gov/~stapp/QN.pdf

Abstract

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurements and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.
Click to expand...
Can some of you comment on this paper?

~~ Paul
 
OOOOOK?

A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain?

"synchronous oscillations " in sperate places in the brain, there might be some more convetional reasons.

Um the neurons are biochemical in nature, they do not use electrons in wires or silicon, what quantum effects?
 
Yikes

“that person's quantum mechanically described brain.”

Not a description I am familiar with.

“the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain.”

Ok, but what results from non-synchronous oscillations, confusion or even an epileptic seizure?

“A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way.”

Or is it that normal electro-chemical based brain activity influences conscious intentions in a functionally appropriate way?

Dancing David said:
A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain?
Click to expand...


I do not know, but from what I was able to read “decaying in the brain” may be more responsible for this “model” then for any explanation of the influences of conscious intentions.
 
Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this.
This improved physical theory brings conscious human observer/agents into physics in an essential way that renders the classical conceptions of our bodies, including our brains, fundamentally deficient. The new theory accommodates a mechanism that
allows our conscious thoughts to influence our bodily actions without being reducible to any
physically describable feature or activity.
Click to expand...
In other words, they argue that QM allows our consciousness to influence our brain and body, without being a result of our brain/body.

I'd look at the paper further, but it appears to be written in quantum-new-age, a language I am not fluent in.

Walt
 
Walter Wayne said:
Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this.
Click to expand...
And yet Henry Stapp is a well-known physicist working in QM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

Here is some commentary by R. F. Streater:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html

who wrote this interesting book:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Causes-beyond-Physics-Streater/dp/3540365818


~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
I googled his name and found one explanation of his point of view that went roughly like this:

We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions.

It sounds more like wishful thinking than physics to me, but maybe I have just misunderstood what this is all about.
 
I tried to read it and gave up after trying to track down his first two references to see if they supported what he was saying. I don't think they did, but that's not my specialty.
This appears to be yet another case of respected scientists in one field going off the deep end in one where they have no background. Pauling and Jahn, for example.
 
Fredrik said:
We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions.
Click to expand...


Wow... where to start...

Why the hell would he make such assumptions? How does he even define consciousness? And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place? Doesn't the CI concept of wavefunction collapse depend upon the measurement made by an observer outside the quantum system? So who is "outside" making the measurement? God? The FSM? Sounds more like metaphysics & philosophy than science to me.

And isn't saying that "consciousness isn't bound by the same laws as everything else" just another way of saying "I have no idea but let's say something that sounds cool"?

From what I've seen here, it sounds like a trip to Woo-ville to me :rolleyes:
 
I couldn't get passed the very first sentence:

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain.
Click to expand...

Now think about it. A simple, EXACTLY SOLVABLE model of what is a very complex topic. I'm with bokonon.
 
SezMe said:
I couldn't get passed the very first sentence:
Click to expand...

past

(unless "the very first sentence" is a hockey puck and Marion Gaborik is trying to pass it to you)

That's rapidly replacing "could of" as my top grammar pet peeve.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place?
Click to expand...

What if we apply a “many worlds” QM interpretation to this CI theory of wave function collapse (or wave function bifurcation)? This would mean that the consciousness intention determines the resulting wave function even before the measurement is made. Should the observer make a mistake and perform the wrong measurement from what was intended the predetermined resulting wave function should conform to the intention and not the measurement. This is not the case; even a simple examination demonstrates that it is action not intention that contributes to determining the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom