Comments on Henry Stapp's paper:

HS: "Quantum mechanics *explains* the causal effects of mental
intentions upon physical systems: it explains how your mental effort can
produce the brain events that cause your bodily actions."

AW: Consciousness is neither defined within the conceptual framework
provided by quantum mechanics, nor can it be detected using the
instruments of technology used by physicists. So it would follow that
one could strip away consciousness without affecting the physical
behavior of any known quantum system, insofar as that system is
understood in terms of current quantum theory.

*HS: I guess I completely failed to get across in my paper the central
point of orthodox (Copenhagen and vN) quantum theory, which is that it
is explicitly about the conscious experiences of human beings, as they
are described in the way that we normally describe our experiences to
ourselves and to each other. The theory is about our experiences and our
knowledge, without needing to define it any more than to say that it
consists of our thoughts, ideas, and feelings:*

*of our streams of conscious events that we call by this name, and that
we describe in terms that we understand to be terms that describe our
thoughts, ideas, and feelings. The key insight of the founders of QT
(Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli et.al) was that science is fundamentally not
about what was "out there", separate from ourselves, but is about the
structure of our human experiences, as described in terms understandable
to our fellow scientists, and technicians, and other human beings
trained in the language that we normally use to communicate to others
"what we have done and what we have learned. Some of the content of our
consciousness is detected by physicists and injected into the
mathematical structure of the theory.*

*It is detected by understanding the words that people use to describe*

*what their experiences are.*

*You might object that the words might be deceitful or faulty, but as
Wm. James points out, all observations are open to question. One must
design experiments so that observations are as reliable as possible, and
over the course of time it can be hoped that the reports will come to be
reliable: otherwise science will not progress very well.*

*When we do experiments in psychology, we normally try to ensure that
the subjects will perform as instructed, or as they say that they*

*are performing, unless we are studying such deviations themselves.*

*AW: Your points above do clarify things, but the weak link in this
approach emerges in your final comment. There is an extraordinary degree
of sophistication in running experiments and making observations in the
fields of physics, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience. But
when it comes to the firsthand experimentation with one's own mind,
observing one's own mind, and reporting on those observations,
scientists have left this to amateurs, usually undergraduate "subjects"
getting paid \$10/hour. While cognitive scientists may "try to ensure
that the subjects will perform as instructed, or as they say that they
are performing," there are obvious limits to their abilities to ensure
this. What I'm suggesting is that it makes far more sense scientifically
to turn these first-person tasks over to individuals who are as
professionally trained as the scientists who are studying these
subjects. In the process, those subjects are elevated from the status of
laboratory animals to full-fledged professional colleagues and
collaborating researchers. This is where the type of mental training
found in Buddhism can be of enormous value for scientific research into
the mind/brain problem and a host of related topics.*

*HS: Yes, experiments of this kind should be useful. But so can
carefully constructed experiments on graduate students.*

HS: "...the Copenhagen formulation separates the physical universe into
two parts, which are described in two different languages. One part is
the observing human agent and his measuring devices. That part is
described in mental terms\-\--in terms of our instructions to colleagues
about how to set up the devices, and our reports of what we then "see,"
or otherwise consciously experience."

AW: Instructions to colleagues and reports on observations certainly
constitute a different type of language than that describing the system
that the agent is acting upon. However, nowhere in the former
description is there any scientific definition of consciousness. Thus,
the instructions could, in principle, be instructions to mindless robots
(i.e., their operating program), and the reports on observations could
be simply read-outs from what the robots unconsciously detect. So, once
again, it has not been demonstrated that consciousness has been
incorporated into quantum theory. If it is to be integrated into quantum
theory, its definition and modes of detecting its presence and efficacy
must be drawn in from some other conceptual framework, such as cognitive
psychology (which has long avoided the topic of consciousness and is
hard put to define it) or Buddhism (which has always placed the highest
priority on exploring and understanding consciousness).

HS: Perhaps appeal to Buddhism is needed. Indeed, my colleague Jeffrey
Schwartz, in his book "The Mind and the Brain," makes a big point of the
closely harmony between quantum ideas and Buddhism, in this present
context. So there is perhaps room for a good meeting of minds here. On
the other hand, the quantum presumption that when we human beings are
describing our conscious experiences about what we are doing and
learning we are normally indeed describing our conscious experiences is
to me not problematic. When I make a truthful (in my opinion) report
that "I am now making an effort to raise my arm", I think I can safely
say that a certain kind of experience is occurring that I can validly
describe to myself in those words. I do not see any deep problem in
basing science on such reports, and tying such reports into the effect
of such an intentional act into the physical representation of my brain.

*AW: I agree with you. Similarly, when Galileo reported, "I am now
rolling a ball down a ramp and observing whether it moves at constant
velocity or accelerates," we can take his words at face value. However,
as soon as science progresses from such simple operations, running
experiments and reporting on them becomes more challenging and is best
left to professionals, not amateurs. Likewise, as long as cognitive
scientists are researching only simple mental operations that anyone can
do, this can be left to amateurs. But consider the range of mental
operations that might be studied beyond what normal people are capable
of! For example, now generate a mental image in 3 dimensions and
maintain it continuously for 30 minutes. That's one of a many
exceptional operations that could be studied, but only if you have
highly trained subjects capable of carrying out such difficult tasks.*

*HS: True.*

HS: "...in quantum physics the elemental ingredients are intentional
actions by agents, the feedbacks arising from these actions, and the
effects of our actions on the physical states that embody or carry this
information."

AW: This is quite true, but where in quantum physics is there any
necessity for the actions by agents to be conscious? Why couldn't they
be mindless robots? If they were, what significance would that have for
quantum systems?

*HS: The presumption in Copenhagen quantum theory is that the*

*collapses occur when human knowledge changes. No other collapses are
needed, or allowed in a strict construal of that pragmatic approach. If
one tried to allow mindless robots to collapse the wave function one
would face difficulties. What is a mindless robot other than something
that obeys always a local mechanical law of motion.*

If we tried to interpret that classically, then there would be no
meaning for "collapse." If one tried to use quantum theory, then a
mindless mechanical robot might mean a robot that obeyed always Process
II, with no Process I. But then there would be no collapse.
Alternatively, one might mean a man-made robot that had no conscious
experiences, but still collapsed the wave function. But if there is
nothing but the evolving quantum state then what selects the projection
operator P that characterizes Process I? There is nothing in Process II
that does this job. Something else is needed! But in our human case this
something else comes in in association with conscious experiences, at
least according to quantum theory. Of course one could abandon that
extremely successful theory. But what's the point of doing that? If one
keeps the theory in place for human beings, where the collapses are
connected to mind, then the natural thing to suppose for a robot that
collapses the wave function would be that the extra thing needed for a
robot-induced collapse is some robot-style mindfulness. That is, the
notion that a mindless robot could collapse the wave function is perhaps
a contradiction in terms, since whatever the extra process is that
specifies the precise structure of the collapse, one could perhaps
regard it as robotic mindfulness. But the bottom line of my position is
that for the strict purpose of pragmatic science, within the von Neumann
framework, one can assume that the only systems that cause collapses are
human beings. That circumvents many speculative issues that do not need
to be answered in neuroscience.

*Of course, these question come back when we face moral questions,*

*such as the disposition of old and outmoded computers.*

*AW: These are certainly provocative ideas. Questions concerning time
and space do linger. For example, if a measurement is made by a
human-programmed robot, and it is cognized later by a human, thus
causing a later change in human knowledge, when does the collapse
occur---when the measurement is made by the robot, or when it is known
by a human being? And what are we to make of quantum events taking place
in distant reaches of the universe, where there are, presumably, no
humans making observations? Is quantum mechanics irrelevant there? In
other words, is quantum mechanics relevant only to the world of human
experience, and not nature at large? If so, it would seem that it should
be a branch of human psychology, not physics.*

*HS: It is good to distinguish the stricly pragmatic position from*

*ontological ones. From a strictly pragmatic position the data consists
of the experiences of a community of communicating
participant-observers, presumably all human, and the collapses occur, at
least in the von Neumann version, when any one of them has an
experience.*

*If one wants to go over to a more realistic less anthropocentric
ontological posture then one must face these questions of who else but
us can do it. The problem is that so far there appears to be no way to
get evidence on this question, and to the extent that none can be
forthcoming the issues lead outside science.*

HS: "...quantum theory describes the effects of a person's intentional
actions upon the physical world, whereas classical physics leaves mental
realities out."

AW: I still can't see how quantum theory incorporates mental realities,
how it defines them, or how the technologies used in this field of
inquiry measure mental realities.

*HS: Quantum theory incorporates mental realities by tying*

*mental effort, via the quantum Process I, into brain process. The
mental reality of "mental effort" is measured by reports of "trying
harder," and also by use of incentives that are known firsthand,*

and by reports, to produce increased mental effort. See my discussion
(in Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature) of such experiments
in Paschler's book "The Psychology of Attention."

AW: Strictly speaking, then, it is not that quantum theory, as such,
that describes the effects of a person's intentional actions upon the
physical world. Rather, quantum theory in conjunction with psychology in
conjunction with people's first-person reports of mental efforts
provides this type of global description.

*HS: Quantum physics is designed to be a pragmatic theory that*

*ties our ordinary-language descriptions of what a person does, and what
he learns into the mathematical language of physics. Quantum theory
differs profoundly, on this score, from classical physics, which leaves
the psychologically/mentalistically described aspects of our life*

*experience out.*

HS: "Thus, according to the Copenhagen philosophy, *there are no
presently known laws that govern the choices* made by the
agent/experimenter/observer about how the observed system is to be
probed. This choice is*, in this very specific sense*, a 'free choice.'"

AW: Is it not equally true that according to the Copenhagen philosophy,
there are no presently known laws that reveal the nature of the
observer, whether it be an unconscious robot or a conscious human agent?

*HS: Copenhagen philosophy is based on the idea of "our knowledge" which
is the body of knowledge shared among a community of communicating
participant-observers. The knowledge*

*that is communicated between these communicating participant observers
about what they have done and what they have learned from these actions
is essentially conscious knowledge: knowledge that we are conscious of.
If I describe to you in fine detail how I performed some experiment, and
what I learned, then what I convey to you is normally information about
which I am consciously aware.*

*When I read your Journal article and plan and perform some follow-up
based on what I have learned from you about what you have learned by
doing that experiment, these thoughts of mine are conscious thoughts.
You can ask some of your experimentalist*

*friends if the are conscious of what they are doing when they read*

*journal articles and plan and do experiments based on what they*

*have learned. I think this is a very secure way to bring consciousness*

into science. It satisfied atomic physicists, and should I think be
equally acceptable to neuroscientists.

*AW: I agree with you.*

HS: "Process I represents, in the end, a dynamical influence of the mind
of an agent upon his brain."

AW: I know I keep coming back to the same point, but it is still not
clear to me how the influence of the mind is in any way accounted for,
since it is undefined in quantum theory and undetectably with the
instruments of contemporary physics.

*HS: I hope I have now explained the situation more clearly than*

*before. It is all very clear to many quantum physicists, but the
change*

*of perspective does appear peculiar to people who do not actually
experience how it works in physics.*

*AW: The picture is becoming clearer---thank you!*

HS: "The Quantum Zeno Effect...gives a name to the fact that repeated
and closely-spaced intentional acts can effectively hold the "Yes"
feedback in place for an extended time interval that depends upon the
*rapidity at which the Process I actions are happening*. According to
our quantum model, this rapidity is controlled by the amount of effort
being applied."

AW: This is a fascinating point that may have a strong bearing on a
research project in which I'm involved with neuroscientists and
psychologists at UC Davis. The central theme of the project is the study
of the plasticity of attention, specifically top-down control of the
attention over sustained periods of time. This is what William James
called *sustained voluntary attention*.

HS: I have repeatedly stressed the close connection to Jamesian ideas
about attention and will.

*AW: I've done a good deal of research into James's writings on this
topic as well, and I look forward to discussing this with you in person.
He's simply brilliant in this regard.*

HS: "Simply observing a quantum system suppresses certain of its
transitions to other states... If you rapidly and repeatedly ask a
system, *are you in this state or are you not?,* by making observations
designed to ascertain whether or not the nitrogen atom is where it
began, the system will not evolve in the normal way. It will become, in
a sense, frozen."

AW: The same is said to be true of the attention: by monitoring its
state very frequently, one can inhibit its habitual tendency to fragment
and wander involuntarily to other objects.

*HS: Right! My claim is that QZE "explains" this effect.*

AW: I think you may well be right that QZE suggests a plausible account
for the neurological processes correlated to such sustained, voluntary
attention. Whether QZE "explains" it is another matter (sic!).

*HS: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that quantum theory is a
theoretical framework within which mental effort is regarded as a
reality that can have real causal effects, which include*

*holding attention in place, and a consequent activation of physical
processes that tend to bring into being the intended consequence of that
act of attending. The physically described mechanism that produces this
causal connection, according to that theory, is called the The Quantum
Zeno Effect.*

HS: "the rate at which consents are given is assumed to be increasable
by mental effort."

AW: This leaves unexplained the fact that many mental activities become
easier, requiring less effort, as one becomes familiar with them. This
is precisely the case in the meditative cultivation of sustained
voluntary attention: it is highly effortful in the early stages, but as
one progresses, and the attention stabilizes, less effort is required to
sustain coherent, focused attention.

*HS: Activities become facilitated and automated by continual*

*activation. No problem there. It is a mechanical effect.*

*AW: I look forward to discussing this in person.*

HS: "Thus the whole range of science, from atomic physics to mind-brain
dynamics, is brought together in a single rationally coherent theory of
an evolving cosmos that consists of a physical reality that is
constituted not of matter but of an action-based reality that determines
propensities or tendencies for Process I events to occur."

AW: How do you define "physical reality" in the above statement? Isn't
it at least as plausible to suggest that the "ground of knowledge" that
Von Neumann postulates transcends the distinctions of physical and
non-physical?

*HS: By the "physical reality" I mean the evolving quantum*

*state, as it is described in quantum theory. Conscious thoughts are
supposed to be contributing causes of the Process I events, which are
the changes in the evolving physical reality caused by the conscious
events. Although the evolving state exists as an evolving*

*mathematically specified reality, it can be considered to "represent" a
knowledge/information-type of reality, whose jumps represent increments
in some kind of objective knowledge or information.*

AW: That does clarify what you mean, but since quantum theory, in your
view, describes both the states of objective configurations of
mass-energy as well as subjective mental states, the ontological status
of which has not yet been established, it might be better to find a more
ontologically neutral term than "physical."

*HS: The quantum state is a mathematically described structure imbedded
in spacetime, that supports meanings for such terms as energy, momentum,
position, and that evolves almost always in accordance with a local
deterministic law that is closely connected to the physical laws of
motion in classical physics. I think it is, for these reasons, very
helpful to call this structure "physical."*

HS: "The third question is: How does conscious "know" where and how to
interact in the brain in order to produce a specific psychological
effect?

The answer is that felt intentions, per se, have physical consequences,
and thence experiential consequences. Hence an agent can learn, by trail
and error, how to select an intentional action that is likely to produce
a feedback that fulfills an intention."

AW: This explanation fails to account for how the placebo effect
operates. For example, in a recent study, patients with Parkinson's
disease were given a placebo, and their minds released dopamine in the
precise region of the brain where it could counteract some of the
debilitating symptoms of that disease. There was no trial and error
period. In some deeply mysterious way, the patient's mind were able to
affect the brain in precisely the same way that a pharmaceutical drug
does to manage a symptom of their disease.

*HS: That is interesting, but biofeedback experiments usually do show
that some learning is required. The sufferer of Parkinson's disease has
plenty of time to learn what sort of mental state/effort tends to
alleviate the symptoms.*

*AW: Some kind of learning is required in biofeedback experiments, but
not in placebo effects. There's a remarkable body of literature out
there that indicates no learning process at all. For example, women with
breast cancer were given treatment they thought was chemotherapy, but
was not. And---lo---in many cases their hair fell out, they experienced
nausea and other symptoms they expected would occur as a result of such
therapy. How did their mind's know what chemicals to activate in their
scalps so that their hair would fall out? This mystery has hardly been
addressed, let alone solved, as far as I know.*

*HS: Quantum theory is precisely about the ability of a mental idea to
bring the body into conformity with that idea. I devote a lot of space
in my book. Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, to the way in which
mental control is exercized via the body-world schema, which is the
brains representation of the body. Presumably there is a lot of species
knowledge built into the body-world scheme: there are innate tendencies,
which the infant accesses. But I agree that a person does not learn by
trial and error what kind of effort will make his hair fall out. So this
is an interesting finding that needs to be explained. But quantum theory
would seem to be a better starting point than classical physics.*

HS: "Each conscious event is associated with a Process I action that
involves an action P that is non-local on the scale of the brain. Thus
each conscious event is naturally localized over a brain-sized region."

AW: I believe you are too narrowly defining the region over which
conscious events are localized. For example, there are about 40,000
neurons in the heart, not to mention the role of the spinal column, the
abdomen, and the rest of the body.

*HS: Yes. I often am careful to say brain/body in place of brain alone.*

*AW: Agreed.*