**Quantum Theory of the Human Person.**

**1. Introduction.**

What is the future of quantum theory? Where will it go from here?

Quantum theory will go where it is most needed, which is into the effort
to understand ourselves, and in particular the connection of our minds
to our bodies.

Mind is the new frontier of science. The present century will be, for
science, a century for advancing our understanding of the mind. Quantum
theory is essential to progress here because classical physics leaves
mind out: it relegates consciousness to the role of passive witness to a
parade of physical events that are completely specified by local
mechanical laws. Quantum theory, on the other hand, brings in the human
participant in a subtle but essential way, and the quantum laws then
suffice to explain the causal effects of our thoughts upon our actions.

The primary lesson taught by quantum theory is that the structure of
empirically observed macroscopic phenomena cannot be understood within a
conceptual framework in which the course of physical events is
determined by local mechanical laws of the kind specified by the laws of
classical physics. To deal with this in controvertible fact the creators
of quantum theory found themselves compelled to bring our minds into
basic physical theory in a way less trivial than that of passive
witnesses. This shift, though subtle in character, is sufficient to
allow quantum theory to provide a causal explanation of the kinds of
action of mind on brain that are now being observed in a growing number
of neuro-psychological experiments conducted at major laboratories and
universities. (For references, and a discussion of these experiments see
Schwartz (2002, 2004))

The nature of the causal connection between our minds and brains will,
for many reasons, become increasingly a key focus of scientific
research, The first reason is funding. Research goes primarily where the
money is. The nature of the connection of our thoughts to our bodies is
an important medical question. In an era of shrinking budgets major
funding will probably be channeled increasingly to research fields that
are perceived to be vital to human needs. Already one sixth of the US
GNP goes to the health industry, as contrasted to 2.8% for education and
research. Thus there is a big pot from which to fund research into the
nature of the conscious human organism.

But perhaps even more important than the question of our mental and
physical health are cultural ramifications. We live immersed in a sea of
ideas, and the impact of these ideas is, today, at least as important to
human destiny as our immediate physical conditions. This world of ideas
is based directly upon our conception of what we ourselves are, and how
we are connected to the forces that govern the universe.

The main contributors to the progress and development of these ideas are
science, philosophy, and religion. The voice of science is strong in the
construction of this intellectual milieu. But the message of science is
blunted by the fact that it has hitherto been based mainly on classical
physics, which proclaims us to be mechanical automata. That verdict
conflicts with our deep intuitive idea of what we are, and leads to an
impoverishment of values: value is reduced to the measure of mechanical
well being. Also, moral philosophy is undermined by the
self-contradictoriness of the idea of striving to improve a future that
was already mechanically determined before the earth was born. These
difficulties with the classical-physics-based idea of man in nature tend
to mute the voice of reason based on valid applicable science, and the
more-than-just-matter conception of man that it provides.

The quest for an understanding of the mind-brain connection is rapidly
becoming recognized as the most important and interesting task of
science, at least on the biological side. Antonio Damasio (2002) begins
his lead article in the recent special issue of Scientific American
devoted to the mind-brain problem with the words:

\"At the start of the new millennium, it is apparent that one question

towers above all others in the life sciences: How does the set of

processes we call mind emerge from the activity of the organ we

call brain?

The article by Francis Crick and Christoph Koch (Crick, 2002) begins
with the similar assessment:

\"The overwhelming question in neurobiology today is the

relationship between the mind and the brain.\"

Some scientist (Crick, 2003:124) appear to believe that an adequate
understanding the mind-brain connection can be based essentially on
classical physics, even though that theory is known to be unable to
explain the observed macroscopic properties (e.g., electrical and
thermal conductance, elasticity, etc.) of systems that depend
sensitively\-\--as conscious brains certainly do\-\--on the behaviors of
their constituent atoms, molecules, electrons, and ions. This fatal
failing of classical physical theory was remedied by the founders of
quantum theory, who formulated their theory as a set of practical rules
that specify how knowledge-seeking human agents should go about their
tasks of first acquiring knowledge, and then representing that knowledge
in a form that permits them to form expectations about the outcomes of
their subsequent knowledge-seeking activities. The theory created by the
founders is explicitly about connections between human experiences. It
is a conceptual structure that allows us to organize and make practical
use of the knowledge we acquire. This profound shift of perspective is
proclaimed by statements of the founders such as:

> "The conception of the 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 the particle but rather our
> knowledge of this behavior." (Heisenberg, 1958)

"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 the multifold aspects of our experience" (Bohr, 1934,
> p.18)

The subtle shift, alluded to above, in the role of the human agent is
emphasized in statements such as:

> "In the great drama of existence we ourselves are both actors and
> spectators." (Bohr, 1963, p. 15: 1958, p. 81)
>
> \"The freedom of experimentation, presupposed in classical physics, is
> of course retained and corresponds to the free choice of experimental
> arrangement for which the mathematical structure of the quantum
> mechanical formalism offers the appropriate latitude.\" (Bohr, 1958,
> p. 73}
>
> "To my mind there is no other alternative than to admit in this field
> of experience, we are dealing with individual phenomena and that our
> possibilities of handling the measuring instruments allow us to make a
> choice between the different complementary types of phenomena that we
> want to study. (Bohr, 1958, p. 51)

**2. Von Neumann's Processes 1 and 2.**

Quantum theory was rigorously formulated by John von Neumann (1955, p.
418), who identified two distinct processes, Process I and Process II.

Process II is the quantum analog of the classical process of motion and,
like it, is governed by laws that are both local and deterministic.
Process II is constructed from its classical counterpart by
\"quantization,\" which replaces \'numerical values\' by \'actions.\'
The effect of this change is to smear out the numerical values: it turns
the physical state into a smeared out collection of overlapping
classically conceivable possibilities. (This feature is not undone by
the much-studied environmental decoherence effect, which effectively
wipes out certain off-diagonal interference terms of the density matrix
but does not restrict the evolution of the important diagonal elements.)

Process II is, however, not the whole story. It generates a continuum of
overlapping physical possibilities that extend over a range of
experientially realizable possibilities. Thus, for example, if Process
II were the only process operating since the big bang then the physical
structure representing the (center point of the) moon would extend over
a large portion of the sky, contrary to the empirical facts. Some other
process is needed to bring the physical state S of an observed system
into conformity with human experience.

To tie the physically described state S to human experience the founders
of quantum theory brought human agents into basic physical theory in a
fundamental way. This was a radical move because the successes of the
earlier classical theory were due in large measure to the policy of
keeping human agents out. But in orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory the
conscious actions of agents become crucial elements. In von Neumann\'s
rigorous formulation of the theory, each such action is called a Process
I intervention. This act is a preparatory act that amounts to posing a
specific question with a Yes or No answer. (More complex cases can be
built up by further decomposing the No possibility, but the essential
point can be explained by focusing on a question with just two possible
answers, Yes or No.

A typical quantum question is: "Will a Geiger counter set in some
particular place be observed to fire at a time later than some specified
time T1 but earlier than some later specified time T2." The preparatory
action of putting this question to nature causes the state S to jump to
a new state

S\' = PSP + (1-P)S(1-P).

The first term corresponds to the possibility that the feedback from
nature will be a human experience of seeing the Geiger Counter

fire during the specified interval, and the second term corresponds to
the failure of that specified experiential feedback to occur. These
connections provide the critical correspondence between the
mathematical/physical description and the psychological/experiential
one.

**3. The action of mind upon brain.**

This Process I action by the agent involves a selection of a projection
operator P from a continuum of alternative possibilities. This selection
is, according to the orthodox rules of quantum theory, not specified by
the physical state S of the system being examined or probed. This choice
is taken to be a "free choice" on the part of the experimenter/agent, as
indicated by the statements by Bohr quoted earlier.

The reason why, in the original "Copenhagen" version of quantum theory,
the agent\'s choice must be regarded as \"free,\" *in the specific sense
that this choice is not determined by any \*known\* law of nature*, is
that in the Copenhagen formulation the experimenter stands outside the
system that is being probed, and his choice about how to conduct his
probing action is considered to be up to him, not the system he is about
to probe. In actual empirical practice, it is the prerogative of the
observing agent, not the system being observed, to determine, from a
continuum of possibilities, what *kind* of information or knowledge will
be gathered by the agent during his act of observation. The system being
observed does not make this choice.

Copenhagen quantum theory separates the dynamically unified physical
world into two systems, the physical system S that is being examined,
and the agent who is doing the examination. This latter system includes
not only the stream of consciousness of the agent, and his body and
brain, but also his measuring devices, which are regarded as extensions
or parts of the agent. This extended agent is described in the sort of
language that we use "to tell others what we have done and what we have
learned"(Bohr, 1958, p.3). This conceptual arrangement works well in
practice, but it means that the theory cannot be viewed as a possible
description of nature: it must be viewed as merely a set of rules for
calculating expectations pertaining to relationships between human
experiences.

Von Neumann\'s approach is to treat the entire physical world, including
our own bodies and brains as belonging to the world described by the
quantum laws. This tack circumvents the need to separate the dynamically
unified physical world into two differently described subsystems. But it
transfers those functions that the Copenhagen interpretation ascribes to
the agent to what von Neumann calls the "abstract ego" (von Neumann,
1955, p.421). This "abstract ego" is what is left of the agent after his
devices, body, and brain have been transferred to the physically
described universe. This remainder, or residue, is the agent's stream of
conscious experiences.

In von Neumann's formulation the stream of consciousness of the agent
acts upon the brain of the agent. Thus in the Process 1 action

SS' = PSP + (1-P)S(1-P)

.

the operator P acts non-trivially only on the brain of the agent. The
choice of the operator P is ascribed to the abstract ego of the agent,
namely his stream of consciousness. This provides, in principle, an
*opening* within quantum dynamics for a *possible* action of a conscious
mind upon the associated physically described brain.

**4. Ideo-motor action.**

According to William James\'s ideo-motor theory of the connection
between Volition and Action (James, 1890), willful action is associated
with a prolongation of attention to the idea of the intended action.
Accordingly, let it be assumed that each possible course of action that
is conceivable to\-\--and executable by\-\--an agent is represented in
the brain of that agent by an associated pattern of brain activity that
if held in place for a sufficiently long period of time will tend to
cause that action to occur. I call this pattern a "template for action."
It is the "neural correlate" of the idea of that action. This pattern of
brain activity is specified by a projection operator P that singles out
from the morass of possible states of the brain of the agent those in
which the associated template for action is activated. This projection
operator P defines a possible Process 1 action. But the choices of which
Process 1 interventions will occur are, according to quantum theory,
"free choices" made by the agents.

The key question then becomes: Can an agent's freedom to choose which
Process I interventions occur have any effect on his bodily action?

The answer in von Neumann quantum theory is Yes! The agent's choices of
Process 1 interventions can exert a huge effect on the physical activity
of his brain, and this can have in turn a large effect on his bodily
behavior. The simplest way to achieve such a result is via the Quantum
Zeno Effect.

**5. The Quantum Zeno Effect.**

Suppose S describes some slowly changing degrees of freedom of the
brain. Suppose a sequence of \"freely chosen\" Process I events consist
of a rapid repetition of events with the same P. Then the laws of
quantum theory entail that S will be trapped in the subspace of states
of the form PSP if the original state has this form. Transitions to the
other outcome (I-P)S(I-P) of the Process 1 interventions are suppressed
by virtue of the quadratic dependence upon the short time interval t
between interventions of

(I-P)exp-iHt(PSP)expiHt(I-P)=O(t squared)

That is, suppose a Process 1 event, followed by Nature's choice of an
outcome, lands you in the Yes state PSP. And suppose, your mental
effort, within the range of \"free choices\" options available to you,
can activate a rapid repetition of Process I events all associated with
the same P. If the repetition rate is sufficiently fast then, due to the
quadratic dependence on the time interval t between successive Process 1
events, there will be almost no transitions to the \"No\" states of the
form (I-P)S(I-P) over a long peiod of time, even if strong forces would
tend to quickly move one out of the space specified by PSP in the
absence of the rapid sequence of process 1 interventions.

One verifies the quadratic dependence on t by observing that a
replacement of *either one* of the two exponentials by the zeroth order
term \"unity\" gives a null contribution to the transition probability,
due to the constraint

P(1-P)=(1-P)P=0,

which is imposed by von Neumann's rules on the operators P

The lowest order term is therefore of second order in t. This entails
that if by means of his "free choices" an agent can increase the
rapidity of the Process 1 interventions to the point of activating the
quantum zeno effect, thereby holding in place some template for action,
then the agent can, by exercising his "free choice," influence his
bodily actions.

This scenario is precisely in line with James's description of the
effect of will:

\"The essential achievement of the will, in short, when it is most

\`voluntary', is to attend to a difficult object and hold it fast before

the mind." (James, 1890: )

\"Everywhere, then, the function of effort is the same: to keep

affirming and adopting the thought which, if left to itself would slip

away.\" (James, 1890: )

This explanation of the effect of mind on brain is strictly quantum
mechanical. The classical-physics approximation eliminates the latitude
provided by the uncertainty principle within which the play of free
choice operates. Thus it closes the door opened by quantum theory to the
possibility of a genuine causal influence of our thoughts, ideas, and
feelings upon our physical actions.

William James clearly recognized the difficulty within classical physics

of allowing mental effort to make a physical difference. He apparently
understood what could then hardly be uttered by a man of science, namely
that classical physics must be wrong. The prescient final words of his
book \"Psychology: The Briefer Course\" are:

\"\...understand how great is the darkness in which we grope, and never
forget that the natural-science assumptions with which we started are
provisional and revisable things.\" (James, 1892)

**References.**

Bohr, Niels (1934). Atomic theory and the description of nature.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bohr, Niels (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Wiley

Crick, Francis, & Christoff Koch (2002). *Scientific American: Special
Issue: The Hidden Mind.*

Crick, Francis, & Christoff Koch (2003). A framework for consciousness.
*Nature neuroscience*, 6, 119-126.

Damasio, Antonio (2002). *Scientific American:* *Special Issue: The*

Heisenberg, Werner (1958). The representation of Nature in contemporary
physics. *Daedalus* 87, 95-108.

James, William (1890). *The Principles of Psychology, Vol. I.* New York:
Dover.

James, William (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. In *William
James: Writings 1879-1899*. New York: Library of America (1992).

Schwartz, J.M. & Begley, S. (2002). *The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force.* New York: Harper
Collins.

Schwartz, J.M., Stapp, H.P. & Beauregard, M. (2004). *Quantum physics in
Neuroscience and Psychology: A neurophysical model of the mind/brain
interaction.* (In preparation)

Sperry, Roger (1991). In defense of mentalism and emergent interaction.
*J. of Mind and Behavior*, 12, 221-245.

Von Neumann (1955). *Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*.
Princeton: Princeton U.P. \[Translation by Robert T. Beyer of
*Mathematiche grundlagen der quantum mechanik*. Berlin: Springer. 1932\]