From:	SMTP%"PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org" 23-SEP-1996 19:07:17.75
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: QM in Stapp&Sarfatti vs Penrose and Hameroff

Approved-By: PATRICKW@CS.MONASH.EDU.AU
Approved-By:  STAPP@THEORM.LBL.GOV
Message-Id:  <960923125525.22201a83@theorm.lbl.gov>
Date:         Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:55:25 -0700
Reply-To: PSYCHE Discussion Forum <PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org>
Sender: PSYCHE Discussion Forum <PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org>
From: Henry Stapp <STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov>
Subject:      Re: QM in Stapp&Sarfatti vs Penrose and Hameroff
To: Multiple recipients of list PSYCHE-D <PSYCHE-D@rfmh.org>

The postings of Sept 22 from Goodman, Robinson, and Stern all ask in various
ways the same question: What good is quantum mechanics to the science
of consciousness? These questions are perhaps fueled in part by Stan Klein's
continual assertions that the matter is all metaphysical speculation
with no empirical content. If that were so then I would not be involved in
these discussions, and would not be always emphasizing that I am discussing
the issues from the context of the the *science* of consciousness: science
rests on both theory and experiment, and both must be involved if an
activity is to be called science.

Another source of confusion is that different physicists have different
ideas about how quantum theory should be interpreted, and in particular
about the role of experience in the dynamics. These two issues, the
question of empirical validation and of the role of consciousness, are closely
tied together. For it is certainly true that it is not an easy task to
define and carry out experiments that will distinguish between the theoretical
options. That is the reason why, today, reasonable scientists can hold
different views: the needed experimental information lies still in the future.

The theoretical problem today is to identify, in close collaboration with
experimental workers---who are probing the boundaries of what is within the
realm of the experimentally possible, and who are perhaps identifying
phenomena where, on statistical grounds, the classical paradigm may be
inadequate---the places where it might be possible to detect high-level
quantum effects of the kind called for by, for example, the
Bohr/Heisenberg/von-Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum theory.
[This string of names identifies a particular interpretation that draws in
important ways on the ideas of these four men---Pauli and William James
should also be included---and that I think is particularly coherent, and that
with sufficient experimental effort, should eventually be testable]

So the essential point is that this theorizing is not sheer metaphysical
speculation, with no possibility of empirical testing. Quantum mechanical
process at high levels can have huge effects that could make a critical
difference---a life or death difference---in biological systems. I am not
talking here about the fact that quantum theory is needed to account for
the microscopic atomic and molecular aspects of biological: I am talking about
possible high-level effects---associated with the wholeness of thoughts---that
go beyond what can be accounted for within classical mechanics,
or within a quantum mechanical interpretation---such as that of David Bohm's
causal ontological pilot-wave interpretation---that does not bring in
high-level collapses in human brains in association with human experiences,
and analogous high-level collapses in other systems.

These discussions on Psyche-D might seem peripheral to the main task of
identifying the relevant experiments and performing them. But in a larger
sense these discussions can be of real importance. For  the experiments will
be difficult, and no one is going to be able to mount a big experiment unless
the theoretical motivation is strong. So it is important to get the logical
situation straightened out, in order for researchers to understand the issues
and the possibilities, and hence be able to contribute to the discussion of
the experimental possibilities, and  be motivated, and be able to motivate
others to provide resources and manpower. Getting the theoretical situation
straightened out *is* important to progress in science.

I have been pointing out in my recent papers where these huge effects that
I speak of can come from. The main point is that the analysis of the
measurement process by von Neumann was in the very specialized case of
so-called good measurements, and in such cases his analysis, fortified by
more recent studies of the effects of interactions of systems with
uncontrollable environments, shows that "for all practical purposes"
(to use John Bell's phrase), it makes no difference whether the collapses
occur at the high level where consciousness comes in, or at some much lower
level. These results are the basis of Stan Klein's assertions that the whole
business is nothing but metaphysics. But once one allows that the collapses
are to states that correspond properly to thoughts then it is not clear that
the situation conforms to the "good measurement' requirement that scientists
normally impose on the experiments that they themselves consciously design.
The point is that the condition of proper correspondence with thoughts
is a different condition, and one that can permit thoughts to have huge effects
that can be achieved neither within classical mechanics, nor within Bohm's
no-collapse model of quantum theory, nor within a quantum model with collapses
only at low levels.

It is this possibility that makes the discussion of quantum mechanics of
great possible relevance to the science of consciousness. Quantum mechanics
provides a ready-made framework that can very naturally allow our thoughts,
per se, to enter in crucial and efficacious ways into the production of our
actions, and, if human experiences have counterparts in other biological
systems, in the survival of species.

I have discussed these matters at some length in my recent papers, which
are available on my web site.

Henry P. Stapp
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html