The Collective Placebo Effect? Collective Belief & Disbelief?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

What the bleep do you know?

Before you start telling me that Heisenberg disagrees with me it would be a good idea to actually read something more than isolated quotations with suspicious ellipses.

Probably like you, I learned Quantum Mechanics (many years ago) from text books that tended to concentrate on the maths and soft peddle the little matter of what the equations meant, but even from these it was clear that the idea that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function goes right back to the foundations of the subject.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Probably like you, I learned Quantum Mechanics (many years ago) from text books that tended to concentrate on the maths and soft peddle the little matter of what the equations meant, but even from these it was clear that the idea that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function goes right back to the foundations of the subject.

David

Heisenberg is quite clear in "Physics and Philosophy" that he does not believe that the concious mind influences the atoms that are observed. The "collapse" of the wave function is not a description of an objective change in the particle but merely the observers knowledge of it.

Likewise Bohr states in Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge:
"It is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he has arranged"

The Copenhagen Interpretation is not equivalent to the idea that conciousness collapses the wavefunction that is so attractive to new age kooks.

Quantum physics does not provide a secret backdoor for mind stuff to sneak in. Measurements are made with electrons, photons etc and not with mind stuff.

I really fail to see what Stapp is hoping to achieve with his ideas about the Quantum Zeno effect. His target audience are not physicists. His treatment just seems to add another level of obfuscation to something that is already abused beyong any meaning.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

As you must obviously know, the issue as to where the wave function is collapsed (or even if it is) is hard to pin down. Let us say that a photon hits one of two photomultipliers. Conventionally it is said that the photon wave function collapses at this point, but because the photomultiplier itself is made up of particles that obey QM, it is equally valid to consider that the wave function for the two photomultipliers (horrendous as that mathematical object would be) itself becomes a superposition of the two possibilities. This process can go all the way back to the brain, and in the Everett interpretation is never resolved, in other interpretations the buck stops with consciousness.

Schrodinger introduced his cat to discuss precisely these issues, and I assume most of us debating here are aware of those background facts.

As I joked to Paul, the word "Quantum" is used by some people in a completely meaningless way, but I would not have thought that any of the discussions here would have given you the impression that we were following this style!

As I understand him, Stapp is considering quantum processes in the brain that may be controlled by the 'quantum zeno effect' that we all discussed earlier.

Roger Penrose has written several books on the subject of the possible involvement of QM in consciousness - but he takes a somewhat different approach to Stapp - I recommend you read "Shadows of the Mind".

BTW, I am not personally wedded to Stapp's approach.

David

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

It's ironic that you quote somebody quoting Heisenberg but seem to have forgotten to read Heisenberg himself.

Read "Physics and Philosophy" by Heisenberg. He actually goes to great lengths to dispel the misunderstandings that arose from the Copenhagen interpretation.

I wonder who is responsible the ellipsis in the quotation because the words immediately before the ellipsis are "it is not connected" and directly contradict the woo assertion that the conciousness by itself alters reality.

In all of Heisenberg's examples the "measurement" involves an interaction between a measurement apparatus and the object in question. His main example is using a photon to detect the position of an electron. The measurement is not some purely subjective mind field reaching out to obsevre nature.

If you read the actual scientifc papers on the Quantum Zeno effect you will see that the "observations" in this case are the same. They typically involve a rapid train of light pulses. It is not some kind of mind stuff that is observing the atoms. In all of Stapp's smoke and mirrors verbiage the one question that remains is how does the mind stuff interact with the physical world. the Quantum Zeno effect does not help. You need something like photons to make the observations not mind stuff

Your right in that I haven't read much of Heisenberg's original work, and if the quote is as you say, it is misleading. I'd have to read "Physics and Philosophy" to comment further on that.

But I have read about the Quantum Zeno effect. The problem here is how one views measurements/observations. As I understand it, in von Neumann's approach the whole universe is threated quantum mechanically, and there is a need for some process to partition the potential continuum of physically described possibilities into a set of empirically recognizable alternative possibilities. This process is called by von Neumann process 1, and and is not equivalent to using photons or electrons to measure something. The process 1 intervention is also nonlocal. This von Neumann approach is what Stapp builds on.

From what I have read about decoherence (pro and con), it is not enough to do the job that process 1 is supposed to do. So either one can pretend the measurement problem is solved by decoherence (in other words ignore it), or one can try som alternative approach like introducing process 1.

By all means, I do not think Stapp has the final word in the matter. I find his theory interesting because it tries to solve a fundamental problem in physics (it may be a bit radical compared to some others, but so what?), and is compatible with the empirical evidence for psi that some of us here take seriously.

But in the the end I put my faith in experience and experiment, not theory.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Tor

Your right in that I haven't read much of Heisenberg's original work, and if the quote is as you say, it is misleading. I'd have to read "Physics and Philosophy" to comment further on that.

It's available in paperback and is well worth reading.

But I have read about the Quantum Zeno effect. The problem here is how one views measurements/observations. As I understand it, in von Neumann's approach the whole universe is threated quantum mechanically, and there is a need for some process to partition the potential continuum of physically described possibilities into a set of empirically recognizable alternative possibilities. This process is called by von Neumann process 1, and and is not equivalent to using photons or electrons to measure something. The process 1 intervention is also nonlocal. This von Neumann approach is what Stapp builds on.

Von Neumann's interpretation differs markedly from Heisenberg's and even more so from Bohr's. It is important to realise that there is absolutely no difference in the experimental predictions of these interpretations. There is no experiment that can distinguish between them. It would be foolhardy to hang your hopes on one interpretation because it gives hope to your metaphysical wishes.

Whether von Neumann's process 1 involves photons or electrons is irrelevant to the experimental observations of the Quantum Zeno effect which in fact do involve these sorts of measurements. Some of the papers demonstrate the Quantum Zeno effect with continuous observation and even more simply by including the "apparatus" in the Hamiltonian. The mathematics is identical and all confusion about what a "measurement": entails is removed.

From what I have read about decoherence (pro and con), it is not enough to do the job that process 1 is supposed to do. So either one can pretend the measurement problem is solved by decoherence (in other words ignore it), or one can try som alternative approach like introducing process 1.

By all means, I do not think Stapp has the final word in the matter. I find his theory interesting because it tries to solve a fundamental problem in physics (it may be a bit radical compared to some others, but so what?), and is compatible with the empirical evidence for psi that some of us here take seriously.

But in the the end I put my faith in experience and experiment, not theory.

There is no experimental evidence for any of these Quantum Mechanical theories of conciousness. It is all just wishful thinking. It is exploiting the ambiguity in what "really happens" in a measurement as a back door to get mind stuff into the picture.

The main problem with any form of dualism is explaining how mind stuff interacts with physical stuff. Quantum mechanics is of no help here.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Von Neumann's interpretation differs markedly from Heisenberg's and even more so from Bohr's. It is important to realise that there is absolutely no difference in the experimental predictions of these interpretations. There is no experiment that can distinguish between them. It would be foolhardy to hang your hopes on one interpretation because it gives hope to your metaphysical wishes.

Well, isn't it a bit premature to say that there are no difference in experimental predictions? Although von Neumann (or Stapp for that matter) don't link such phenomena up to their theory them self, it is possible to argue that some psi experiments can be used to separate the interpretations. But then you have to at least consider the possibility that some psi experiments can be considered evidence, something I suspect you don't

As to metaphysical wishes, yes I like the picture of a more "mindful" universe than what the mainstream view is today. But does that mean that I just cherry pick my evidence and think about these things in a totally uncritical fashion? No! I'm quite skeptical, but at the same time open minded. I don't base my opinions on theory (which are always replaced and expanded at a later stage), but experiment.

I could point to your metaphysical wishes also. You seem extremely certain of your views

[David Bailey]

Chris,

Well at least we seem to have goaded you into debating an issue properly! Please continue, it is much appreciated!

For me at least, the fact that QM represents a world with multiple realities - all present in the wave function - is extremely suggestive that it is involved in some deep way (i.e. not just in defining the chemistry) in the action of the brain/mind. Before QM, whatever theory came along, it seemed that a chunk of matter, such as the brain, would simply follow the relevant equations essentially like clockwork, which seemed to leave no place for mind - at least as many of us conceive of it.

As I understand it, QM has been tested to very high accuracy (actually QFT) in terms of the time independent solutions of the wave equation which give rise to such things as energy levels, but that the collapse of the wave function might be more complex than imagined. Roger Penrose also seems to think this way.

Ultimately, if mind is distinct from brain (which I know you don't support) there has to be some level at which they couple together, and QM seems the most likely candidate.

Although quantum entanglement seems at first unlikely in a warm wet brain, there are at least two locations where this has been seriously proposed - the microtubules, present in all cells including neurons, and the tiny vesicles that store and release neurotransmitters across synapses.

It is true that there is no experimental evidence that QM is involved in consciousness, but how seriously should we take this, since the mechanism of consciousness is very little understood. At one time consciousness was thought of as being a computation - inspiring the Artificial Intelligence fad of the 1980's and early 1990's. This was an embarrassing and expensive flop. Consciousness was then associated with the concept of neural networks. It was argued that neurones operate as a relatively simple threshold switch with positive and negative inputs from other neurones, learning by the Hebb rule or similar. These were easily simulated on a computer, but my impression is that subject seems to have fizzled despite huge initial hopes.

Nobody knows what consciousness is, which is why we are having this debate.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

These were easily simulated on a computer, but my impression is that subject seems to have fizzled despite huge initial hopes.

I don't think so:

Amazon.com: neural networks

~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Tor

Well, isn't it a bit premature to say that there are no difference in experimental predictions? Although von Neumann (or Stapp for that matter) don't link such phenomena up to their theory them self, it is possible to argue that some psi experiments can be used to separate the interpretations. But then you have to at least consider the possibility that some psi experiments can be considered evidence, something I suspect you don't

I'm open to the possibility. I'm not going to hold my breath though. A psi-meter or a psi-detector would be cool though. Ghosthunters would love them.

As to metaphysical wishes, yes I like the picture of a more "mindful" universe than what the mainstream view is today. But does that mean that I just cherry pick my evidence and think about these things in a totally uncritical fashion? No! I'm quite skeptical, but at the same time open minded. I don't base my opinions on theory (which are always replaced and expanded at a later stage), but experiment.

I could point to your metaphysical wishes also. You seem extremely certain of your views

The other thread "Is physicalism / materialism a dangerous belief?" was enlightening for me. The main message was that people were arguing that without some form of dualism life would have no meaning and people could not be moral. I can't follow the logic in this but it seems to explain why some people are attached to a particular metaphysical view. I don't have any strong metaphysical views. I just see dualism as superfluous and producing more problems than it trys to solve.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

Well at least we seem to have goaded you into debating an issue properly! Please continue, it is much appreciated!

For me at least, the fact that QM represents a world with multiple realities - all present in the wave function - is extremely suggestive that it is involved in some deep way (i.e. not just in defining the chemistry) in the action of the brain/mind. Before QM, whatever theory came along, it seemed that a chunk of matter, such as the brain, would simply follow the relevant equations essentially like clockwork, which seemed to leave no place for mind - at least as many of us conceive of it.

I appreciate your caveat here.

As I understand it, QM has been tested to very high accuracy (actually QFT) in terms of the time independent solutions of the wave equation which give rise to such things as energy levels, but that the collapse of the wave function might be more complex than imagined. Roger Penrose also seems to think this way.

It is foolhardy to attach too much objectivity to the linguistic description of "wvaefunction collapse". Some interpretations do not assign an objective reality to the wavefunction. Some interpreations do not involve a "collapse". All interpreations are mathematically equivalent.

Ultimately, if mind is distinct from brain (which I know you don't support) there has to be some level at which they couple together, and QM seems the most likely candidate.

This still doesn't solve the fundamental problem dualism it just tries to hide it with smoke and mirrors. You can't have your woo and eat it too. If mind stuff can interact with physical stuff then it is physical too.

It is worthwhile noting that a couple of hundred years ago electricity and magnetism played the same role as quantum mechanics does now. Electricity and magnetism were poorly understood and provided some cover to introduce psi phenomena.

Although quantum entanglement seems at first unlikely in a warm wet brain, there are at least two locations where this has been seriously proposed - the microtubules, present in all cells including neurons, and the tiny vesicles that store and release neurotransmitters across synapses.

What would this achieve other than moving the problem a few steps back?

It is true that there is no experimental evidence that QM is involved in consciousness, but how seriously should we take this, since the mechanism of consciousness is very little understood. At one time consciousness was thought of as being a computation - inspiring the Artificial Intelligence fad of the 1980's and early 1990's. This was an embarrassing and expensive flop. Consciousness was then associated with the concept of neural networks. It was argued that neurones operate as a relatively simple threshold switch with positive and negative inputs from other neurones, learning by the Hebb rule or similar. These were easily simulated on a computer, but my impression is that subject seems to have fizzled despite huge initial hopes.

Nobody knows what consciousness is, which is why we are having this debate.

David

If nobody understands what conciousness is then why are you so sure that physcial science cannot explain it?