The Collective Placebo Effect? Collective Belief & Disbelief?

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I have always understood Stapp's scheme to be that the mind influences the brain by observing the state of some quantum variables. Say you measure something and find it is in a particular eigenstate: |1>. Since the system is not completely isolated (being in a blood-temperature brain!), this state will drift over time by interactions. However, if you keep observing the variable often enough, you can make the probability of a drift as small as possible. Say the state gets slightly mixed: (|1>+a|2>)/Sqrt(1+a^2) where a would increase roughly linearly with time. If you measure the state again you have a probability 1/Sqrt(1+a^2) which is approx 1-(a^2)/2 that it will still be in state |1>. This means that by choosing to measure it over and over again, you can make the probability of drift to another state as small as you like.

Thus, according to Stapp, observation can affect the system because you decide what to measure and how often.

I may be talking total BS here, but that has always been my understanding.

David

Yes, this is my understanding too. In fact the drifting can come from external quantum events also, adding uncertainty all the way to an observation takes place. In our case the observation is viewed as taking place on the brain. The most interesting thing to me is that the process 1, that Stapp describes as acting on the brain and activating the Zeno effect, is non-local in nature.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

Yes, that is true. And that is what Stapp claims (and so did von Neumann before him). The ion channels is just one example of where in the body QM is relevant.

Yes, but why not all ion channels? Is my big toe conscious?

I have to say that I do not understand how any of this solves the hard problem or gives us libertarian free will.

Yes, how it is that your intention of moving your arm ends up with your arm actually moving in the intended direction, and not your body doing something else.

But you think I need a quantum mechanical explanation for this, rather than simply a classical explanation? Can't a group of neurons maintain a pattern using classic mechanisms?

Do I need a quantum mechanical explanation for why a flower follows the sun?

You always end up with something at the bottom that is just there and currently is hard to explain (but maybe not so in the future). To Stapp this is Process Zero. I agree that free will is tricky, and this part of his theory is where he postulates something to make it all add up (since physics is not causally closed something is needed).

I don't see how he's solved the hard problem, either. Why does my thought to move my arm feel the way it does?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

From here: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/WallaceComments.doc

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 ...

So I guess there is none of this quantum Zeno effect stuff going on in any organisms except H. sapiens. I swear I've never read anything about Copenhagen being explicitly about consciousness.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

From here: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/WallaceComments.doc

So I guess there is none of this quantum Zeno effect stuff going on in any organisms except H. sapiens. I swear I've never read anything about Copenhagen being explicitly about consciousness.

~~ Paul

Who says this is only for humans (or at least I don't)?

My problem with Stapp, is that even after mountains of verbiage, I never seem to discover what his image of mind is. I mean, if it sits outside and makes quantum measurements, how does it learn about the results? Can it see the consequences of a quantum observation in the future, and choose on that basis (one thinks of presentiment)? Where do minds come from, do they stick around after we die, etc. His theory never seems to deal with such questions - probably because his funding would decay exponentially if he strayed into such matters!

David

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Who says this is only for humans (or at least I don't)?

My problem with Stapp, is that even after mountains of verbiage, I never seem to discover what his image of mind is. I mean, if it sits outside and makes quantum measurements, how does it learn about the results? Can it see the consequences of a quantum observation in the future, and choose on that basis (one thinks of presentiment)? Where do minds come from, do they stick around after we die, etc. His theory never seems to deal with such questions - probably because his funding would decay exponentially if he strayed into such matters!

David

I agree. Though, it seems as though he tries to go there via integrating it with Witheadian philosophy. I'm not a big fan of that, I feel it' s far more diffuse than the rest of his work.

As I understand it, the mind gets feedback via what nature's reply (process3) to a probing action (process1). I feel that he leaves the notion of mind in his theory open to interpretation, but still changes it away from something material. The book "Irreducible Mind" talks about this, and goes beyond where Stapp himself usually goes.

This interview tries to go in more depth about these issues: http://sts.lbl.gov/~stapp/interview.doc

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes, but why not all ion channels? Is my big toe conscious?

I have to say that I do not understand how any of this solves the hard problem or gives us libertarian free will.


But you think I need a quantum mechanical explanation for this, rather than simply a classical explanation? Can't a group of neurons maintain a pattern using classic mechanisms?

Do I need a quantum mechanical explanation for why a flower follows the sun?


I don't see how he's solved the hard problem, either. Why does my thought to move my arm feel the way it does?

~~ Paul

Not all problems are solved in Stapp's theory. But I think his point that QM must be applied to everything is valid. How can something material be conscious? Well, in this theory (and in QM) there are no material things in the ordinary sense. He goes into these things in the interview I linked in the above post.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Who says this is only for humans (or at least I don't)?

Stapp appears to. At least it sounds like it from that quote above.

My problem with Stapp, is that even after mountains of verbiage, I never seem to discover what his image of mind is. I mean, if it sits outside and makes quantum measurements, how does it learn about the results? Can it see the consequences of a quantum observation in the future, and choose on that basis (one thinks of presentiment)? Where do minds come from, do they stick around after we die, etc. His theory never seems to deal with such questions - probably because his funding would decay exponentially if he strayed into such matters!

Stapp's thing appears to be libertarian free will, so he's already strayed outside the mainstream. I'm afraid you're never going to get an explanation of consciousness that makes you say "Aha, now I see the solution to the mind/brain problem!"

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

Not all problems are solved in Stapp's theory. But I think his point that QM must be applied to everything is valid. How can something material be conscious? Well, in this theory (and in QM) there are no material things in the ordinary sense. He goes into these things in the interview I linked in the above post.

Changing everything from "material" to "quantumish" does nothing to change the fundamental problems. The only thing that's consciousness-like in QM is stuff made up by people who seem satisfied with made-up solutions. If there is a hard problem, and if it is solved with QM, it will simply be because some quantum mechanical mechanisms are required in the brain.

So I'm happy for Stapp to continue his work. It might prove fruitful. But I don't think we're going to find libertarian free will in there.


~~ Paul

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Stapp appears to. At least it sounds like it from that quote above.

~~ Paul

Orthodox QT is his starting point. He goes beyond that himself, but is right about what the orthodox theory says.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

Orthodox QT is his starting point. He goes beyond that himself, but is right about what the orthodox theory says.

Where does the orthodox theory say that human consciousness is the crux?

~~ Paul