Quantum Theory and Consciousness: The Mindful Universe of Henry P.

Stapp
Martin Flechl March 24, 2006

Alexander Batthyany: VO Theorien des Geistes WS 2005/06

Abstract Quantum theories of consciousness are introduced, with special regard to the model of Henry P. Stapp. General considerations whether quantum physics is capable of solving philosophical problems like mental causation, free will and the unity of consciousness are presented and applied to Stapps model.

INTRODUCTION

Contents
1 Introduction 2 The Quantum Approach 2.1 2.2 Quantum Measurement and the Copenhagen Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Von Neumanns Extension of the Copenhagen Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 3 5 7 8 8 10 13

3 The Model of Henry P. Stapp 4 Problems in Quantum Models of Consciousness 4.1 4.2 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stapps Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Conclusions

Introduction

Within the realm of Classical Physics there is neither a need for a consciousness to exist at all, nor any natural way in which the consciousness could be ecacious in the physical world. Non-physical concepts like minds or conscious thoughts have to be added in an ad-hoc way, and nevertheless would not make a dierence for the time evolution of the physical world. With the emergence of quantum theory new hope spread among philosophers who - not surprisingly - soon started exploiting the new physics for their models of consciousness and mental causation. Indeed quantum theory allows interpretations in which the choices of human beings can inuence the physical world and in which consciousness plays a role. The reason are two consequences of quantum theory: The (partially) non-deterministic character of quantum systems, and the fact that the measurement of properties of a system does not leave the system unchanged. Considering the absence of these properties in classical physics, we can conclude that any philosophical theory that regards human beings as more than just zombies or robots and that does not want to generally deny physics in spite of its huge sucess in the last centuries either has to classify what appears to be physical reality as illusion without objective cause, as product of ones ideas, and engage in solipsism - or to deal with quantum theory in order to explain the concepts of consciousness and mental causation, and eventually, free will.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

2 THE QUANTUM APPROACH

I will rst give a brief introduction to the relevant aspects of quantum theory and to Stapps model of consciousness. Then I will investigate whether quantum approaches to consciousness in general and Stapps model in particular are able to provide possible solutions to the problems of consciousness, mental causation, and free will. I use quantum theory as a general term for classical quantum mechanics as well as for relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum eld theories. I understand measurement in the very general way quantum theory does, including everything from scientic experiments and everydays observations up to introspection, in some contexts even events without conscious beings involved. Since this is not a history paper, I mainly deal with Stapps most recent accounts[11][12][13][14][15] unless explicitely mentioned. Keep in mind that all theories of consciousness are highly speculative and in general currently only their self-consistency and their consistency with other theories (in particular quantum theories which have been tested to highest precisions) can be tested. We are talking of possible solutions - without disrespect, since even in centuries no consistent and satisfactory1 concept of consciousness has been developed so far. In other words: Showing only the possibility of the existence of concepts like mental causation would already be a great achievement and the necessary rst step, only then we can start to think of how to prove that this possibility actually is the case.

2
2.1

The Quantum Approach

Quantum Measurement and the Copenhagen Interpretation

The mathematical framework of quantum theories is well-dened and their predictions are tested to the highest precision, especially in the case of quantum electrodynamics more than for any other theory - although many of their implications are not only counter-intuitive, but somewhat absurd, like the coexistence of two contradictory states. My quantum mechanics teacher told us in the rst lecture: If you leave this lecture hall and you believe that you understood quantum mechanics, then it means you did not understand it. In his opinion quantum mechanics was impossible to be understood: It works, but we have no idea why. This explains why nowadays there are so many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics. I will now give a brief account of the one favoured by most theories of consciousness, we may call it the Copenhagen - von Neumann - Interpretation, because it is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation[3][5] and von Neumanns extension[17]. Lets take the simple example of an electron: In classical physics, its a point-like particle whose time evolution is described by Newtons deterministic equation of motion. In quantum mechanics the point-like particle is replaced by a wave function - a smeared-out, cloudlike structure, assigning
1 Satisfactory

in the sense that free will is possible and the physical world is not only a product of ones mind

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

2 THE QUANTUM APPROACH

a probability to each space-time-point for the electron to occupy it2 . Von Neumann distinguishes two kinds of processes: 1. In absence of interaction: Time evolution of the wave function is described by the deterministic Schrdinger equation, which basically causes the wave function to spread out. o 2. During interaction: The non-deterministic so-called projection postulate describes the evolution. The state the system evolves into is not entirely determined by its wave function anymore, only probabilities are assigned to each outcome. The spreading out stops, the wave function collapses into a smaller region of (phase) space.

The interpretations mainly dier in the answers to two questions3 : A : Does the wave function represent (1) anything real or (2) just a symbol in equations? B : What kind of interaction causes the collapse of the wave function - (1) any contact interaction, or (2) only a consciousness-like interaction? The Copenhagen Interpretation concludes that since interaction changes the way a system evolves and since each measurement constitutes an interaction between the measurement device and the measured system, the specic experimental setup inuences the outcome of a measurement and is therefore part of the measurement itself. Nature is divided into two parts: The observed system, and the observer, consisting of the consciousness of the human agent, their brain and body, as well as the measurement device used. So far the Copenhagen Interpretation is compatible with all four combinations of answers to the questions A and B. Interestingly, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born (the main contributors to the interpretation) were advocating A2 (statistical interpretation of the wave function4 ) and B1, while Stapp, who claims to agree with the Copenhagen Interpretation, clearly is in favour of B2 and rather A1, although he is not explicit regarding this question. Both agree, however, on the two dierent processes governing the time evolution, the seperation observer - observed system and the indeterminism of individual quantum events, whereas the behaviour of ensembles of such events is assumed to be statistically determined.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

2 THE QUANTUM APPROACH

Figure 1: Stern-Gerlach Experimental Setup

2.2

Von Neumanns Extension of the Copenhagen Interpretation

To understand von Neumanns extension lets consider the famous Stern-Gerlach-Experiment (1922). Neutral atoms with a property called spin pass a magnetic eld(see gure[1]) which is inhomogenic in the z-direction, thus being exposed to a force which accelerates the atom into the +z-direction (upwards) or z-direction (downwards) depending on the orientation of their spin: |+z (up) or |z (down). The device therefore measures the spin orientation in the z-direction, after the measurement we know that the spin orientation of the atom is, depending on the outcome, either +z or -z. What happens if we employ a magnetic eld inhomogenic in the x-direction? We end up with an atom having a spin orientation of either +x or -x. In other words: The state of the atom after the measurement depends on the so-called eigenstates (of the indicator variable) of the measurement device! By preparing the experimental setup, we determine the possible outcomes of the experiment. The particle whose state before the measurement in general is a superposition of dierent states (e.g. spin-up and spin-down) is in exactly one of the eigenstates of the measurement device after the measurement5 There is some ambiguity in Von Neumanns approach, I will limit this introduction to Stapps interpretation of von Neumann[12] and only give a few remarks at the end of this chapter: Stapp claims that von Neumann extended the Copenhagen Interpretation by replacing the observerobserved system seperation by a seperation into a physically described part, consisting of the
2 Precisely, 3A

the square of the absolute value of the wave function is equal to that probability third question would be: Does collapse actually occur or just an Everett-type branching, like e.g. in many-

world-theories? 4 for this reason Bohr refused the term collapse because in his opinion it implies a pictorial interpretation of the wave function 5 Mathematically, the spin space is two dimensional. By choosing the orientation of the magnetic eld we choose a set of base vectors, e.g. |+z & |z , or |+x & |x . Therefore these directions dont correspond to directions in Euclidean space in so far as e.g. |+z is a linear combination of |+x and |x and not orthogonal to both of them.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

2 THE QUANTUM APPROACH

system to be measured, the measurement device, as well as the brain and body of the observer, and a psychologically described part, the consciousness of the observer. The link between both parts is then the brain of the observer, which is being acted upon by the consciousness of the observer. For example, when the consciousness of the observer asks the question Is the spin orientation of the atom in the |+z -state?, then the change to the Yes basis state of the brain of the observer during the measurement represents the conscious acquisition of the knowledge associated with the answer Yes and therefore constitutes a neural correlate to the observers experience of the outcome Yes. This is equivalent to answer B2: It is our consciousness which collapses the physical state of a system. According to this interpretation, the universe (and each part of it) is only in a well-dened state when we observe it. This has strange consequences like that if no one looks at the moon for some time the moon would nally spread out into the entire universe - more on that later. Conscious beings can therefore inuence the physical world by asking questions to the nature and by specifying possible answers (basis vectors - like choosing the orientation of the magnetic eld in the Stern-Gerlach-Experiment). Just like any other physical object, the brain itself has a cloud-like structure in (phase) space and can represent superpositions of dierent states, e.g. conicting templates for action corresponding to dierent possible decisions in a given situation. The consciousness then can make a choice on the psychological side, which actualizes the brain state that contains the neural correlates of that choice and is associated with a certain template for action. This is the framework von Neumann provides, upon which several authors build their theories like Penrose and Hameros Orchestrated Objective Reduction Model[7], Popper, Eccels and Becks Model[2][10], and many more. I will focus on the model of Henry P. Stapp. As pointed out, this was Stapps interpretation of von Neumann. In fact it is an open question whether von Neumann has advocated the phenomenological opinion that it appears to our consciousness that the wave function collapses, or that he actually meant that our consciousness plays a causal role in the collapse. Since he pointed out[17] that it makes no dierence if the boundary between measurement and measured system is between the measured system and the measurement device (like in the Copenhagen Interpretation) or between both of them and the brain of the observer at least he must have believed that collapse is also possible without the presence of a conscious agent.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

3 THE MODEL OF HENRY P. STAPP

The Model of Henry P. Stapp

Stapp identies three processes: Process 1 - The Heisenberg Choice: The agents choice about how to act, i.e. which measurement to perform / which question to pose to nature. It is a free input to the system (meaning that it cannot be derived from its quantum state), as well as the choice of the basis vectors. Process 2 - Regime of the Schrdinger Equation: Deterministic time evolution in absence of a o conscious measurement. Process 3 - The Dirac Choice: Natures answer to the question posed by process 1 - the collaps to one of the basis vectors. Subject to statistical laws. In our previous Stern-Gerlach-example, the atoms would at rst be in the process 2-regime, potentially in a superposition of states, until a conscious agent chooses to measure the spin orientation by using an inhomogenic magnetic eld, dening the basis vectors by the direction of the gradient of the magnetic eld (process 1). Finally the atom passes the magnetic eld and the experimental outcome is either spin-up or spin-down in the space spanned by the basis vectors (process 3). Stapp points out that even for a given process 1 the agent can inuence the quantum state of a system via the Quantum Zeno Eect. After Misra and Sudarshan[9] found and studied the eect theoretically, it could be empirically shown that a quantum state of a system can be stabilized simply by probing it with a high frequency6 . The rate of process 1 is a free choice made by the agent. Its neither controlled by deterministic laws like process 2 nor by statistical laws like process 3 nor by any other known process. Stapps idea is that our mind is continously wandering, changing from one brain state to the other. However, If a person can, by wilful eort [...], increase the rapidity of the events in his stream of consciousness, then he could control the activity of his brain by keeping [its] activity conned to the subspace it is already in. The brain state would be prevented from wandering in the way that it would be if there were no [process 1]. [15]. So, in order to take a decision and to activate its template for action, all an agent would have to do is to wait until his brain is in the corresponding state and then, by probing this state with a high frequency, to hold it in place until the template for action is actualized. How are we able to use the Quantum Zeno Eect to establish a connection between our mind and our body, without even being aware of what we are doing? Stapp claims this is done by trial and error testing of the conscious eort and the experiental feedback, similar to the general way in which children learn to deal with their environment. Dierent eorts cause dierent physical
6 For

example the rate at which particles escape from a trap (similar to radioactive decay) could be shown to be

dramatically reduced when the number of atoms still trapped is frequently measured[6]

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

PROBLEMS IN QUANTUM MODELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

consequences, which in return cause dierent experiental consequences. Over the course of time an increasing amount of correspondences is gured out, allowing us to control our body with our mind.

4
4.1

Problems in Quantum Models of Consciousness

General Considerations

Quantum theories of consciousness can be roughly classied as7 : 1. Models of consciousness using ideas of quantum theory in a purely metaphorical way8 2. No-Collapse-Models, with Everett-type branchings (compare [1]), e.g. many-world- or manymind-theories 3. Models where the consciousness directly inuences the outcome of a quantum event (Process 3), e.g. the Popper-Beck-Eccels - approach(see [2][10]) and Stapp in older publications 4. Models where the consciousness inuences the physical world by choosing the type and timing of a measurement (Process 1) - like Stapps current model I will neither discuss type 1-models, because I dont consider them relevant for our purposes, nor type 2-models, which, though fascinating, are based upon an entirely dierent approach and would go beyond the scope of this investigation. Type 3-models claim that consciousness can break the laws of physics, precisely the statistical laws of quantum physics. If we look at the Stern-Gerlach-Experiment again: Given that the incoming atoms are not prepared in a certain state, then the probability for both possible outcomes (spin-up and spin-down) is 50% each. That means that an individual event is indeterminate, while an ensemble of events is statistically determined. However, in Type 3-models individual events are determined or at least inuenced by the consciousness, e.g. the consciousness could cause the outcome of each single Stern-Gerlach-Measurement to be spin-up, in other theories it could at least inuence the probabilities such that now the outcome of e.g. 52% of the events is spin-down. To avoid absurd consequences these theories generally claim that the scope of this inuence is limited, e.g. only to the brain of the body the consciousness is related to. Without going into details of his model, Eccels for example states that the nerve impulse triggering the release of transmitters (a process called exocytosis) in the presynaptic terminal has
7I 8 As

dont claim that this list is complete Stapp[12] points out, some people seem to believe that quantum theory is a mystery and consciousness is

a mystery, so perhaps the two are related. Probably thats the motivation for these type 1-models.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

PROBLEMS IN QUANTUM MODELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

to be described quantum mechanically, which in fact is reasonable for very short time scales. He claims that mental intention can become neurally eective by momentarily increasing the probability of exocytosis[2]. Of course, several problems are associated with such an approach: The major problem is that it is incompatible with the principles of quantum physics - well-tested, fundamental laws. Every theory trying to abandon them should provide strong arguments and clear evidence for their (partial) violation. Then, all of these theories are very vague about how a) the consciousness can inuence such quantum events (like processes at single synapsis), and b) how this microscopic events can actually be macroscopically eective. Another seemingly absurd, but actually non-trivial problem is to explain why the (direct) inuence of my consciousness is limited to my brain - why cant it inuence the rest of my body, my inanimate environment, or even the brains of other people? Eccels solves this problem as well as a) and probably b) by postulating that consciousness is composed of small units called psychons, each of them being associated with the acivation of a certain physical structure in the brain. However, such a model seems to cause more questions than it answers. In earlier publications[16], Stapp picked up this idea. He argued that each of the presynaptic terminals is in a superposition between ring and non-ring states. Normally all these single indeterminacies in the brain would average out. However, Stapp claimed that the brain could amplify these microscopic uctuations into large patterns and therefore yield macroscopic eects. And in contrast to his more recent papers, he believed that our consciousness decides to which state superpositions in our brain collapse into: The basic idea [...] is to identify the selection of one of the [...] patterns of neural excitations as the [...] creative act from the realm of human consciousness ([16], p. 102). Since he claims that the principles of quantum theory are not violated, this has the absurd consequence that after a large number of decisions for a state X in a superposition of X and Y, the agent would have to choose Y for no apparent reason. Anyway, Stapp denies such an inuence of the consciousness on process 3 in his more recent papers. Type 4-models, like Stapps current approach, are theoretically very appealing: While providing space for consciousness and mental causation, their principles are not in conict with the principles of quantum theory (although the specic model might be, of course). They claim that the consciousness inuences the physical world only by choosing which measurement is to be performed (including the choice of the timing), thereby only acting on process 1 for which quantum theory does not provide any predictions. Their main challenge is to explain how such a small direct inuence of the mental realm on the physical world can be sucient for free will. It seems that this is only possible with the additional, highly problematic postulate that it is our consciousness which causes the collapse of a quantum event, like in Stapps model.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

PROBLEMS IN QUANTUM MODELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

This would mean that an atom passing our Stern-Gerlach-Apparatus would only collapse to either spin-up or spin-down if a conscious being observes the experiment - otherwise, without this agent present, the atom would continue being in a superposition of states. Actually even if the agent was there and watching the experiment, in case they didnt process the outcome of the experiment because of a brief phase of distraction the atom would be happily ever after in his state of superposition! While Bohr, Heisenberg and von Neumanns idea of a measurement included the microscopic level (even a photon interacting with an electron would constitute a measurement and therefore trigger a collapse), Stapp picks up Wigners[18] idea that the presence of a consciousness is a necessary condition for a measurement and therefore for a collaps to happen. Such an assumption of course is not inconsistent with our experience since we cannot observe what happens while we dont observe. However, it is so deep-rooted both in our scientic and everyday understanding that things behave just the same whether we observe them or not that the assumption of the opposite requires very good reasons, just like the ones Quantum theory provides for the microscopic level (since the notion that only consciousness can cause a collaps would have the consequence that macroscopic superpositions, like Schrdingers Cat, are possible). o Such an assumption would have other absurd, though irrefutable, consequences, all related to macroscopic superpositions. For example if all conscious beings would refrain from looking at the moon for a certain time, the center of the moon would turn into a cloudlike structure of spatial superpositions, eventually (after a very long time) lling the whole universe, at least with a nonzero probability to occupy any position relativistically allowed. Or think of the atom crossing our Stern-Gerlach-Apparatus and imagine a computer records the outcome of the experiment. If no conscious being reads the record then the atom would stay in a state of superposition. Then, if a scientist reads this records by chance ten years later - would the state of the atom of ten years ago suddenly collapse and the scientist thus cause a (not observable?) change in the past?

4.2

Stapps Model

Stapps approach mainly consists of a re-interpretation of Bohrs and von Neumanns ideas in the light of Wigner9 , which is the source of some general problems described in the previous chapter: The idea that only consciousness can cause the collapse of the wave function is actually not essential for the consistency of his model, but very much so for his beauty: Apart from seeming ad-hoc, allowing two substanstially dierent processes - one conscious, the other non-conscious - to cause the collapse would mean that Stapp has to give up his claim not only to explain consciousness via quantum theory, but also to explain crucial processes of quantum theory via consciousness.
9 Stapp

never admits that his model actually is in contradiction to some of the ideas both of Bohr and von

Neumann. He always claims to be consistent with their approaches. Besides, when it comes to interpreting ambiguos aspects of their theories he chooses an interpretion just as if there was no ambiguity at all, without mentioning alternatives. Therefore his claim to extend their theories is not entirely correct.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

10

PROBLEMS IN QUANTUM MODELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Besides, it would mean that in principle non-conscious processes can have the same eect as conscious ones making it hard to explain why consciousness makes a dierence. The only part which is entirely new in Stapps model compared to the Bohr-von NeumannWigner approach is the implementation of the Quantum Zeno Eect by which it is possible to x a certain (unstable) quantum state by observing it with a high frequency. I want to discuss this eect in more detail:

Figure 2: Quantum Zeno Eect. The hollow squares correspond to the unobserved system, the solid circles to the system observed every 1s, the solid line is from simulation. (Source: [6]) In gure[2] we can see the probability for an atom of an ensemble to evolve into another quantum state for a specic process (see [6]), as a function of time. One can clearly see that the unobserved system (hollow squares) decays more rapidly than if the system is observed every 1s. The reason is that the decay probability is a convolution of an exponential function (which dominates for larger times) and an oscillating dependency (dominating for short times). The innitesimal decay probability (the steepness of the function) is a little lower in the rst 1s, increases for the next 5s until it eventually shows the exponential behaviour. If now the system is observed every 1s, each time a new initial state is dened and the system is always in the non-exponential regime with the low innitesimal decay rate and therefore decays more slowly. Obviously the initial non-exponential time period of the decay probability of a brain state might be totally dierent to the one in the experimental setup used by Fischer et al.[6]. According to The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp 11

PROBLEMS IN QUANTUM MODELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Stapp, each collapse is a conscious event, so the frequency of the measurement necessary for the Quantum Zeno Eect must be in the range of typical time scales of brain and perception processes. To decide if this is the case Stapp would have to explain how the Quantum Zeno Eect inuences the evolution of brain states in more detail, it is not clear that this evolution has the shape of the lines in gure [2] at all (why should the decay probability of a brain state be similar to the one of an atomic state10 ), and if yes, what the typical time scale is and why it is so high to play a role in conscious events. However, the real problem appears to be the incredible ne-tuning: As can be seen in gure [2], if the observation rate were increased to one per 2 3s, then the decay rate would actually increase, constituting the so-called Quantum Anti-Zeno Eect. Therefore a high accuracy in the observation rate is required which is particularly dicult because there is no reason why this optimum rate should be the same for all brain states (e.g. it might depend on the type and size of the brain region involved). The Quantum Zeno Eect can only be realised in high-precision experiments under laboratory conditions observing very simple systems. It is hard to believe that our consciousness is able to do all the same, constantly, for the very complex system brain under very varying conditions, and that we able to learn how to control this simply by trial and error, as Stapp claims. The bottom-line is: There is no argument showing that it is impossible that the Quantum Zeno Eect plays a key role for our consciousness, however, there are some severe problems. Fortunately all this is not just speculation, it might be possible in the future to decide these questions by an experiment. Stapps model does not answer the question of free will, he only tries to provide one necessary condition for free will: Mental causation. The way our consciousness inuences the physical world is through measurement - asking questions to the world, and the rate of these measurements. However, he does not give any indication where this choice comes from. It might be random as well as determined by mental processes; in fact it does not even rule out that these choices are physically determined. The fact that quantum theory at the present cannot explain process 1 does neither mean that it will never be able to do so, nor even if it cannot, that this process is not physically determined. Stapp argues that his model also answers the old philosophical questions of the nature of the unity of consciousness, the fact that the content of our consciousness appears to us as a unity and not a sum of parts. This is true for an object, e.g. a table, which we are not conscious of as a set of colours, shapes, etc., but as a whole, but also for the way we are conscious of several objects (including our own bodies) as aspects of a single world, which is a necessary condition for
10 For

an atom, the initial reversibility of the process is the cause of the non-exponential behaviour

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

12

CONCLUSIONS

being able to compare them. Stapp claims that this is the case because of the holistic character of process 1: Physical activity underlying conscious experience is not a set of seperate physical events (e.g. neurons ring), because conscious events correspond to quantum events - collapses taking place holistically in large regions of the brain. Therefore he assumes a correlation between the content of conscious states and the physical quantum states of the brain. Conscious intentions are also conscious states, and they determine the occurence of process 1. Therefore there is a correlation between these occurences and physical states. Although a correlation does not imply any causal dependencies, this means that in principle the choice of process 1 can be predicted by quantum theory only given that the laws of quantum theory are conserved, as Stepp claims. It seems Stapp would have to modify his opinion about the unity of consciousness if he wants to keep the possibility of free will and conserve the laws of quantum theory at the same time. As explained in detail, Stapp stresses that our mind is wandering and once the brain reaches a state that corresponds to our conscious intention, it xes this state via the Quantum Zeno Eect (A simple model can be found in [14]). It is to be questioned whether a free will that has to wait a variable amount of time for a brain state to evolve to its desired state is actually worth being called free. The probability that the brain state we desire simply does not occur depends on the ratio of the time scale in which the brain states change and in which decisions evolve. However, there is always a non-zero probability for that to happen, in particular for actions our free will desires but for which the probability for the corresponding brain state to occur is very small. Therefore we should at least occasionally observe weakness of will - for example that we decide not to raise our left hand, but actually do so. Personally I never had such an experience. Stapps model actually does not depend on that assumption, in fact he never claims that the choice of process 1 is always determined by the wave function of the brain (and the free will only xing it), it might also be possible that the free will can choose directly. This assumption does not seem to be in contradiction with the rest of his model, although it is probably less elegant.

Conclusions

Henry P. Stapp probably provides the most promising theory of consciousness. It is a complete theory touching all necessary aspects except free will (although investigating a necessary condition of free will, mental causation). This probably is not considered an essential part of a theory of consciousness although this would be the most interesting aspect in so far as it is the only one relevant outside of academic circles. I presented Stapps model by introducing the part he took from the Copenhagen Interpretation and von Neumann, as well as Stapps re-interpretations and own contributions. I then classied The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp 13

CONCLUSIONS

quantum theories of consciousness together with some general ideas, before dealing with the problems in Stapps model in more detail. As I tried to point out, there are several problems in the approach that need to be resolved. In particular I mentioned the assumption that consciousness is necessary to complete a quantum measurement, the applicability of the Quantum Zeno Eect to the model and the question of the neural correlates - if the choice of Process 1 itself can be explained quantum theoretically than there is no need for a (theory of) consciousness. I also conclude that it is necessary to admit that free will does not only choose the rate of process 1, but also which process 1 to perform, in order to avoid contradictions to our experience.

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

14

REFERENCES

References
[1] Barrett, Jerey, 2003, Everetts Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2003/entries/qm-everett/ [2] Beck, F., and Eccles, J., Quantum Aspects of Brain Activity and the Role of Consciousness, 1992,in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 89, 11357-11361 [3] Bohr, Niels, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol I-IV, Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press [4] Bourget, David J.R., Quantum Leaps in Philosophy of Mind, Journal of Consciousness Studies 11, 12 [5] Faye, in: Jan, The Copenhagen Stanford Interpretation of of Quantum Edward Mechanics, N. Zalta 2002, (ed.),

Encyclopedia

Philosophy,

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2002/entries/qm-copenhagen/ [6] Fischer, M.C. et al., Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti Zeno Eects in an Unstable System, 2001, Physical Review Letters, Volume 87, Number 4 [7] Hamero, S., Penrose, R., Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Microtubules: a Model for Consciousness, 1996, J. Consciousness Studies 3, 36-53 [8] Kofman, A.G., Kurizki, G., Acceleration of quantum decay processes by frequent observations, 2000, Nature 405, 546-550 [9] Misra, B & Sudarshan, E.C.G., 1977, The Zenos Paradox in Quantum Theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18, 756-763 [10] Popper, K.R., Eccels, J.C., The Self and Its Brain, 1977, Springer, Berlin [11] Stapp, Henry P.: The Mindful Universe, Book in Progress - Version of March 1, 2006, http://www-physics.lbl.gov/stapp/MU.pdf [12] Stapp, Henry P.: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness, in: Zelazo, P.D, Moscovitch, M. & Thompson, E., Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, 2005, Cambridge University Press, http://www-physics.lbl.gov/stapp/Cambridge.pdf [13] Stapp, Henry P.: Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Second Edition), 2004, SpringerVerlag [14] Stapp, Henry P.: Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature, 2001, Foundations of Physics, 31, 1465-1499, http://www-physics.lbl.gov/stapp/vnr.pdf The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp 15

REFERENCES

[15] Stapp, Henry P.:

The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes,

2000, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory e-print LBNL-46871, http://wwwphysics.lbl.gov/stapp/max.ps [16] Stapp, Henry P.: Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (First Edition), 1993, SpringerVerlag [17] Von Neumann, J., Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, 1932, J. Springer [18] Wigner, E.P., Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, 1967, in: Symmetries and Reections, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 171-184

The Mindful Universe of Henry P. Stapp

16