Quantum Models of Consciousness an Introduction Disclaimer: Those who claim to understand Quantum Physics, Certainly do not understand it (Niels Bohr)

Roadmap ðWhy Quantum Physics? ðThe Measurement Problem. ðStapp’s dualistic model + experiment ðPenrose’s ORCH OR model + exp. ðTranscendental aspects of Consciousness

Why Quantum Physics? ASPECTNEWTONIANQUANTUM Free WillDeterministicProbalistic Unity of C.AtomisticHolistic ComputationSequentialParallel

Baars, Trends in Cognitive Science, 61, jan Conscious processing differs from non-conscious processing by the widespread connectivity of brain regions involved.

Simultaneity of brain signals Brain signals from quite different brain regions sometimes show no phase difference (< 1msec) …

A crash course in Quantum Physics photon Half transparent mirror Classical Physics: It is |a> OR |b> |a> |b> Quantum physics: It is |a> AND |b> !!!!!!!!! (superposition) Measurement ‘causes’ the ‘collapse Fotondetector triggers sound b Fotondetector triggers sound a

The Measurement Problem ðBell proved that ALL local realistic theories give the wrong results (QP is complete) ðSo the measurement really does ‘collapse’ the superposition of states to one observed state. ðNon locally! (Einstein Podolsky Rosen)

Non local correlations photon Half transparent mirror |b> Venus Mars |a> + |b> |a> + Mirror

So what constitutes a measurement? 1. Subjective Reduction ðConsciousness is the crucial measurement device. (Wigner, von Neumann, Walker, Stapp) Photon |a> Photon |b>

So what constitutes a measurement? 2. Objective Reduction ðQuantum gravity constitutes the objective reduction criterium. (Penrose) Number of particles in superposition * time Time Collapse

Stapp: Consciousness causes the collapse? ðvon Neumann argued that all measurement devices are physical and should be described quantum physically thus should also be in superposition ðConsciousness may be non-physical? A dualistic perspective (Stapp)

Hall et al, Foundations of Physics 7 (1977), pp

Experimental Set Up Quantum Process Measurement equipment First Observer Second Observer

The pre-observer experiment photon Half transparent mirror |a> |b> mixer delay switch PRE- OBSERVATION None Conscious I was first

Results of Hall et al ðDependent variable: guess by second observer if there was an early observer ð9 series, total number of guesses: 554 ð50% correct (exact!) But: delay was 1 microsecond And : dependent variable was a conscious measure

The pre-observer experiment photon Half transparent mirror |a> |b> mixer delay switch PRE- OBSERVATION Tape None Conscious Evoked potential

Hoped for ERP results With pre-observation Without pre-observation Nonconscious processing Conscious processing |a> (|a> + |b>) |a>

Penrose’s ORCH OR model Mathematcal insight is non-computable Collapse is non-computable This moment = a moment of consciousness Between these ‘collapses’, quantum computation for about 100 msecs goes on till quantum gravity causes the next collapse. Main stream physics: It’s Impossible in the brain Hameroff: screening & errorcorrection by special structures (micro tubulin)

Visual Consciousness Woolf & Hameroff, Trends in Cognitive Science 5-11, nov. 2001

Quantum decoherence times in Brain ðTegmark (Phys.Rev. E 61, 4194, 2000) calculates : seconds. ðHagan et al (in press) calculates seconds. ðCan we measure these times? ðFoton echo technique:  2 laser pulses on a quantum system  First creates superposition  Second results in echo if superposition still exists

Empirically: photon echo exp. laser aom Timing generator Sampling oscilloscope aom Retina Eye diffuser detector pinhole Pulse 1: excitation of Rodopsin into superposition Pulse 2: generates an echo if superposition still exists

Hoped for Results ð Any echo time > sec should be considered to be a strong support for Penrose- Hameroff’s theory. ð Such a result should be an incentive to search for the brain mechanisms that screen off decoherence in order to build better quantum computers.

Transcendental aspects of Consciousness? Some, so called paranormal, phenomena seem to transcend space and time. These are very controversial. Nonetheless there is rather strong empirical evidence for phenomena like Extra Sensory Perception and Psychokinesis. And how about pre-sentiment?

What is presentiment? Ask Ian Thorpe, The world record holder 100 meter sprint. He visited New York…….

It is sept. 11, around 9h00. Ian takes the elevator to the upper floor of the WTC building to take some pictures…….

Half way up he suddenly realizes he has forgotten his camera. So goes down to return to his hotel. When he leaves the building he looks back. It just after nine now. …...

Thanks for your concern and support following the New York tragedy …… From Thorpe’s website

Was Ian just lucky? Ed Cox (1960) Compared train ridership on days with and without a train accident. He found that on accident days there were significant less people on trains. (Note: Utts redid the analyses and found a smaller effect after correction for holidays)

1996:Presentiment experiment Presentiment is reported as the apparent psycho- physiological effect of a future emotional ‘cause’.

Procedure Presentiment ‘trial’ Time Subject Hits Button 0 5 Or Calm Blank screen baseline Random!! Skin Conductance

Results First Subject (Radin-1) stimulus Presentiment? Calm Emotional

Results all Subjects (Radin-1) Emotional Calm Presentiment!

This should be everywhere! Main stream emotion research ðMeasure baseline of dependent var ðPresent an emotional / calm event ðMeasure response of dependent var baselineeventresponse time

Mainstream Research questions ðR = f ( emotional level of event): Find ‘f’ ðR = Response - BaseLine ðImplicit assumption: BaseLine is independent of ‘future emotional level’

What did we do? ðSearch for main stream databases that  Measure a BaseLine for at least 4 seconds.  Use strong emotional events  For which Data can be obtained

What did we find? ðHamm group: on the speed with which fear arises in animal phobic patients ðDamasio group: on implicit emotional learning during Gambling task

Procedure Animal fear study Skin Conductance Fixation stimulus 7000 msec time 6850 msec Blank Screen 150 msec

Results re-analysis Hamm’s data Erotic Calm presentiment

Damasio: gambling procedure Participant gets initially $2000 Draws cards from one of 4 different decks Card is either winning or losing time Preparation Draws card Feedback: win or loss Skin Conductance

Damasio dataset analyses Damasio-analysis P = f (type of deck) !!! Advantageous vs non-advantageous Our Re-analysis: P = f(type of Card) Winning vs Losing

Winning vs. Losing Cards: Quote from: Bechara, Damasio et al, Science, 275, 28 February 97, : ….. “the players have no way of predicting when a penalty will arise…”

Results re-analysis Gambling experiment t = 1.634; df=117 ; p =0.053 Presentiment effect : 20%!!!!

So What Next? Can we differentiate between different emotions? Can we exclude possible artefacts? Can we locate the source of this phenomenon?

Hersenen na een geweldadige stimulus Plakje 12

Average activation (BOLD) for 3 conditions Stimulus Neutral Erotic Violent anticipation

What has this to do with QP Hooft (Dutch journal of physics, 2000): Causality is the cornerstone of our worldview. Data that suggest otherwise MUST be incorrect….

However ðSpooky twins survive Einsteinian torture ðI.e in relativistic framework still non-local correlations ðBut one can not say that one observation is earlier than the other. ðThus statevector collapse has atemporal aspects.

Conclusion 2 ðSome hitherto controversial anomalous phenomena (transcending space and time) might become less obscure in the light of quantum models of consciousness.