Quantum Models of Consciousness an Introduction

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

2. Roadmap • Why Quantum Physics? • The Measurement Problem. • Stapp’s dualistic model + experiment • Penrose’s ORCH OR model + exp. • Transcendental aspects of Consciousness

3. Why Quantum Physics? ASPECT NEWTONIAN QUANTUM Free Will Deterministic Probalistic Unity of C. Atomistic Holistic Computation Sequential Parallel

4. Baars, Trends in Cognitive Science, 61, jan. 2002 Conscious processing differs from non-conscious processing by the widespread connectivity of brain regions involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Hall et al, Foundations of Physics 7 (1977), pp. 759-67

13. Measurement equipment Quantum Process First Observer Second Observer Experimental Set Up

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

15. Results of Hall et al • Dependent variable: guess by second observer if there was an early observer • 9 series, total number of guesses: 554 • 50% correct (exact!) But: delay was 1 microsecond And : dependent variable was a conscious measure

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

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

18. 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)

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

20. Quantum decoherence times in Brain • Tegmark (Phys.Rev. E 61, 4194, 2000) calculates : 10-12 seconds. • Hagan et al (in press) calculates 10-4 seconds. • Can we measure these times? • Foton echo technique: • 2 laser pulses on a quantum system • First creates superposition • Second results in echo if superposition still exists

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

22. Hoped for Results • Any echo time > 10 -6 sec should be considered to be a strong support for Penrose- Hameroff’s theory. • Such a result should be an incentive to search for the brain mechanisms that screen off decoherence in order to build better quantum computers.

24. 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?

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

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

27. 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. …...

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

29. 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)

30. 1996:Presentiment experiment Presentiment is reported as the apparent psycho-physiological effect of a future emotional ‘cause’.

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

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

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

34. This should be everywhere! Main stream emotion research • Measure baseline of dependent var • Present an emotional / calm event • Measure response of dependent var baseline event response time

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

36. What did we find? • Hamm group: on the speed with which fear arises in animal phobic patients • Damasio group: on implicit emotional learning during Gambling task

37. 150 msec 7000 msec 6850 msec Fixation stimulus Blank Screen Procedure Animal fear study Skin Conductance time

38. Erotic presentiment Calm Results re-analysis Hamm’s data stimulus

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

40. 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

41. Winning vs. Losing Cards: • Quote from: Bechara, Damasio et al, Science, 275, 28 February 97, 1293-1295 • : ….. “the players have no way of predicting when a penalty will arise…”

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

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

44. Brain scanner, Amsterdam Summer 2001

45. Plakje 12 Hersenen na een geweldadige stimulus

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

47. 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….

48. However • Spooky twins survive Einsteinian torture • I.e in relativistic framework still non-local correlations • But one can not say that one observation is earlier than the other. • Thus statevector collapse has atemporal aspects.

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