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.
• Stapps dualistic model experiment
• Penroses 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 P
arallel
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 (lt 1msec)
6
A crash course in Quantum Physics
Half transparent mirror
Fotondetector triggers sound a
agt
photon
bgt
Classical Physics It is agt OR bgt
Fotondetector triggers sound b
Quantum physics It is agt AND bgt !!!!!!!!!
(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
Non local correlations
Venus

agt
bgt
Half transparent mirror
Mirror
photon

agt
bgt
Mars
9
So what constitutes a measurement?1. Subjective
Reduction

• Consciousness is the crucial measurement device.
  (Wigner, von Neumann, Walker, Stapp)

10
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
Experimental Set Up
14
The pre-observer experiment
Half transparent mirror
agt
PRE-OBSERVATION
photon
bgt
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
agt
PRE-OBSERVATION
photon
bgt
Tape
mixer
switch
None
Conscious
delay
Evoked potential
17
Hoped for ERP results
Nonconscious processing
Conscious processing
With pre-observation
agt
agt
Without pre-observation
agt
(agt bgt)
18
Penroses 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 Its 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 gt 10 -6 sec should be considered
  to be a strong support for Penrose- Hameroffs
  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.

23
(No Transcript)
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 Thorpes 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
1996Presentiment experiment
Presentiment is reported as the apparent
psycho-physiological effect of a future emotional
cause.
31
Procedure Presentiment trial
Skin Conductance
Time
32
Results First Subject (Radin-1)
33
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
Mainstream Research questions

• R f ( emotional level of event) Find f
• R Response - BaseLine
• Implicit assumption BaseLine is independent of
  future emotional level

36
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

37
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

38
Procedure Animal fear study
Skin Conductance
time
39
Results re-analysis Hamms data
stimulus
40
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
41
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

42
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

43
Results re-analysis Gambling experiment

• t 1.634 df117 p 0.053
• Presentiment effect 20!!!!

44
So What Next?

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

45
Brain scanner, Amsterdam Summer 2001
46
Hersenen na een geweldadige stimulus
47
Average activation (BOLD) for 3 conditions
anticipation
48
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.
49
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.

50
Conclusion 2

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