Dr. Henry Stapp - Beyond the Mind-Body Problem

[cbeebe007]

Wrong, theres no inside/outside, subject/object distinction in QM. This is based upon extreme anti-realist philosophy of Heisenberg and Bohr. Einstein was always the more reasonable one. Uncertainty relations have nothing to do with the human mind/brain. That is "What the BLEEP?" crap. "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature." (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 111)

[seanotube85]

That's interesting. I heard that neuroscience has discovered that a single neuron can end up affecting a brain's state of mind/thoughts. And I believe that neurons derive their movement/energy on quantum principles. Does this have to do with what he is saying here?

[nednednerb]

@seanotube85 that sounds like butterfly effects. It is true that a single pulse from one specific neuron in one specific region can initiate and instigate a chain reaction of nervous pulses. Such as, with one clear example, so much as a single small spot of visible, odd motion registering in the brain and thereby initiating a whole fight or flight response because you just saw your prey or predator. Evolution has seemed to embed the "questions" into our subconscious, so WE do not "collapse"!

[seanotube85]

@nednednerb Yeah. I'm sure if we were conscious of quantum level changes it would be a bit much for us to handle. Here's something I found about quantum computation within biological life if you're interested: /watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY&feature=p­layer_embedded

[sheldonknowsall]

This topic is explained more clearly in Radin's book "Entangled Minds" pg. 256 - 260

[flayktheone]

Once you get past his introduction in quantum mechanics, you realize that he's not really saying anything at all. "The collapse of the wave function can explain mind-brain interaction." Great. How do we investigate that?

Any good scientific hypothesis is falsifiable... how will we know when this one has been proven right/wrong? How does a wave function collapse to produce the color of blue vs. red, or the taste of garlic vs. the smell of roses?

[aeroguy7]

Quantum Enigma is a good book to start with on this stuff.

[xBLOODBAFx]

i'm so sorry. this is really appealing to me.... but i dont really understand what he's saying. what books can i read up on so i can understand the mind/brain problem?

[jonnylazer]

in relation to this video I would suggest its a book on quantum mechanics that you need

[cskolnik1]

Stapp's *Mindful Universe*--brilliant and readable--much clearer than this piece.

[ArianeQube]

I cannot agree with Dr Stapp. He is inferring that the human mind is controlled by something from the outside and that the actual collapse of the state function is due to the increase in knowledge on the part of the experimenter. That is not true. The state vector (or state ket, or state function) is a mathematical model, and the only thing linking it to the physical world is the experiment. The state function collapses because of the actual experiment being done, that influences the system

[ArianeQube]

and not because of something that happens in our mind. If you try to measure the position of an electron, for example, you know only a probability of it being in some place or another. When you send a photon that scatters of the electron, then you find the actual position and the wave function "collapses". Same thing happens when you throw a dice and not look at it. All 6 sides are equally possible states, but when you look, the "function collapses" and you find only one side.

[ArianeQube]

There is no proof, be it mathematical or physical, that an external agent acts on our mind, and that through this act, our mind influences the state of the observed system. Bringing speculation in science is a very dangerous thing to do.

[NoLies86]

Bringing speculation in science is very dangerous?....How do you even begin scientific inquiry without speculating first?...I think it is important that you understand what science actually is......then.....you will begin to understand Stapp.

[ArianeQube]

There is a huge difference between taking speculation as fact and formulating a new hypothesis, WHICH HAS TO BE PROVEN, and only after, it will be scientific fact. Second, my dice example was an analogy, to prove my point. Please do not interpret my comments anyway you like. I think I've been clear enough.

[NoLies86]

OK..."If you try to measure the position of an electron, for example, you know only a probability of it being in some place or another."

It is not probability of it being in one place...it is the probability of you finding it in that place.---You cannot take away the experimenter from the experiment. To understand this completely...take a look at Bell's theorem.

Yes, your dice example was an analogy...and it was one that does not analogically fit when you apply classic examples to quantum ones

[NoLies86]

Another note...I do not think these people are just "speculating"...the idea of non-separability and non-locality are well substantiated within physics...you should do some more reading on this. Furthermore, everybody speculates--all scientific theories are speculative---it is the facts they are buttressed on that we are more certain of. Anybody who studies the history of science and philosophy of science knows this. You cannot use locality for the understanding of quantum phenomena---final.

[jonnylazer]

speculation is the heart of science... what are are your scientific credentials ?

[cskolnik1]

And you are a world-renowned physicist who collaborated with the pioneers of quantum mechanics--like Stapp?

Or does proof precede hypothesis in your particular scientific method?

[Ckordobah]

Beautifully said..........

[NoLies86]

By the way, your dice example is not comparable to quantum mechanical wave function collapse. Check out Bell's theorem...like...really delve into it. Scientific American just had an article recently the explicitly decreed that non-locality is a fact, even if quantum mechanics is wrong---it is verified in experiment.

[USALawyer]

All correct. From our friend who won the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics.