 Thank you to the organizers to be invited here to speak about things which you all know and which you will certainly consider to be a wonderful trivial at the end, but maybe confusing. And so I will go into the subject with slides and with some formula on the backboard. And I also will give some references at the end, and so if anybody wants to get a copy of the slides, you can get them with references too. They will be on the website. Oh, wonderful. Okay. The problem which I want to address is whether quantum mechanics has something to do with higher brain functions. And that was the subject of an article which Christoph Koch and I wrote for Nature. And Nature was very far-sighted. We had a question mark at the end, and that was of course completely wrong because quantum mechanics is very important for the brain, I mean the whole matter is quantum mechanics. And so I'm happy to have as a subject two things. One is I want to give first a short view on classical electrodynamics of a brain, of a classical brain, so that you can see about what we are speaking. And that's of course the brains which we have inside ourselves, and you will recognize some of those things. But there are two things in our article which we addressed very pointedly. And that was that the quantum mechanics in the brain for higher brain functions is ridiculous because there are no sensible or interesting quantum computations, algorithms known which such a quantum computer the brain could use. And I think that since the writing of this paper no really good quantum algorithms have been found, and maybe we'll never find anything which could possibly implement interesting computations in the brain. The second thing is in our article we addressed a more physical question, it is hopeless to have higher brain functions implemented in the brain because the brain is extremely coherent as a wet and warm engine. And I think that's good to address to you one well-known formula is if you have a free particle so h equals to b squared over 2m, and you take as initial wave packet a Gaussian, so pi sigma is normalization minus one-half, oh one-half, well sigma is the width of this wave packet at the time 0, and if you take a realistic thing of mass of an electron 10 to the minus 30 kilogram, and sigma one angstrom that means 10 to the minus 8 meter, and you compute the thing at later time, you find that this looks very simple sigma t, well let us take just the square root of this, and yeah I take sigma square here, and yeah so minus one exponent of x squared over 2 sigma t squared, and here is also sigma squared, and the sigma of t is the square root of 1 plus h bar t squared over m squared sigma 0 4 times the sigma of 0, and that means that if I take those things here, this localization, then I'm fine for instance at well sigma of 1 second is equal to 10 to the 6 meter, which is ridiculous for our world, right, because we know that our world is the chair and such things don't change, and this is something very fundamental to do with also the functioning of the brain, that decoherence helps to localize things, and the idea goes back to C and use, and it's the picture they use is they take a particle and a massive particle at the position x, that is the positional degree of freedom, and you have an initial initial scattering particle to it, and it goes back into sigma of psi of x, then the formula of non- narrativistic quantum mechanics tell you how to describe such a thing if you suppose that the range of this potential which represents the particle is short, and the idea is that the scattering s of the product state can in a good approximation be written as something here and here a psi of x, that means you get here an entanglement between the particle and the scattered particle, the important thing is now the following if you take a density matrix which is of the form dx, dx prime and rho of the system which is the particle here at x, x prime and zero times v, if you want to have an operator here, x, x prime and here the initial, you take the initial wave function normalized to one, and then the one is interested in looking at rho of the system at later time, or here the time actually plays no role in this image of the scattering process in the interaction picture, rho, and this can be written as in the following form that the rho s of x, x prime and zero goes over into the rho s of x, x prime, zero, and now the overlap between the scattering states, here the position of x is chi of x prime, chi of x, this is non-narrativistic scattering theory, and so if one wants to see the decoherence, that means the loss of the non-trivial, the loss of the contributions for x significantly different from x prime, one has to look at how this function here behaves, and the scattering theory leads you after some assumptions, the assumptions are that this already is here, that there is no recoil, and the rate of scattering is much faster than the rate of change of the system state, and distribution of the particles which scatter here around is isotropic, you get a differential equation, this is rho sigma x, x prime t by dt is equal to minus function of x minus x prime of rho s of x, x prime and t, and the f can be computed explicitly, let me just describe to extreme cases, one is that the wavelength of the incoming particles is short, so the short length you find that the f of x, x prime is actually on a good approximation by total cross section, so you see that there is an of course for x different x prime, and this is a very rapid decay of the correlations, and the long range you get that the f can be written in the form f of minus lambda, if you take for instance x minus x prime equals to delta x, this plays now a role, and here it gets delta x square, and so you get the t of delta x, which is here in the order of one, the lambda can be explicitly expressed in terms of coordinates, lambda is dq rho of q, v of q, q squared over h bar square minus sigma, and effective cross section, and the effective cross section at q is almost like the square of the scattering function, and here the important thing is that this here is then expressed in lambda and delta x squared in this form, and allows you in the framework which we trust, which is normally just the quantum mechanics, what is such a scattering a decay in coherence, because you see this goes here into the differential equation, and gives a decay of the coherence, what it means for instance in the example which is in the textbook is tau delta x for instance is of the order of 10 to the minus 17 seconds for delta x for a large molecule say of 10 angstrom, and that is very impressive, and this tells us much about the reality of the world in which we live, we are living because our senses are not made really for taking into account photon correlations and all kinds of things, but we are seeing macroscopic parameters, and for macroscopic parameters you can forget about the non-diagonal elements in this formula, that means the position is a very good coordinate of a massive object. Okay so what has it to do with quantum mechanics? The important thing for quantum mechanics is the techmark has estimated decoherence processes by scattering in a neuron, and the image of a neuron is realistic for this case, he is looking at a piece of the axon, the axon for instance has non-isolated parts in the known Neude of Ranvier on which you have potential differences due to concentration differences of ions, and then you can look at for instance at scattering between the ions and localize the ions, or inside or between the membrane, and for those things the techmark values are, they don't fall really very, I will make a sooner mark, into this framework without some hand waving, but if you take a neuron and you have a colliding ion, you find that the t is 10 to, according to his estimates 10 to the minus 20 second, which I think is a little bit too high, but it's enormous, and if you take a colliding ions with water, you get the same value, approximate, if you take values between the ions, inside and outside of a membrane, you get only 10 to the minus 19 seconds, and if you look at structures which are fashionable in biology, like microtubules, which are objects in the cell body for structural stability, you find also decoyons times which are very short, but longer than this one, 10 to the 13, according to techmark's estimate. Now let me just make a criticism to his, to those formally, of course I believe that the coherence is very strong, but it would be very nice to have a very good mathematical theory of that decoherence in the brain or in the network of neurons, and all those estimates are not really rigorous, but orders of magnitude, and a mathematical mind should of course attack most things, and one could give mathematical models of decoherence where you can prove theorems about, but they have very little to do with the brain. I mean one example which Sidney Coleman and I discussed, and I will not go into it too much in detail, is the following you take in Hamiltonian, which is H0 plus H system, and you take as H0 P only, that means a translation of a time, and you take as, let me call it V, V equals sum N from 1 to infinity of V function minus N, and here sigma 1 N, and you take the usual Pauli matrices, sigma 3 equals 1 minus 1, and sigma 1 equals 2 1 1, and you take the example of a particle, an electron, which, whose spin, which is related to the coordinate 0, eigenvalues of 0 1, whose spin is measured by having the electron going along an array of spins and interacting during the flight of the electron in this line with a potential which has compact support, and the important thing is that you assume that the integral minus infinity to plus infinity of Vxx is equal to pi over 2, and you know that e to the i pi over 2 times applied to sigma 1, it gives a rotation about 180 degrees, so if you take such a case, and if you take for instance a particle wave function of compact support, and the V also of compact support, then you can easily estimate the decoherence which the flight of this particle produces along this line. Here you can really analyze the process in terms, not in scattering theory where you relate to sorts of asymptotic states, but in real time, and you can see for instance what type of decoherence occurs if a particle only moves along this line up to the point n, I mean the t comes in here because of the h0, the important thing is that following, if you take the Dyson equation 1 minus i 0 t ds v of s times u of s, and you take v of s equal to e to the i h0 times s v e to the minus e i, and because of the special form of this relativistic law of propagation, p and not p square, you see that this thing here is just v sum n from 1 to infinity, and here v of x plus s minus t minus, excuse me, my e x plus s minus n, the parameter which occurs here, and if you compute the u of t in this form, and you see that the u of t is equal to exponent with minus i integral 0 t ds and sum v x plus s minus n sum over n, and the important thing is this is sigma, sigma from, oh I'm very grateful, okay this comes already yeah you have sigma 1 here and the t here is so what it says is the following for instance, if you take as a support of this chi in v minus 1 1, and you take v also in the support of minus 1 1, and then you can see that if you take the the time evolution and the interaction picture, which is nothing happens, yeah yeah, if you take as a time evolution thing, nothing happens if the particles are positive plus v minus times u of t, then you can see that if I follow the time evolution from an initial state, which is yeah, if I take as an initial state psi plus or minus eigenstates of one and an initial state with wave function of the electron tensor the psi plus or minus, and if I take the product state of this thing with the measurement apparatus, and here for instance tensor n from 1 to infinity of the phi plus, and those are eigenstates where all the spins are up, the picture is very simple that the upper state which is not affected by the time evolution keeps the spins up of the apparatus, while the time evolution of the other one goes up to an n which depends on time, I'm taking times in multiple of n where those spins are turned down and the remainder turned up, and this thing moves to infinity, and so you see if you can fix constants to be more realistic that in such a model of decoherence you can see how rapidly the overlap disappears between the two states, even if you took arbitrary operators between the two, and you can also take coherence superpositions of two such states, and for all practical purposes, that means for all measurement which you do in finite region of space on the spin system, you find that a coherent superposition of such two initial states is equal to incoherent one, because you have those observables at infinity, and in the limit n going to infinity you have a perfect disjointness of the two states, this is a trivial theorem, but it shows you that decoherence can actually be something really strong, it is the states which you obtain after the process of decoherence can never be coherence the superposition, any representation of suitable c star algebra, and that's of course something which for a measurement process of which we like in physics is much too strong, but you can get such strong things, and it shows that probably a future decoherence theory of a brain would lead to similar results, the processes if you take the brain as a measurement operator, it makes the decoherence of inputs extremely rapidly and also extremely strongly in the sense of quantum mechanics, we have no hope in getting quantum physics in the brain according to such hand waving arguments, but the situation is much more interesting, because well I want to speak about first that quantum mechanics does not improve higher brain functions in the second topic if I have time that consciousness does not demystify quantum mechanics, now let's come to the first part and let's rapidly go through some pictures of the brain so you can see that about what I'm speaking about, the brain is built out of neurons and the neurons are connected by synapses and they have a very detailed connectivity via the synapses and the boutons and so on, and all those things, the structural things have been elucidated by neurobiology, if one wants to relate structure with function, one could look at a higher brain function which you all know very well as readers, the eye movements of between readers and the eye movements along a text for instance, a text with a Morse code to have a simple form, the eye moves in steps forward by saccades and sometimes at the end of a line it resumes the position along a one-dimensional line of text and during the text it can also skip a word and analyze several words at a time, now the important thing is that those processes are represented in a time in the brain in a very distributed form, the saccades for instance are generated by the frontal eye field and the motor control is down here in the brain stem so there is a direct projection of the frontal eye field into the brain, stem which activates the eye muscles and you have the vision which is necessary for analyzing the picture, the lines and so in the visual cortex and this is here in the hind brain and the posterior part of the cerebral cortex so if you want to make a minimal model in neuroelectro dynamics of circuits which generate reading saccades according to visual patterns here you would need some higher order visual areas which have analyzed the Morse code send it as an input of a frontal eye field, the frontal eye field is a complex circuit of which is dedicated to saccades of different sizes and let's take it one-dimensional and in its local circuit you generate from the visual input a motor output, now this is part of a model with which we have actually done in detail and let me just describe what it is if your frontal eye field is a local eye and the frontal eye field gets input from the visual cortex for visual selection it gets input for fixation because between saccades the eye should not move but from the visual selection which is done in this area you should plus attention you should generate the output if the fixation is canceled if the eye is allowed to move and we we have implemented such a circuit for 21 eye positions plus minus 10 and zero in populations which are forever eye position or visual position fairly large 100 neurons and so so the whole network of this thing has more than 10 000 neurons and it can be this is the structure of the local connectivity the visual input comes in into the an area which generates from the visual input an attentional signal which transformed into a motor signal and goes down into areas which actually change the rules of eye movements because you can also make other eye movements and just reading you have a local connectivity at the time more or less statistically you have populations of hundreds of neurons and you generate connections with a certain synaptic weight. From which model is this data? From which model is this data? We are taking the data from the neurophysiology. The saccadic eye movements I have been very well studied by a reading specialist so I'm asking either specifically for reading or general vision. It is in a sense for general vision and it's just the vision of moving the eye along a line or so which monkey could also do if he gets a reward. But the vision is very specific. Yes. The specificity of vision of reading is very different. Monkey. The answer is monkey. You know the monkey doesn't read. Yes. So one has to make a human brain specifically for reading not for any other vision. It's very small part of the cortex, very, very small. It's one meter square. It's very tiny. It has very little to do with the rest of the visual cortex. And so I said I'm just checking a reading. It can go around the lines of the market but really it is very special process. So let me try to answer it. We are studying the eye movements which are necessary for reading and the monkey can be trained or making those eye movements and get a reward. But of course the monkey would not read in our sense if a Morse code for instance has a meaning for us and so this is from higher areas about which our model says nothing. So reading is really reading eye movements and I'm only speaking about those things where we can. So reading metaphor. In a sense metaphor. Yes. Yes. And the data which we are using is for the synaptic circuit which goes here. We are using data from the visual cortex of, oh let me go back. We are looking at connectivity between neurons which have been experimentally determined in primary visual cortex and so we take a model of the synaptic circuit and we take for the patterns of eye movements the electrophysiological data of the monkey. And if one does such things then one can fairly, one can apply rules of electrodynamics. One has a neural connectivity diagram for between say a neuron an excitest story and inhibit the neuron. Interact with each other with weights W's, B, A and I, B. You get external inputs in different forms you get from the external from the text so to speak, G external and you get also noise inputs for each neurons excitatory and inhibitory ones. Those are parameters which we specified and we taken dynamics which is a stochastic differential equation. The neurons are described by a potential V of T which describes the level of activation of a neuron and this is given by inputs, excitatory and inhibitory inputs. We have conductancies which change external conductancies which change according to this is a this is an Ulbeck process which has a certain noise level and certain driving and the important thing is that the connectivity in this network we try to fix as much as possible by anatomy and if one solves differential equations on a laptop one is very happy because both this thing is random this thing here has so the connections in a sense are deterministic but the input for different levels is random and what I only want to stress here is that you can actually fit the functional behavior of such reading network for instance in forward movements and backward nuisance by measuring the activities of different neural populations in the circuit. So the circuit implements in neural electrodynamics so to speak part of the problem which we have to we have hundreds if you would no not not quite I mean we want to respect the anatomy that's one thing so the connections are not arbitrary and the second thing is we want to reproduce the electrophysiology in the monkey where one has determined the firing patterns of different neural populations in zarkarctic tasks for instance and that's a rich field of data and of course we have not a unique solution we actually we throw dice by taking any representation of a random process and also by ever by taking any connectivity which we can throw by dice between different areas where we only describe how many what the proportion is of excited and nervous of one going to the other but this is not the topic of my talk the topic of my talk is that in such a piece of brain which is classical stochastic ordinary differential equations does not use quantum mechanics at all one can with sufficient determination reproduce higher brain functions and the monkey has already very complex tasks by moving the eyes along a line and one could in principle think that one can actually understand reading as reading with not moving the eyes but also understanding syntax and semantics of the text also in terms of such classical models and that's an ongoing piece of research which is done in neurobiology in computational neuroscience we made Heinzler and Kevin Martin and I made this model as one of most typical models of which contain detailed structure but the the physicists actually are speculating very strongly about other possibilities of bringing quantum mechanics in a meaningful way into the brain not by such models like they say yours model of scattering of of irons with irons and such things but taking into account structures and structures which are biologically meaningful let me describe a piece of structure which is which has been extremely well studied in biology and which is photosynthesis and in photosynthesis in very simple things that in bacteria you find a chemical structure which has three pieces an antenna which takes photos into account a reaction center which is deep in the molecule and you have the so-called FMO protein which is a trimer and in each trimer you find chlorophylls which are centers for excitation and for transfer of excitation and the biologists have studied this process because it has also a great importance for for life and future technology and ask the question is the transport of excitation from the antenna to the reaction center a classical or a quantum mechanical process and if it's quantum mechanical is it useful for photosynthesis those are two different things i mean it's clear quantum mechanics is foundational for for the brain but whether quantum mechanics contribute something or not for instance for the very efficient transfer of excitation excitation from the antenna to the reaction center is a different question and the answer is very interesting and let me just write it because it can be written in terms of formula which you again like like those things here the model which is studied in this case is the following you take a Hamiltonian which is the Hamiltonian of the system plus the Hamiltonian of the bath plus an interaction system bath and you take for the system you take the excitatives of the ground states of each of those molecules and one thing that one models those molecules by two level systems again and one so one takes here for the different levels if you have n n of those chlorophylls you will take and here take en plus i different from j coupling constants j i j i j a very simple hop hopping Hamiltonian and the second thing which one does is one takes as a bath bosons and one takes for each chlorophyll one takes an independent bath so one takes here the sum over the j from one to n and for each j one takes an index kappa for the bath and here one takes a p j kappa squared over 2 mj kappa plus one half m kappa mj kappa omega j kappa squared p j kappa squared and as an interaction one takes the form that let me try takes not constant here but take n two but for the interaction one takes system bath linear coupling sum over j from one to n j j uj and the uj is an operator linear in the bath operators the uj is minus sum of a kappa g j kappa q j kappa and both are position coordinates of a bath so this is type of Hamiltonian which one studies very often in condensed metaphysics and how does one deal now with the photoelectric effect one takes rho of zero it's taken a rho of the system times the rho of a bath and here for the rho of a bath one takes thermal bath and so the uj for instance t one it's a Gaussian state and so the two-point function is alone necessary to two is equal well it's written as alpha of t one minus t two and it is expressed in terms of the spectral function of this bath and so the alpha k of t is integral from zero to infinity and here is the spectral function which is which I have not given here in detail but it comes in here from this form from the coupling uj of omega and here cotangents hyperbolic beta h omega over two cos omega t minus e sine omega t so it is a wealthy wealth studied form of an interaction which you can now study in the interaction picture and the original work goes back to kubo and it leads in the literature in physical chemistry it leads to the hierarchical the one called the high eom equations you in order to make with the equations well defined you have to do do something about the time dependence of this two-point function I mean the input functions are given by products of lower point functions and what one does is one makes for alpha of t a party x expansion so kappa from one in principle to infinity but one takes a cutoff here on pj kappa times e to the minus gamma j kappa t if one makes such an expansion then one can I mean if you're looking at the interaction picture equations of motion for the reduced density matrices in this form here you see that they are not local in time but if you take one of those components here and take the exponential then you get localization in time you get an infinite or finite if you have n glorophiles and you have k different party approximates you get such a system with an hierarchy of such equations which you can solve and actually in this form or if you take a finite cutoff here you get a differential equation a linear differential equation t dot t for this whole system now of this tower here is equals to some operator o times t and you can integrate both equations of motion so what is the gist of the story the gist of the story is one of the most complicated and interesting processes in physics of life can be at least approximately connected to a formula in statistical mechanics and one can look for instance at the following question if you take this molecule here and you take just both glorophiles which are carrying the excitation how does the excitation move well this comes from chemical structure if you take those seven glorophile molecules then you could for instance the initial here's initial condition going in from the system can be different according to what kind of excitation you give and one of the forms which are suggested by chemistry is that you excite either the one and then you see how the excitation moves on or you excite this the six the reaction center is close to those two glorophile molecules and then you can look at the quantum mechanics of those things because those are still quantum mechanical operators and what the numerical calculations lead you to is that you can get you get a reduced density matrix which has coherences in it which you can entanglement for the different processes for instance if you excite one you get one sort of entanglements or if you excite six you get another sort of entanglements so quantum mechanics in a sense can be seen in the solution of the chemical equations but are the chemical equations really the reality and one finds spectroscopically that there are coherences in the molecules and from such a model actually in terms of such a model you can analyze the chemical picture and the statement of the authors is it gives a good approximation for the chemical picture which is because he discovered experiments with the first real one oh it's it's very brutal you have sequences of laser pulses which and you have different time intervals between the laser pulses and you excite a model by this sequence of laser pulses and then you get from the spectrum from a Fourier transform of the spectrum you get distributions of of peaks I let me stay as the course of the model how many actually state it gets which is one excited state where we have two of what how many no one more because we don't know we excite the laser it may have to go to one oh actually it has if you take just try to restrict it here in terms of the the states of this of this monomer I mean you let me come back because you have three monomers if you take only one monomer you have n two level atoms and those two n there actually you have n atoms which can be excited also to very higher in the energy but one makes the approximation but only the ground state and the next high one is meaningful that's in terms of this model and then it and actually one does it's the following one takes as his initial state the one where all the it's so you know exactly about one over the one electron what how much is the gap it's one electron volt approximately they can't give you the exact number yeah I mean it's in the literature but I don't know I could look it up but I don't know the precise number yeah yeah that's it oh okay so I can it was not clear to me what gets entangled with what and in which way the quantum mechanics is tested in the experiment I mean what kind of typically quantum effect can you see in the experiment some interference or for for me personally not a very strong person you just take a stensity matrix reduce them which you can compute in this model and you can see that the matrix that there's a coherence for instance between the non-diagonal matrix element which there are some oscillation in the currents I mean there are different definitions of what one takes as a coherence let's take this is the so-called total coherence which has something to do with the entropy of the state and then you can look at different coherences in time for different initial excitations and also for different initial temperatures because what's interesting here is that this can be studied either by very low temperature minus 77 here in this case or by a room temperature and one finds coherences which oscillate and so what now what really is interesting is what is the transfer of energy from the excited chlorophyll to the reaction center and not such quantum mechanical coherences which are visible now the story in this case is very sad first of all the story is that one has forgotten one of the monomers there is another monomer very close to the antenna which is called seven eight no from one to the here one has from one to seven and one has an eight and one in the equations which are very general one could study the same model with with eight chlorophylls in one monomer but then one can also study the interaction between the different monomers that gives eight times three twenty four a reaction center and those equations are of the same structure only with different constants if one takes into account all the constants which one can measure from physical chemistry one finds that the model which people have analyzed here and for which they have said quantum mechanics has a functional role in those things actually does not say the right thing because one can look at a classical theory where you have just hopping between the different states here with constants which are given by detailed metals and so and you find that this hopping model does just the same thing for the transfer of energy so the conclusion I think for me unfortunately only one third of my talk and I will not give more the conclusion is quantum mechanics in this case also does not really play a functional role of course you can see because you have chemistry and if you have excitations which you can you can excite the model at different parts and you find coherences in listening the question whether the light transfer in this case here if you take the full a fuller model into account disappears now the second part of my talk was actually intended to speak where does consciousness help something to interrupt quantum mechanics yeah yeah so I can just go very fast to to one thing so first of all it is we're following that yeah I put it down there so the first statement which one can make now from neurobiology now it's human human biology is that you have to distinguish different forms of consciousness and there is a form which one calls axis consciousness there are pre conscious processes occur and when the level of excitation is high enough they become conscious and you can ask the person do you see something or don't you see something and one has found several interesting cases where higher or the higher brain functions are processed unconsciously if the excitation is too low for instance syntax in language model and but on the other hand the model can also models of this consciousness where one takes to into account the end for instance here in Paris has a very interesting model a neural network model again a workspace which gets where more and more states and regions get activated and beyond the threshold which one could call the non-equilibrium phase transition you find cause conscious processes which in the model are just x axis to different functions again a for instance in a language model one would not only analyze a syntactic error in a sequence of words but one could also ask for questions of semantic error and so and in this distributed network of a brain you can see at what level syntax and semantics get coupled and so so one has a qualitative and model based analysis of one part of consciousness which is called axis consciousness and then another form of consciousness of course is self-consciousness and also there one has at least a qualitative picture that in you could where are neuronal populations of brain which one calls mirror neurons which are activated not by monkey performing a task but also by the monkey looking at an experiment performing the task and it is clear that higher forms of consciousness can be modeled by not only by simulating the experimenter in the brain of the monkey but simulating ourselves that means one by a recurrence in the loop of higher order sensory processes now if one takes this qualitative picture into account one could also say well we we can we can speak about consciousness on several levels and we could work out was models more carefully but does this consciousness help us for understanding quantum mechanics now here comes an interesting question the question is is the will free or not now if we take the account from both consciousness experiments about free will one is very much at least i am connected but we have no free will and so for the interpretation yes yeah i i think this is for the tea time yes yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so let me state in the in the in the end here there's a wonderful theorem by cochin and conway about the free will theorem but it takes into as one of the assumptions that the experimenter has free access of choosing its apparatus and so and then the state statement which is a mathematical statement says the quantum mechanics has the same type of free will which is experimenter has if one introduces conscious free will in this theorem now if we don't have consciousness free will but have a deterministic favor this theorem is empty let me just go to a tea now with you do we have time for yeah so in someone summarizing one of these sentences yeah your opinion about the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics so my my view is that the the brain is a sophisticated organ like others and they are determined by macroscopic laws which if you take the macroscopic description seriously you also have to take seriously that conscious decisions are based on prior knowledge of the system learning and such things and all both both us play a role for instance if you take this free will theorem in the way an experimenter would like to measure the spin one for instance in one direction and we have a so he has a strategy developed by learning and by outside stimuli but over a long time which makes that the system behaves deterministically that's my feeling but nobody can prove anything yes i don't give any any special importance to now if i take the brain in terms of equations of neurodynamics but now is there is a world in the lecture language yes yes yes but this i don't i can't explain this is something of of our lexicon we but it is clear that in time time is in this neuroelectro dynamical model of the brain a parameter the states change in time and so if i take t0 it is the now now at times t0 i i'm i'm conscious about the fact that many philosophers take very seriously in importance of the now and so but they put meaning into the now which i can't see in both models and in the description yes i remember i know it is a very question so i remember reading there are some books of trainers where he speaks about in particular the microtubules in the brain some are related to some quantals but i don't remember exactly also mentioned some experiment which he called the libid experiments which gives some strange thing about the timing in the brain do you have any comments on yes i have but it takes a longer time yeah the question the question is before libid does an experiment where one presses an arrow and at time zero for instance a movement is and one measures the activity of the brain which builds up during this time before so here's negative times and one sees that the the brain decides consciousness about moving or not moving at a certain time which before which is before the time where the movement is actually executed and this can be determined by different forms now not only by the experimenter looking at the watcher and so on telling when he's but one can also look at the cellular behavior of neurons in the premotor cortex and so at least one sees that we build up of this thing precedes sometimes many seconds before actually we are conscious of the person is conscious about the movement and this is again one of the arguments against free will i mean the con at least conscious free will will not determine the movement because the movement is already built up in the network but yeah i've seen somewhere in the internet or someone who suggests it well roughly that their conscious decision uh collapses the wave function before that is a very some backward thing i don't know some some physicists have some theory about this and do you have any comment on this kind i can say that's a dirty word about it about the net yes and and uh hammer off and panels have built a model on the influence of gravitational collapse in the smallest on the reduction of the wave function and i did not speak about it but they also have non causal propagation of time that you time moves forward and backwards in the model and and i can't understand it but so people can understand but maybe