Skip to main content
Log in

Quantum propensities and the brain-mind connection

  • Part I. Invited Papers Dedicated To Sir Karl Popper
  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is argued that an adequate scientific treatment of biological systems requires the use of an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that the propensity interpretation proposed by Popper and others, when applied to the brain, leads to a natural representation of conscious process within the quantum-mechanical description of brain process. Thus quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, has a natural place for consciousness and, moreover, in a sense to be discussed, even requires it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karl Popper, “Quantum mechanics without ‘the observer’,” inQuantum Theory and Reality, M. Bunge, ed. (Springer, Heidelberg, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Karl Popper and J. C. Eccless,The Self and Its Brain (Springer, Berlin, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Henry P. Stapp, “The Copenhagen interpretation,”Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle, “Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology,” inProceedings, 3rd International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, S. Kobayashi, H. Ezawa, Y. Murayama, and S. Nomura, eds. (Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1990); James B. Hartle, “The quantum mechanics of cosmology,” inQuantum Cosmology and Baby Universes (Jerusalem, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hugh Everett, III, “Relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. David Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden variables’,”Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952). See also, “The undivided universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory” (with Basil Hiley), to be published.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Werner Heisenberg,Physics and Philosophy (Harper & Row, New York, 1958), Chap. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Niels Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  9. David Bohm,Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1951), Secs. 6.9, 6.13, 8.14, 8.15, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. John von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955), pp. 351, 481.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eugene Wigner, “Remarks on the mind-body question,” inSymmetries and Reflections (Indiana University Press, 1967); also inThe Scientist Speculates, I. J. Good, ed. (Heinemann, New York, 1962).

  12. Eugene Wigner, “Review of the quantum mechanical measurement problem,” inQuantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, P. Meystre and M. O. Scully, eds. (NATO ASI Series, Physics, Serie B, Vol. 94, p. 58). See also, Eugene Wigner inNew Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory, D. Greenberger, ed.;Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 48, 5 (1986).

  13. Bernard Katz,Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966), pp. 81, 48, and 88.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. Heitler,The Quantum Theory of Radiation, 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 1944), p. 26. See also James B. Hartle,The Quantum Mechanics of Cosmology in Quantum Cosmology and Body Universes, S. Coleman, J. B. Hartle, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).

  15. Henri Korn and Donald Faber, “Regulation and significance of probabilistic release mechanisms at central synapses,” inSynaptic Function, G. M. Edelman, W. E. Gall, and W. M. Gowan, eds. (Wiley, New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aaron Fogelson and Robert Zucker, “Presynaptic calcium diffusion from various arrays of single channels: Implications for transmitter release and synaptic facilitation,”Biophys. J 48, 1003–1017, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  17. William James,The Principles of Psychology, Vol. I (reprint of 1890 text) (Dover, New York, 1950), pp. 276 and 241.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  19. John von Neumann,Mathemetical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, 1955), Chap. VI.

  20. Henry P. Stapp, “A quantum theory of the mind-brain interface,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL 28574 Expanded, University of California, Berkeley.

  21. Henry P. Stapp, “Quantum measurement and the mind-brain connection,” inSymposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1990, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ref. 17, p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  23. William James,Psychology: Briefer Course (Henry Holt, New York, 1893), p. 468.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Daniel Dennett, “Toward a cognitive theory of consciousness,” inBrainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology (Bradford Books, Montgomery, Vermont, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Invited Contribution to the volume ofFoundations of Physics honoring Sir Karl Popper.

This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stapp, H.P. Quantum propensities and the brain-mind connection. Found Phys 21, 1451–1477 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889652

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889652

Keywords

Navigation