Quantum Dualism, Quantum Free Will & Quantum Consciousness

John Eccles's Quantum Free Will

Quantum mechanics is so sexy that it even explains free will and, therefore, mind-body dualism. Or at least John Eccles (who won the Noble Prize in 1963) thinks so.

This is how free will actually works and, up to a point, the account is completely scientific/biological in nature.

The first question is: How does the mind or self affect the brain?

Firstly, the story is about the brain itself. More specifically, the story is about how brain-cells fire.

Brain-cells fire “when charged molecules, or ions, accumulate at a synapse, causing it to release neurotransmitters” (John Horgan's The End of Science, page 173).

However, that accumulation of charged molecules (or ions) at the synapse doesn't automatically result in the release of neurotransmitters. It depends. What “triggers the firing of the neuron” depends on something else; not only on the accumulation of ions (molecules).

In this state of molecular accumulation, according to Eccles,

“the ions exist in a quantum superposition of states; in some states the neuron discharges and in others it does not”.

Thus the mind/self must “exert its influence over the brain by 'deciding' which neuron will fire and which will not”.

If all this is utterly physical, can we talk about “deciding” at all? Is it the brain (or the neurons) which decides or the mind/self? Is all this tied to a conscious decision? Is it, indeed, a physical explanation of a mental decision? Indeed Is this a modern version of Descartes' pineal gland explanation of the mind-body problem/relationship?

Another way of putting all that is to ask this question:

Can all these physical things occur (i.e., the accumulation of ions at the synapse and even the “quantum superposition” of physical states) without bringing on board either the mind/self or the notion of a “decision”?

In other words, can we accept this quantum explanation and still leave the mind/self out of the picture? Or is this quantum story part of a theory which successfully explains the interaction of mind/self and brain? (In this case, the self/mind itself fires the neurotransmitters and that interaction itself can be explained in terms of a “quantum superposition” of physical states.)

Despite all that neuroscience (or physical theory), John Eccles still says: “We have no proof of any of this.” (173)

So perhaps what's truly motivating Eccles (as John Horgan suggests) is his aversion to what he calls “cheap materialism”. Indeed Eccles classes himself as a “religious person”. Moreover, he says that

“the very nature of the mind is the same as the nature of life. It's a divine creation".

Roger Penrose's Quantum Consciousness

Whereas as quantum mechanics explains free will for John Eccles and Karl Popper, so it explains consciousness itself for Roger Penrose. In fact the two theories tie together in a vague kind of way.

For Eccles, quantum indeterminism (or the superposition of physical states at the synapses of a neurone) is explained by the “action” of the self or mind. With Penrose, the self is kept out of the picture; though quantum indeterminism is kept in.

More specifically,

“Penrose conjectured that microtubules perform non-deterministic, quasi-quantum computations that somehow give rise to consciousness” (176).

What are microtubules? They're “minute tunnels of protein that serve as a kind of skeleton for most cells, including neurons” (176).

The obvious question is: Why do or would non-deterministic, quasi-quantum computations give rise to consciousness? Is it this argument again? -

i) Quantum indeterminacy is mysterious.

ii) Consciousness is mysterious.

iii) Therefore these things must be related?

Could it simply be that because there's no other answer at present that it's seen that this must be answer? If that were the case, then other outrageous things may be the answer too. Why is this quantum stuff more feasible than ghost stuff or outright dualism?

Independent Properties & Ceteris Paribus Clauses

 

It can be said that a commitment to ceteris paribus clauses is also a commitment to “independent properties” or entities.

One way to argue for that would to be in terms of essences or natural kinds (which capture the essence) in regards to properties or things/objects/entities. Thus, even if peripheral aspects of entity/property X change (or peripheral stuff changes X), if “all things remaining equal”, then the essence of X will remain the same.

There are indeed what some people call “causal islands”: abstract objects such as numbers, propositions, etc. (If you accept such things.) In addition, if an object or a property has an essence, then that object will retain its essence “all other things remaining equal”. In other words, in this language, essences are indeed causal islands. They must also be independent. Indeed you can say that essences are also abstractions (if not exactly abstract objects).

Again, in the causal flux, object/property X will keep its essence.

Does the belief in the aforementioned “self-subsistent” (as it were) entities (or properties) involve an automatic philosophical commitment to (or assumption of) the phrase “all other things being equal”? That is, that property or entity X would have exactly this nature regardless of all else?

It can be said that if you change one thing, then you change everything else too. (As various kinds of monist have argued.) Or, less dramatically, if you change one thing, then you must automatically change other things.

For example, if President Obama had an extra finger, then there would also be many other differences too. Even if President Obama had an extra molecule, many other things would be different. For one, that extra molecule would automatically affect other molecules. And that means that one tiny change (a different molecule) would bring about many other changes.

This means that X is dependent on other things. X will also affect other things.

Finally, surely saying that “X is an independent property” can't mean that X could exist without anything else. Although it can be said that X could exist without some of the things it now coexists with.

(Does all the above work against the various monistic theories - and theories of interdependence - in which no entity or property can ever have a nature apart from – all? - other things?)

Does Philosophy Impinge on Scientific Theory?

 

There can certainly be philosophical objections to scientific theories. Indeed there have been very many such objections over the years.

However, putting it that way may be to unduly separate science from philosophy in the first place. That is, the idea that firstly there's a scientific theory and then the philosophical objections follow. What if the scientific theories contain many philosophical assumptions or components from the very beginning? (I believe that they do.)

This isn't to say that science has never had an impact on what philosophers have argued or that scientific findings haven't made philosophical views untenable. They have. Though that simply means that those philosophical views were wrong; not that science always has the last word on matters (as such).

Some philosophers have argued that the final arbiter must always be science, not philosophy; though that itself would require a philosophical backup and argumentation. (This is the position of “naturalist philosophers” such as Quine, etc.)

Here again it can be said that philosophy and science don't move in non-contiguous parallel lines.

Analytic Philosophy & Argument

It's a mistake to conflate positions within analytic philosophy with the attitude that most analytic philosophers have to (doing) philosophy itself.

It's not really necessary for all analytic philosophers to explictly accept, say, that “beliefs require justification”, “adding ad-hoc hypotheses to an idea is bad”, or “that philosophers must have knowledge of logical fallacies” - even if most of them do!

What makes analytic philosophy superior to other traditions (in my view) is very simple (i.e., not very sexy): the commitment to argumentation. I suppose that this is broadly related to the idea that “beliefs require justification”; though that's a particular position within epistemology (at least as it's expressed above).

All statements about analytic philosophy and other traditions will of course involve generalisations. You can't escape that. All I can do is give examples of what I mean.

I've read a bit of Continental philosophy. Most of it doesn't seem to take argument very seriously at all. In that sense it becomes more like literature, poetry or political rhetoric than philosophy. Indeed some philosophers (such as Jacques Derrida) have made this point themselves.

For example, I read an article by Jean Baudrillard which is really just one long list of statements (rather than a piece of augmentation). All those statements are also expressed in an extremely poetic manner. It can be said, however, that arguments (or chains of reasoning) might have led up to those statements; though they aren't contained in the text itself. (This is also true, at least to some extent, of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.)

Thus, again, I would say that argumentation (as well as little rhetoric) sums up analytic philosophy. Not a commitment to specific positions within philosophy.

The Statements of Post-Structuralist (Etc.) Philosophy are Taken to be True

 

The philosophers who fall under the labels 'post-structuralist', 'post-modernist', 'structuralist', etc. (e.g., Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc.) are, in fact, pseudo-relativists, pseudo-historicists, pseudo-subjectivists, etc. because they take most of what they say to be true. If they didn't do so, then they'd be subject to what philosophers call “self-referential paradoxes”.

 

Basically, their relativisms, historicisms, subjectivisms, etc. are rhetorical moves intended to score various points against the traditions, political systems and philosophies they're trying to destroy. Nonetheless, they believe that what they say is true – absolutely.

 

They believe, for example, that equality and fairness are non-relative moral values. And their other political and philosophical views about racism, capitalism, Das System, imperialism, sexism, etc. are take to be true (i.e., non-relative). The pretentious prose and talk about “the deconstruction of the logos” is basically a lot of philosophical fluff hiding the underlying philosophical, political and moral beliefs and statements which they're very strongly defending and which they take to be true.