Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Segway miniPro

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on January 29, 2008
"Mindful Universe" by Henry Stapp begins with the sentences, "This book concerns your nature as a human being. It is about the connection of your mind to your body."

When I first read that I thought, "Oh, sure, what would a physicist know about that?" I read the book anyway, and I'm glad I did. It is without a doubt the best, most comprehensible, most useful book about modern physics I've ever read.

First Stapp lays out the basic discoveries and their ramifications that led to the overthrow of 'classical physics' in a way that is easily understood. He then goes into the 'orthodox interpretation' of modern physics as laid out by von Neumann and others. This has provided me with an understanding of modern physics that is both intuitive and actually useful to my everyday life.

Stapp has managed to do something amazing -- he teaches us what modern physics really says about the nature of the universe and our role in it, without dumbing it down and without the jargon and mathematics that make so many of the other books I've read so difficult. And what modern science really says is very different to what most books and mass-media articles present. Be ready for a reality shift.

In Chapter 6 "The Effectiveness of Conscious Will and the Quantum Zeno Effect" Stapp explains how this modern physics applies to the mind-brain connection in a way that fits well with experience. I've never understood modern physics like that.

The last sentence of the chapter "Conclusions" is, "The falseness of that deviation of science (the classical ideal of a mechanical universe) must be made known, and heralded, because human beings are not likely to endure in a society ruled by a conception of themselves that denies the essence of their being."

I would like to say this: Stapp makes good on the promise of the first sentence of the book and I understand and agree with the last. Fantastic book.
44 comments| 120 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 12, 2011
Review of "Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer" by Henry P. Stapp. Published by Springer as part of their Frontiers Collection. It is relatively short at 198 pages including a Preface, 13 main chapters making up part I, 4 chapters making up part II, 7 Appendices making up part III, References and Index.

In the Preface, Dr. Stapp summarizes his book thusly:

1. Mind matters/I matter. Mind<--->Body matters.
2. Classical view of reality is fundamentally incorrect.
3. Quantum view of reality encompasses classical physics in the limit where Planck's Constant goes to zero.
4. Actual hard science considers us natural phenomenon. Worst case scenario is we are considered "automaton". Quantum theory rejects this now falsified relic of classical physics.
5. New physics does this by placing consciousness back on the table.
6. Why this is so important? Because classical physical theory still drives decisions of governments, schools, courts and medicine.
7. Aim of book is to explain the new science and its social consequences.

One thing I must say about Henry P. Stapp is that he has been at this from the beginning of his career. His doctoral thesis in particle physics working on proton-proton interactions led to his post-doctoral work under Wolfgang Pauli. During this time (c. 1958) he wrote an article entitled, "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics." Thirty-five years latter his book of the same title was published under the same Foundational Series as the book here being reviewed. I would consider this work a smaller snapshot of his whole thrust toward showing how the mathematical and physical foundations of quantum theory bring the human being to the conscious center of our exploration of the reality we are intimately a part of.

Having paid him some due, I have to let the potential buyer know right away that reading this book without a background study in Quantum Mechanics (QMs) and Quantum Reality (QR) will make the going somewhat difficult. Why? Because the conclusions of Dr. Stapp about the body-mind problem have an intricacy involved that an uninformed reading will not navigate easily. Having said that, this work isn't beyond the first time listener. There are enough interesting suggestions in this work that will appeal to the lay reader enough to peak the interest and make for an enjoyable read such that other works of a more general nature on QR and its implications and this purchase will be rewarding.

One of the main thrusts of Dr. Stapp's philosophical positions is that classical physics fails to provide a foundational basis for meaning in the human being and, given the more comprehensive science of reality being "quantum" in nature at is base, that classical Newtonian (clock-like) physics as a statement of human reality should be rejected. QMs should be invoked in the case of "us" when we ask, "Is our mind explained by brain processes alone?" Henry P. Stapp does another excellent job making plain why.

For instance, the Title alone is very suggestive. This is a book about the Universe, QMs, QR and You! Are you "the Participating Observer"? Well, according to Henry P. Stapp you sure are. What could that possibly mean? Well if you've read up on QMs over the years, you've come to the understanding that a particle, say an electron, exist in a wave-like probability state of pure potential *until it is observed*. This is known as the "collapse of the wave function" of the electron so that it shows up as a particle on a detector screen. The double-slit experiment informs us that this is so and Dr. Stapp touches on why the founders of quantum theory were forced to revise their understanding of the base of reality.

This leads us to the "Mindful" part of the Title. To convince you that you are participating in the collapse of the state vector of your reality, Henry P. Stapp will make the case that the brain has a quantum component (at the ionic level) and with mindful attention, the wave of you (your many thousands of potential acts each second) are being collapsed by that attention into a single, whole conscious percept by you and your brain to create your reality.

In the Appendices and throughout this work, Henry P. Stapp lays out some of the important history supporting the connection of QR and consciousness.

Let me quote the book's aim:

"The aim of this book is to describe the development of this revised conceptualization of the connection between our minds and our brains, and the consequent revision of the role of human consciousness in the unfolding of reality."

Here are a couple of quotes that help us understand "this revised conceptualization":

"...the proper subject matter of science is not what may or may not be `out there,' unobserved and unknown to human beings. It is rather what we human beings can know, and can do to know more. Thus, they formulated their new theory, called quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, around the knowledge-acquiring actions of human beings, and the knowledge we acquire by performing these actions, rather than around a conjectured causally sufficient mechanical world..."

" is the revised understanding of the nature of human beings, and of the causal role of human consciousness in the unfolding of reality, that is, I believe, the most exciting thing about the new physics, and probably, in the final analysis, also the most important contribution of science to the well-being of our species."

He continues:

"The rational foundation for this revised conceptual structure emerged from the intense intellectual struggles that took place during the twenties, principally between Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli. Those struggles replaced the then-prevailing Newtonian idea of matter as `solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles' with a new concept that allowed, and in fact required, an entry into the causal structure of the physical effects of conscious decision made by human subjects. This radical change swept away the meaningless billiard-ball universe, and replaced it with a universe in which we beings, by means of our value-based intentional efforts, can make a difference first in our own behaviors, thence in the social matrix we are embedded, and eventually in the entire physical reality that sustains our streams of conscious experience."

I think that pretty much sets the stage for the rest of the book. I hope I've peaked your interest.

If so, buy a copy today.
11 comment| 36 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 5, 2013
This book offers the strongest defense of the Copenhagen interpretation I've read to date. Interestingly, that point of view retains a surprising degree of support among physicists, even though the Many Worlds view has gained a lot of popularity. After reading this book I have a new respect for the idea that the world, in some strange sense we don't quite understand, its created by our mind.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 19, 2008
I have found this book to be very well written and thought provoking. I love a book that makes you think and that brings up points of view that perhaps you haven't considered before. This book certainly makes you ponder how your thoughts actually affect the Universe, excuse me, Multiverse. No longer are we just passive bystanders but rather hopeful co-creators. This is on a grand scale as well as a micro scale. So go ahead...stretch your brain a might hurt at first to use muscles that you might not have used in a long while (trust me I know!) but you'll thank me later!(lol)
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 9, 2013
With apologies to string theory, what many of us are really looking for in buying physics books is a coherent, comprehensible ontology of quantum mechanics, the bedrock of the field. Since quantum mechanics radically alters our relationship to nature, including to our own minds, we want to know what's going on not with material phenomenology so much as ontological implications; we want at least the basis of a quantum philosophy.

Stapp delivers in this book: "The quantum concept of man, being based on objective science available to all, rather than arising from special personal circumstances, has the potential to undergird a universal system of basic values suitable to all people, without regard to the accident of their origins." (p. 140) He clads his studies in iron by working exclusively within orthodox quantum mechanics--John von Neumann's mathematical treatise on the subject published in 1932. There are other books out there that use the von Neumann treatment to coax ontological meaning out of the mathmatics: "The Self-Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami perhaps being the most well-known. But no one else who is doing this has Stapp's pedigree as a deeply experienced quantum physicist who worked with the likes of Wolfgang Pauli and Heisenberg himself.

Within their context in this book are evaluations and ideas you can't find anywhere else, and I await anxiously Stapp's next book.
11 comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 4, 2010
Stapp (page 20) writes on Heisenberg`s appreciation of actions at the level of Planck`s scale: "The aspects of nature represented by the theory are converted from elements of being to elements of doing. The effect of this change is profound: it replaces the world of material substances by a world populated by actions, and by potentialities for the occurrence of the various possible observed feedbacks from these actions. Thus the switch from being to action allows - and according to orthodox quantum theory demands - a draconian shift in the very subject matter of physical theory, from an imagined universe populated by allowed possible physical theory, from an imagined universe consisting of causally self-sufficient mindless matter, to a universe populated by allowed possible actions. A purported theory of matter alone is converted into a theory of the relationship between matter and mind."

Stapp (page 23) writes about the limitation of the classical physics approach, or approximation: "there is no need for, and indeed no room for, any effect of any probing action. The uncertainty -arising from the non-zero size of the quantum cloud - that in the unapproximated theory needs to be resolved by intervention of some particular probing action is already reduced to zero by replacement of Planck`s constant by zero. Thus all effects upon the physically/mathematically described aspects of nature`s process that are instigated by the actions freely chosen by agents are eliminated by the classical approximation. Consequently, any attempt to understand or explain within the framework of classical physics the physical effects of consciousness is irrational, because the classical approximation eliminates the effect one is trying to study."

It is quantum mechanics that Stapp (page 23-24) turns to in his investigation of the "purposeful action of a human agent." He writes: "One aspect is his conscious intention, which is described in psychological terms. The other aspect is the linked physical action, which is described in physical terms; i.e., in terms of mathematical entities assigned to spacetime points. For successful living the physical described action should be a functional counterpart of conscious intension; after sufficient empirical honing by effective learning processes the physically described aspect of the felt intentional act should have a tendency to produce the intended experiential feedback. John von Neumann, in his seminal book, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, calls by the name process 1 the basic probing action that partitions a potential continuum of physically described possibilities into a (countable) set of empirically recognizable alternative possibilities."

Stapp (page 30) writes: "The channels through which the calcium ions enter the nerve terminal are called ion channels. At their narrowest points they are only about a nanometer in width, hence not much larger that calcium ions themselves. This extreme smallness of the opening in the ion channels has profound quantum mechanical imports."

It is the "quantum Zeno effect" that permits the Planck scale effects to impact the nerve terminals in the brain. Stapp (page 36) writes: "The quantum Zeno effect can, in principle, hold an intention and its template in place in the face of strong mechanical forces that would tend to disturb it. This means that agents whose mental efforts can sufficiently increase the rapidity of process 1 actions would enjoy a survival advantage over competitors that lack such features. They could sustain beneficial templates for action in place longer than competitors who lack this capacity. Thus the dynamical rules of quantum mechanics allow conscious effort to be endowed with the causal efficacy needed to permit its deployment and evolution via natural selection." I must correct Stapp here, because it is now consciousness that does the selection and this is far from Darwin`s natural selection (e.g., see Amit Goswami`s "Creative Evolution").

Stapp`s account is different from Penrose`s, and other accounts. He (page 52) stresses the importance of the quantum Zeno effect: "The only macroscopic quantum effect that appears to survive the decoherence effects [in warm brains] is the quantum Zeno effect. This permits neuro-scientist unfamiliar with quantum theory to have a very accurate, simple, intuitive idea of the quantum state of a brain. It can be imagined to be an evolving set of nearly classical brains." However, as Stapp indicates, some non-classical properties also remain.

Stapp gives a very deep and scientific account of his ideas, that must now be taken serious. He is far from a New Age quantum guru here, even as he ventures into philosophy. Stapp finds agreement with Whitehead`s ontology, and with this revelation Stapp`s theory is now found more far reaching than what even Stapp is willing to admit. For example, Stapp makes heavy reference to an agent that carries intention and causal efficacy, but I am afraid that even Stapp`s very mature quantum mechanics is unable to define this agent into existence. I need only follow Whitehead to the logical conclusion.

Stapp (page 105) writes: "I am merely proposing that Heisenberg's incomplete ontology be completed by accepting what I regard as Whitehead`s main ideas. ... I need to stress that the core idea that the events in our streams of consciousness are two-way causally linked to events in the physical world lies at the intuitive heart of daily dealings with reality." But a two-sided reality is not well described by a psychological window and a physical window. There are two windows all right, but what holds the two together is an emotive middle-term that can escape both windows leaving both scientist and theologian dumfounded! Did you think that the agent, or agents, were us little egos running around that must compete to win favor with Darwin? Think again!

Stapp (page 121) pretends not to have answers to these questions: "why are the laws of nature so well structured to sport biological structures? Are idea-like qualities primordial? Or do they emerge from a world completely devoid of all mind-like qualities?" And this pretense is maintained even after Edward (page 124) accuses Stapp of "creationism." Again, who exactly is this agent? I think Basil Hiley (page 135) came closest to an answer: "To use consciousness to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics seems circular, unless of course you assume some kind of universal consciousness lying at the centre of being as is proposed by certain forms of Hinduism."

The fact is that we are driven by our affections while being trapped in circular reasoning, until we one day realize that our emotions source the middle-term that holds our two sides together.

The action principles that make up the laws of nature are found two-sided, even the second law!
22 comments| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 16, 2015
For a physicist, Stapp is an amazingly clear writer. Something needs to account for the collapse of the wave function. Stapp believes the universe has a mind. As of this moment, this hypothesis is as good as any.
11 comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 19, 2013
This book [Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer] contains some interesting discussions of quantum physics, with comparisons of some of the major contending views, attempts to integrate Whitehead, some personal insights with regard to the views of the key figures, e.g., Bohm. The Copenhagen view is strongly defended, and it is argued throughout that even this orthodox view of quantum mechanics carries the implication that the description of the physical world now inherently includes consciousness or the psychical - there is no longer a simple material description of a "material system" in physics.

Stapp applies this insight to questions of consciousness. He is firstly interested in the question of how mind can act upon matter, or, simply, how we are capable of acting, and even of free action. Secondly, he applies this insight, almost in passing, to the "hard problem" as formulated by Chalmers. Unfortunately, Stapp's understanding of the hard problem is deeply lacking, and this lack is reflected as well in the inadequacy of his first interest regarding action, and frankly, of his entire discussion.

The hard problem, Stapp notes, quoting Pinker, "is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation." This problem, says Stapp, is only a function of the framework of classical physics which has no place for consciousness (since in the classic framework, all is mindless matter). This problem he argues is simply dissolved in quantum theory, formulated as it is at the outset as an interplay between the physical description of a system and conscious thought.

As an effort by a physicist to integrate quantum theory and consciousness, Stapp's effort is worth attending to, and if one needs only this evaluation/comment, you can skip the rest of this review for I found proper comment to take some length. This is the difficulty: At the base of the hard problem is a "problem of representation," or what even more basically should be termed a "coding problem." A code, say three dots. "...", can stand for a S in Morse code, or the three blind mice, or Da Vinci's nose, and on. The problem comes in this: What domain (Morse/alphabet, mice/animals, noses, etc.) should a given code be mapped to or unfolded onto? Suppose then a coffee cup sitting on a kitchen table with a spoon stirring the coffee. A computer with an attached camera viewing the scene transduces the input/light from the external environment or scene to a internal pattern of bits - a transforming pattern of bits - likely with form computing programs running, themselves a pattern of bits being shoved serially into the computer's registers. To say that the forms of the cup, the spoon, etc., are somehow existing over these patterns and computational programs is, firstly, simply attributing, on the basis of being an external observer, the image of these forms (the cup, the spoon) as defined or existing over the computer's computations. In the computer, there are only these transforming patterns of bits or on/off states of components. This is a code. The external information has been encoded into the computer's architecture. How, now, is this code unpacked, unfolded, or mapped to or as the external world - the coffee cup with its white colors and brown coffee, the table surface and the (silver) stirring spoon - how without already knowing what the world (the domain) looks like? Now whether we are talking in terms of computers, neural networks, or the neural structure (and neural computations) of the brain itself, we have this problem - the external world has been transduced to a code - whether in the on-off states of computer components or in the neurons of the brain.

Chalmers stated this "hard problem" in terms of qualia - how, after you have described your computer architecture or neural architecture, have you accounted for the origin of the qualia of the perceived (external) world? In this he would have been focused on the "qualia" of our coffee cup scene - the whiteness of the cup, the brown of the coffee, the silver of the spoon. But this statement of the problem is inadequate. Even form, it can be shown, is qualia, therefore the objects/forms in the image of the external world - the cup, the spoon, the table - are qualia. The motions over time - a gently stirring spoon, a vigorously stirring spoon - are also qualia. And form itself is defined over motion. All form is dynamic. In general, then, the hard problem actually is this: how to account for the image of the external world. The image itself is entirely qualia. It is the image of the external world that somehow must be unfolded from the neural code or the computer code.

Innumerable solutions have been presented for the hard problem as stated, even in its limited (qualia) form by Chalmers. All miss the coding problem that must be solved. McFadden (Journal of Consciousness Studies) for example would take the neurally encoded information and apply "an integrating magnetic field." Yet he cannot begin to explain or describe how such a magnetic field unpacks or has anything to do with unfolding the neural-coded information such that it becomes the image of the external world - the white coffee cup with stirring spoon. But Stapp is no different and no better. He sees the brain as a time-evolving quantum system of possible states, the system description of which has consciousness integrally involved. This abstract "consciousness" is somehow collapsing this system of possible states at each successive point in time to a particular state. But this is the end of the story. It is a "so what?" How has this abstract consciousness done any better than McFadden's "integrating field?" How does an abstract consciousness unpack the neurally encoded information, or the information when viewed as coded at the quantum level of the material world for that matter, such that it now becomes the image of the coffee cup with stirring spoon as in our perception? It does not. Not unless you are somehow assuming beneath the scenes that this abstract consciousness is already somehow perception - the perception/consciousness/image of the cup and spoon. But this is just assuming everything one is supposed to be explaining. And this, imo, is exactly what Stapp is unconsciously doing.

I said that this lack is reflected in Stapp's theory of voluntary action. His insight that consciousness is intrinsically involved in the description of the physical (or psychophysical) universe and that this is critical in the theory of consciousness and its effect upon matter and in action, I cannot but agree with. The emphasis on its significance throughout the book is laudable. Beyond this, his understanding of the problem is too shallow to be of help. I cannot go into much detail here, but we can start with the fact that mental images are integrally involved in action. Jeannerod (Behavior and Brain Sciences, 1994) defended this thesis heavily and in detail. Previously it had been defended by Bergson (Intellectual Effort, 1902), William James in his "ideomotor theory" of action (whom Stapp uses and admires), and others. There have even been studies in hypnosis and self-induced altered time states relating to imagery and actions in altered time (See Cooper and Erickson, 1952). But if one has no theory of the origin of the perceptual image of the world in the first place, then a theory of these images, in memory, acting upon the body to effect action, cannot even be addressed - and Stapp does not address it. Secondly, the dynamics of the brain is imposing a scale of time on the external world. At normal scale, we see a "buzzing" fly - a being whose wing beats, oscillating at 200 cycles per second, are perceived as a blur. The brain dynamics can be altered - the underlying chemical velocities increased for example - and the fly now look like a heron, slowly flapping his wings. Action is adjusted to the (perceptual) scale of time, in fact, perception, for Bergson (Matter and Memory, 1896), is virtual action - we are seeing how we can act. In the latter case, the heron-fly is now a specification that the body can reach out leisurely and grasp the fly by the wing tip. This is to say, in accordance with much other evidence, that the feedback from the motor areas to the visual areas is integral in determining the specification of the perceived world.

With no attention to this backdrop on action, Stapp envisions the brain as a quantum mechanical system represented by a decomposition of N basis states, "each corresponding in principle to a possible perception," with each such state (perception) represented in a larger NxN density matrix. Now we know already that this - each state corresponding to possible perception - cannot be true, for Stapp has no theory of perception (and therefore of the "possible perception") insofar as he cannot explain the origin of the image of the external world, i.e., whatever this state is, it is not a "perception." He has here, again, simply a code - a quantum code. But from this (a "perception") he alters slightly to envisioning an NxN density matrix in which there are two possible "responses," fight or flight, or let me use "dance or walk." Now he envisions a Von Neumann "process 1" action taking place, and if repeated sufficiently rapidly, the state of the brain can be restrained (other states now being canceled out) to, say, the dance sub-portion of this matrix. This is equivalent to a longer activation of the "dance" template this portion of the matrix represents, enabling the response to occur. Stapp notes elsewhere (p. 113), this template is a neural correlate of an intent, such as "raise the arm." But firstly and again, this neural "template" is not, and cannot be, an image of an action, e.g., a dance movement, and as such, the model is already lacking as a theory of action. Stapp has no theory of the memory which stores images of such events - he cannot because he has no theory of the origin of the image in the first place. If he were to say that the intent is simply an "idea" of the action, say a dance movement, he simply falls into the disembodied abstraction fallacy of AI, for in reality, such an idea is an invariance over multiple concrete experiences of dancing, such experiences being also images, and the idea (as an abstraction) does not exist save as invariance over these stored (remembered) experiences of dancing (for which Stapp has no theory).

Secondly, there is nothing here that can relate to the scale of time in which the action takes place. There is an infinity of possible scales - buzzing fly, heron like fly, immobile fly, and on. At what scale of time is Stapp's model taking place, and why, and what if the scale is altered? What does his model have to do with any of this? Admittedly these are considerations few if any in this theoretical field bother to make, but this is simply an indication of the general lack on this subject in which Stapp participates.

In this model of action, noting our usual feeling of effort when performing an act, Stapp notes, "it is reasonable to suppose that increasing effort increases the rate at which conscious events are occurring" (p.111). With sufficient rate, then, he argues, by the quantum Zeno effect, the action template will be held, and the action tend to occur. But what is this "effort?" I am not saying that Stapp is entirely barking up the wrong tree, but he could benefit far more from Bergson's discussion of effort and force (Time and Free Will, also Intellectual Effort), then he realizes. But Bergson has an actual theory of the origin of the external image with its qualia, and Stapp does not realize this is essential.

In the midst of Stapp's mental landscape, the landscape that exalts the quantum description of a material system which apparently includes consciousness which he strenuously opposes to the classical description (which does not include consciousness), there looms in fact a massive, megalithic, classical edifice. It is what can be termed the classic metaphysic with its classic view of space, time and motion - a view in which relativity is nothing more than a further refinement. This surfaces in his view that consciousness actually consists of discrete instants or episodes. This is currently a supposedly sophisticated, somewhat popular stance. The fact that we experience a process or event (the stirring spoon) as involving duration (a perceived extent over time), he argues, "is adequately explained by James' `marching band' metaphor. Each instantaneous `snap shot' corresponding to a single experience would catch components of brain activity correlated with various stages from just beginning to be experienced, to full blown vivid consciousness, to fading out. This structure creates the impression that the experience has duration, though it is really instantaneous - or confined to a space-like surface, when mapped to real spacetime (p.110)." What is actually going here in this statement?

The classic metaphysic begins, as Bergson argued (Matter and Memory), in the needs of our perception itself, from the necessity of our body to partition, from its surrounding field, objects upon which it can act - to lift a "spoon," to grab a piece of "toast." This fundamental partition of "objects" and their "motions" is increasingly rarified in our thought, and in the thought framework that is the classic metaphysic, the entire field of matter becomes treated as a continuum of points or positions. The motion of an object in this continuum, say, from point A to point B, is seen as traversing a line or trajectory consisting of a set of these points. Each point on this trajectory, momentarily occupied as the object passes, corresponds to an "instant" of time. "Time" becomes simply another dimension in this abstract space or continuum of positions, i.e., time is just another dimension of this space - a series of "instants"(points) on a line or trajectory. But the line traversed, as a space, is infinitely divisible. Between any two points successively occupied by the object, we can insert another line - with points - ad infinitum. This treatment of motion is obviously an infinite regress. It is the source of Zeno's paradoxes: Achilles, with his distance from the Tortoise infinitely halved or divided, never catches the Tortoise; the arrow, always occupying a point in the abstract continuum, "never moves." For Bergson this space was indeed but "a principle of infinite divisibility."

At the end point of this infinite division of a motion, if there could ever be such an end point, we end with a mathematical point. At such a point, there can be no motion, and no time. Now visualize this mathematical point as a point on a surface of a bread slice. The slice represents a block of 3-D Space, a space with the infinitesmal time-extent of our mathematical point. This is Stapp's "space-like surface." Logically, in this model, with its infinitely divisible space, this slice or block of Space is also Stapp's "instant" of consciousness. If we start stacking the slices, as we add slice after slice, we build up a "loaf," i.e., an extended structure of space over time. Each slice has this infinitesimal extent, yes, timeless extent, in time. But in reality, there can be no such thing as a space-time "loaf" or time-extended structure, for this would require a force to hold all the slices in the loaf together - as an extended structure. Some sort of memory is needed. But there is no such "force" in the classic metaphysic. Logically, we have a slice, a slice which disappears into the non-existence of the past as the next slice appears, then the next slice, then the next... Never is there more than one slice. But this slice - of infinitesimal extent in time - a mathematical point over which there could be no motion, is the logical extent of any state of the brain in the classic metaphysic. There can be no "continuity of neural processes." There can be no "activity in time" as Stapp says, no "fading out" of neural processes as Stapp aludes to. There is no basis in this metaphysic for time-extended perception or for the experience of duration - for the perception of marching bands, rotating cubes, buzzing flies. Stapp's notions on experienced duration are self-contradictory within the framework of the classic metaphysic in which he works, which includes, for that matter, his desire to reconcile quantum physics with relativity.

Ironically, Lynds (Foundations of Physics Letters, 2003) in exploring the nature of motion and the deep implications of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, implications which Stapp refuses apparently, notes that such a model (our instantaneous slices of the space-time solid or loaf) would imply that the universe would be frozen in place at that instant/point, never again to change. Change would be impossible. Thus there can be no static instant, he argued, no interval, no matter how small, in which a dynamic process is not constantly changing. There is no static instant in which a velocity can be fixed. This is the intrinsic tradeoff - uncertainty for change. All the equations of physics are subject to this uncertainty. In this, Lynds simply echoes Bergson, in fact, all this is part of Bergson's entirely different metaphysic and view on time - a temporal metaphysic as opposed to the classic, spatial metaphysic in which Stapp works. There is much more that could be said here, for his classic stance on the nature of motion is the essence of Stapp's inadequacies and for many other theorists in the realm of the hard problem of consciousness, but I can only offer this reference for additional discussions of these issues ].

This book is yet another theory of consciousness from a physicist. As is usual, there is a lack of understanding of the problem of perception and theories of perception or the theory of memory for that matter - an area of mind in which the hard problem of consciousness is in fact embedded. This aspect of the book is disappointing. The other major aspect of the book is that of a physicist attempting to make sense of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation with its indecipherable role for consciousness, where according to Heisenberg, "...the transition from the `possible' to the `actual' takes place during the act of observation." Stapp notes how many physicists wonder how this "act of observation," whatever it actually is, can apply to the formation of a track in a cloud chamber? Having not a clue, they disregard this aspect of the theory, i.e., they assume that the collapse events are initiated by purely physical causes. In Stapp's attempt to elucidate this dilemma, this is the essence of his argument: "It is rather that every quantum event is associated with an element that cannot be adequately conceptualized in terms of the precepts of classical physics, but that resides [in] a realm of realities that are not describable in terms of classical physics, but that include our conscious thoughts, ideas and feelings." With respect to the track in the chamber, he then argues that we must assume some sort of intervention is needed, and a natural possibility is that any actual intervention [observation] "is formally like an actual human observation (p.98)." This, imo, would seem to imply some abstract Consciousness "observing" all particles (or whatever explanatory unit one seizes upon) in the universe, at every micro-instant of time. Except - when a human is observing? One can certainly pursue Stapp to see if there is something there for physics, but, for me, I would submit that, particularly given that Stapp has no theory of what a human observation (perception) is in the first place, this is merely an illusion of a clarification, effecting little, no more for physics as is ultimately accomplished here for the problem of consciousness.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 11, 2010
This book and the understanding of these topics are of vital importance to our current time. Drawing much from the work pioneered from other scientists such as Dr. Amit Goswami as well as other more well known theorititions this work adds clarity and insights all its own.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 27, 2015
A lot of research data. Good schoolarly discussion. Theory is sound. However, the writing was a bit difficult.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse