Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions, Vol. I Nr. 3, October 2002
10. Quantum Mind 2003: Second Announcement and Call for Papers - S. Hameroff
9. Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments- Comment - Daniel Darre
8. 2003 International Conference on Science and Consciousness - Gale Litvak
7. Scientific Instrument Survey - J P Nicolais
6. RE: "Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousnes" - Mark Germine
5. Reply to: "RE: Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments" - Martin Lopez-Corredoira
4. Further Validation of the One Mind Model of Quantum Reality - Mark Germine
3. On Leslie Fieger's "Meta-rational thought" - Giorgio Marchetti
2. RE: "Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments" - Dimiter Chakalov
1. World Health Organization Certificate for WTCQD - Bill Douglas
9. Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments- Comment
From: Daniel Darre
Received: November 4th, 2002
There are many currently controversial points in the article that may require further considerations. The definitions initially given need also an extensive though to be assimilated as such.
However, the last conclusion is agreeable from the scope of public science’s state of the art.
So instead of pointing out the misunderstandings I may have, I would like to add another argument in line with them: Counter argument IV.
The assumption that any kind of Free Will do exist carries on the implicit assumption that once a choice is made by its means the outcome is determined within some pre-established scope of the situation.
So determinism is also a necessary but not sufficient condition for freedom of will.
Joining together this point with that of Counter argument I:
Determinism and Indeterminism are necessary but not sufficient conditions for freedom of will.
8. 2003 International Conference on Science and Consciousness
7. Scientific Instrument Survey
From: JP Nicolais
Received: October 18, 2002
Each year over 15,000 scientists participate in the Industrial and Academic Laboratory survey. For the first time we are now conducting this survey on the internet.
Your participation in this survey will help scientific instrument manufacturers make effective business decisions. These manufacturers rely on your input to direct their future marketing and product development efforts. To provide them with up-to-date accurate information, please take a few minutes to tell us about yourself and any purchasing plans you have for the next two years. Just click on the following link to reach the survey website.
We know your time is valuable. In appreciation, we will enter your completed survey in a random prize drawing. Winners will be notified by phone during business hours.
GRAND PRIZE: $2,500 Cash
10 ADDITIONAL PRIZES: $1,000 Cash
To view a list of the 2001 winners click on the following link:
BONUS: Free Feedback Report
Have you ever wondered how your merit increases compare with that of your peers? Now you have a chance to find out by completing the I&A survey.
Click here to begin: http://www.labpulse.com/i&a/survey/us/index.asp
Thanks for your support!
6. RE: "Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousnes"
From: Mark Germine
Received: October 17, 2002
I think we can all be proud of the last issue of JNLRMI. This is really cutting edge research and theory, but it is a shame that it is not reaching a wider audience.
My paper "Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousnes" raised a great many more questions than it answered. The experimental paradigm holds a great deal of promise. The paper contains two studies but it is not very clear what the details of the second study were as the data are presented without detailed explanation. The second study was essentially a replication of the first using a slightly different paradigm. The standard auditory oddball paradigm for ERPs was used, and the data from two trials (Figures 2 and 3) were very highly correlated on single factor ANOVA. The data were also very highly correlated with the data from Figure 1, despite a difference in the P300/N300 between the two paradigms.
The core hypothesis, generated years ago, that was tested was the idea that we all, in fact, share a single mind at the unconscious level, and that we are all in effect Elohim, creators of our planetary reality. So, in principle, the studies could be done using two observers located at any remote locations. This is the One Mind Model, which is generalized to the level of Universal Consciousness. Planetary consciousness is a relational phenomenon of the society of minds that populate the earth, and is entangled with the geophysical and biological evolution of the earth.
Although I have replicated these results, it does not appear that anyone else has even attempted to do so. I originally prepared a book with these results called "The Evolution of Planetary Consciousness," which was to be published as a special issue of the Journal of General Evolution but was rejected by the editor, Ervin Laszlo, after its completion. The experiments were part of the research effort of the Club of Budapest, of which Ervin Laszlo was editor and founder. The grant proposal was rejected by the Fetzer Institute and the completed study was rejected by the Club of Budapest itself after I was stripped of my title in the Club as Director of Field Research. So much for the politics of Planetary Consciousness.
The extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens is a very real possibility if we are unable to negotiate the consciousness of our One Mind. Our genetic diversity is such that a single virus could lead to our extinction.
5. Reply to : "RE: Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments", Dimiter Chakalov, August 16, 2002
From: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
Received: October 9th, 2002
Thank you for your invitation to discuss about philosophy/science. I am not sure whether we will be able to discuss in terms of falsifiable scientific hypotheses (as you claim in some of your e-mails, private communication) because we talk about philosophy, which is not science, but at least I will try to move within clear terms rather than dark (not very well known) topics. I reply to your points:
1) Certainly, Leibniz and many other classical philosophers were important thinkers in the debate about freedom. I agree that there is much to discuss about the different solutions on the problem of freedom. However, in the short paper that I have presented, I had no space to discuss the multiple philosophical options. In the short paper that I have now presented, I have summarized some few main contents concerning to the central question on the freedom of will in relation to Quantum Mechanics, and these are mostly related to an interactive dualist view (somebody prefers to talk about emergentism, but this is just a "hidden dualism").
Leibniz defends a deterministic world in which the freedom is not the freedom of the will (as it is defined in my paper), but the hypothetical possibility to act in a different way in this deterministic world with a synchronized parallelism between mind and body (which is also a dualism but not interactive between mind and body). This solution has almost nothing to do with the solutions derived from quantum mechanics. As a matter of fact, Leibniz's concepts can be discussed in terms of Newtonian physics too; quantum physics indetermination has nothing to add to Leibniz's position. Of course, there are some interpretations of quantum mechanics which include parallelism, which is a kind of dualism different to interactive dualism (many worlds interpretation, or many minds interpretation) but the way the "real worlds" are selected has nothing to do with Leibniz's philosophy.
2) I did not know the reference by Pauli & Jung. Thank you for the reference; I will add it in future papers as well as some other references from your interesting web pages. A brief comment on Pauli & Jung position: since the mind should be capable of acting on itself, by selecting one from its many potential states in the future, we are again in a case of mind sending orders to the body which can be replied in the same terms that I said in the actual paper. In this case, mind and matter cannot be separated but this does not change the discussion with regard the freedom of the will and the discussion on who governs ("mind governs matter" or "matter governs mind").
3) I agree again that my paper does not contain all the relevant references (which are thousands of papers and books). However, since Hipocrates in the ancient Greece who claimed that the matter in the brain is the origin of all our feelings and acts, there is nothing new in the neurology which can change our position. All neurological discoveries confirm this materialistic view. Some of them could have alternative/speculative explanations, but none of them can refute materialism. Nevertheless, many of them (such as the example of Libet's experiments) are totally against any non-materialistic view, and these are against any mentalist scenario.
4) There are many philosophical interpretations on Quantum Mechanics. And, as you say, the measurement problem is not solved. Precisely because of that, we must consider that nothing serious can be said based on the philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics until we know exactly its meaning. I agree that the question is not solved, and I say it in the paper: "This cannot be checked, since we will never know whether the collapse was produced by the computer and the measuring apparatus before the observer checked the results or by the human mind when the observer checked the results (Schrödinger´s cat paradox), but at least we know that we can interpret quantum mechanics without the notion of an autonomous mind in the role of an observer."
What I mean is: a) the interpretation of quantum mechanics is somewhat dark, so we cannot extract clear conclusions from it; b) quantum mechanics can be perfectly formulated without the concept of "mind".
5) Of course, we do not know many things in our Universe. I am astrophysicist and I know how many uncertainties we have in the cosmos. But, these astrophysical problems have nothing to do with the mind-body problem. Evolution theory (I mean life evolution) is best known than the dark matter or cosmological constant problem. And, according to my view and most of the biologists view (maybe we are wrong) there is no place for something like "mind emergence" in the evolution. This is the meaning of my "Absurd!" in the paper. I meant that there are some contradictions with our present scientific knowledges (in my opinion, maybe I am wrong).
6) I have not studied directly the human brain. I am not a neurologist. However, apart from Eccles, I have not read any book by a leading specialist who claimed something like "I believe that a hypothetical conductor governing the brain must exist". It is a belief, and I respect it, but I do not think that one should use the dark side of science to talk about a belief.
Martín López Corredoira
Astronomisches Institut der Universität Basel
Venusstrasse 7. CH-4102-Binningen. SWITZERLAND
Tel. 41-(0)61-2055408. Fax 41-(0)61-2055455
4. Further Validation of the One Mind Model of Quantum Reality
From: Mark Germine, M.D. Psychoscience. P.O. Box 7176, Loma Linda, CA 92354.
Received: September 20, 2002
According to the One Mind Model of quantum reality, Universal Mind is viewed as a single wave function that gives rise to individual branches or minds that remain entangled with Universal Mind and all other individual minds. We have previously reported experimental validation of a prediction of the One Mind Model using an EPR-type paradigm involving individual event-related potentials (ERPs) in the human brain (Quantum Mind Archives, 11/7/00).
In the experimental paradigm employed here, ERPs are generated using the standard “oddball” paradigm. The ERP is elicited in the brain of the observer when a random “rare” or less-common stimulus is substituted for a common stimulus. The common stimulus is delivered as a tone through headphones to the observer, who is in a separate room from the computer module that generates the tone and records the brain response for 750 msec. Stimuli are delivered every 1.5 seconds, with rare tones being randomly substituted for of an average of one in four stimuli based on a random number generator in the computer. The brain response of the observer is measured by EEG and averaged over numerous trials to yield a pattern of electrical potentials reflecting the brain response of the individual observer to the rare tone. The rare tone is selectively attended to by the individual observer, and the number of rare tones is counted silently in trials averaging 24 rare tones each.
Each wave form in the ERP reflects a cycle of electrical potential activity around the whole brain. Positive (P) potentials are traveling away from the vertex electrode. Negative (N) potentials are traveling towards the vertex electrode. All potentials were recorded at the vertex (Cz - A1). The oddball paradigm is designed to elicit the P300, or P3 wave form.
In our paradigm, an observer in another room randomly observes the condition of each stimulus on the computer module one second before the tones are generated in the headphones of the observer who’s brain waves are being recorded. Approximately one half of the trials are observed based on the generation of odd or even random numbers, without the knowledge of the observer being recorded.
On the basis of the One Mind Model, the two observers are entangled in the event of generation of the random tone. Since the first observer or brain determines the status of this event, it was predicted that there would be asymmetry in the brain’s response in the observed and unobserved conditions of the rare tone. This asymmetry was predicted to result in a difference in the ERP wave forms generated under the two conditions. It was predicted that this difference, derived by subtracting wave forms generated under the two conditions, would be statistically reproducible.
Using the standard oddball paradigm, two sets of ERPs were generated in each of the two conditions in two separate series averaging four trials each. Electrical potential was measured and averaged for each set of trials in each of the two conditions, and the unobserved profiles were subtracted form the observed profiles to produce a difference potential profile. The difference potential profiles were then measured at intervals of ten msec. from zero to 750 msec.
Data for the standard oddball paradigm yielded difference potentials that were highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA, based on the correlation of amplitude of wave forms at ten msec. intervals. The wave forms of these difference potentials had a strong periodicity of about 90 msec. or 11 Htz.
Another set of difference potentials was generated in which the decibel level of the rare tone was set at zero, yielding a random absent tone. These potentials were generated and analyzed in the same manner as the standard oddball potentials. Two sets of ERPs were generated in each of the two conditions in two separate trials averaging four trials each. The difference potentials of the two sets were highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA.. The waveforms of the difference potentials had a strong periodicity of about 90 msec or 11 Hz.
The data from the absence and rare tone and absence conditions were compared using single factor ANOVA. This was the most powerful statistic generated in the trials, and also minimized the autocorrelation factor between similar wave forms. Difference potentials under the absence and rare tone conditions were very highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA (F = 15.2; p = 0.00015).
Examination of the data indicates that the difference potentials are interference patterns with a periodicity that is emergent form the individual profiles in the observed and unobserved conditions. It is proposed that correlation of the difference potentials reflects EPR correlation of the brain electrical potentials in the observed and unobserved conditions. Further work is needed using ERPs in both EEG and fMRI paradigms.
3. On Leslie Fieger's "Meta-rational thought"
From: Giorgio Marchetti
Received: September 16, 2002
According to Leslie Fieger (“Meta-rational thought”, Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions, Vol. I, Nr. 2, 2002, http://www.emergentmind.org/fiegerI2.htm), the gift of rational thinking has brought the human species to the threshold of a new era: a threshold of unimaginable potentiality to self-actuate or self-destruct, a threshold that can be for us either a precipice or a launching pad. In order for us to overcome this critical time, and to turn it into an opportunity of growth rather than into a final defeat, we have to develop a new vision of who we are: we must learn to become conscious, rather than unconscious, creators. In order to become fully aware of our own nature and creative potential, we must first understand the concept of consciousness.
So far, we have Fieger’s general assumptions, and as far as they are concerned, I can agree with him to a certain extent. I too think that understanding our nature and potentialities will help us to solve the problems created by rational thinking. However, the merits rational thinking has had, and has, should not be overlooked: rational thinking is part of our own nature. I too think that it is necessary above all to investigate consciousness in order to become fully aware of ourselves and of our creative potential: but I also think that this investigation should be carried out in the wider context of the studies of the human mind.
What I cannot accept is the panpsychistic idea of consciousness he put forwards later in his text: “Every quark, every muon, every graviton, every electron, every photon and every neuron is consciousness”. In his opinion, as far as I can understand, every part of the entire cosmos is conscious and acting in harmony with a common source – a universal consciousness.
If I refuse this idea is not on principle. Obviously, nothing can prevent us from the possibility of conceiving things in different ways from the usual ones. Everyone can propose new, unusual ways of seeing and considering things and events. By doing so, it is possible to give rise to new attitudes and stances, and to develop new analyses, research fields and theories. After all, one of the features of the human mind is precisely that of being able to perceive and categorize at will one and the same thing in different, new ways (for instance, a pencil can also be seen either as a “tool”, a “thing”, a “weapon”, or a “piece of wood”), and different things in the same way (an “oak”, a “weeping willow” and a “pine” are all “trees”). In my opinion, it is this very feature that should be considered as the hallmark that distinguishes the human species from the other known species: an hallmark that any study intended to investigate human consciousness should take as the starting point for their analyses.
On the contrary, my refusal of Fieger’s conception of consciousness is due to its lack of pragmatic utility for the scientific research. If everything is consciousness, and if consciousness is everywhere, how is it possible to distinguish and isolate it? How could we differentiate it from other phenomena, such as for instance the non-conscious or the unconscious? Saying that everything is consciousness is tantamount to admitting that consciousness cannot be studied, analyzed, or recognized: being so pervasive, it cannot be compared with anything, and therefore cannot even be described.
To be useful in any kind of investigation, any definition or concept should be operable, that is having the quality, the characteristic of a tool that can be used. Unfortunately, Fieger’s definition of consciousness does not seem to me to be of any practical utility. When he says that consciousness is the primal source from where everything originate, thus suggesting that it is an unanalyzable and indecomposable prius, he precludes any chance of conceiving consciousness as composed of more elementary components, whether physical, biological, neuronal, social, or whatever. Consequently, he precludes any chance of analyzing it in relation to other levels of reality, and more in general of relating it to them. By so doing, he excludes the possibility of studying not only the way consciousness arises, but also the way it gives rise to other phenomena.
I repeat: on principle, I do not deny that consciousness, as anything else as well, can be seen in different ways, for instance either as the result of some process, as the process itself, or as something that gives rise to some process. Neither do I reject the possibility of considering and studying consciousness as a characteristic attributable to a subject - whether human, animal or divine -, or as a subject in itself. What matters is, first, the applicability of the new proposed idea or concept, second, the range of application, and third, the results we achieve by applying it. Rather, I suspect the validity of those ideas or concepts that, by definition, are considered as irreducible.
I suppose that Fieger could object that my argument is based on, and is the outcome of, a pure utilitarian, pragmatic, rational way of thinking. As such, my argument would be vitiated by the very same limits that his concept of consciousness is supposed to overcome. This is only partially true. No doubt, my argument is based on a rational ground, and as such, it can only take a certain course and have certain characteristics. But, at the same time, I do not deny the possibility of enlarging the scope of rational thinking and improving the way it operates. It is precisely by becoming aware of the potentialities of our mind that I hope to attain this target. When we realize that mental activities gives us the possibility, at least to a certain extent, of overcoming the determinism and restrictions the physical realm as well as others impose on us (as we have seen before, we can, for example, change at will our way of perceiving and categorizing things and events), we have found a way of compensating for the lacks and rigidity of rational thinking.
Fieger’s concept of consciousness is certainly enthralling, but until it is further developed and defined in operative terms, it is doomed to remain only a suggestive but useless hypothesis.
2. RE: Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments
From: Dimiter Chakalov
Received: August 16, 2002
Dear Dr. Lopez-Corredoira,
I would like to make a few comments to your recent quant-ph/0208104, "Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments" [Ref. 1], which might be published in the Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental
1. You are arguing broadly against all dualistic views on mind-matter problem, but somehow forgot to mention the solution proposed by Leibnitz, as we know from Philosophy 101,
2. There is not even a hint in your paper [Ref. 1] about the solution put forward by Pauli and Jung fifty years ago,
3. Regarding your excursion in the field of neurophysiology (your latest reference is from 1994), may I suggest to log on BioMedNet,
and search for "neurophysiology of understanding". See also
4. Regarding the measurement problem in QM, you wrote that "the central element in the measurement is not the consciousness but the distinction between the measured system and the measuring apparatus" [Ref. 1].
Please note that the problem is not yet solved,
5. You make some quite sharp statements such as "Absurd!" [Ref. 1]. Please recall that we do not know nearly 95 per cent of the stuff in the universe,
and hence can not make any final statements. See a recent review by Leonard Susskind and collaborators [Ref. 2].
6. In general, you take the stand of epiphenomenalism [Ref. 1], which is very common to AI community [Ref. 3] and physicists who have never studied the human brain [Ref. 4]. Let me remind you Murphy's Law #15:
"Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers."
I believe that a hypothetical conductor governing the brain must exist,
We haven't found it yet,
You can read this email at
Dimiter G. Chakalov
Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.
[Ref. 1] M. Lopez-Corredoira. Quantum mechanics and free will:
counter-arguments. Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:38:31 GMT,
"Indeed, Bohr's interpretation, as well as that of most of present-day leading specialists in quantum physics, is that the central element in the measurement is not the consciousness but the distinction between the
measured system and the measuring apparatus.
"Neither classical nor quantum physics has anything to say about a hypothetical conductor (mind) governing the brain.
"Physicists have nothing to say about the mind but neurologist do. Nowadays, most neurologists insist that the idea of a soul or an autonomous mind is a myth. They adopt a materialistic philosophy in which the mind can be explained in terms of neurological processes (Crick 1994).
"Did He take a holiday after our appearance? Absurd!"
[Ref. 2] Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, Leonard Susskind. Disturbing
Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:38:09 GMT,
"Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis."
"What then are the alternatives? We may reject the interpretation of de Sitter space based on complementarity. For example, an evolution of the causal patch based on standard Hamiltonian quantum mechanics may be wrong. What would replace it is a complete mystery.
"It is also possible that we are missing some important feature that picks out, or weights disproportionally, the recurrences which go through a conventional evolution, beginning with an inflationary era. However, we have no idea what this feature would be."
[Ref. 3] John Eastmond. The Doomsday Argument, Consciousness and Many
Worlds. Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:13:06 GMT,
"Thus, without loss of generality, we can assume that our observer is a classical computer that, by virtue of executing a particular program, generates a sequence of conscious moments. It should be noted that,
strictly, we are taking an "epiphenomenal" philosophical stance in that we assume that the computer's conscious awareness is a continuously generated by-product that does not interfere with its deterministic
[Ref. 4] S. Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Bantam Books, 1988, pp.
1. World Health Organization Certificate
From: Bill Douglas
Received: August 23, 2002
Dear World Tai Chi & Qigong Day Supporters,
GREAT NEWS!! We just got our official certificate of appreciation from The United Nations World Health Organization. It is written to the World Tai Chi & Qigong Day Association, which is ALL OF US. So, if you'd like a copy of it emailed to you as a jpeg file for your use, display, media distribution, etc., reply to this with "Send UN Cert" in the subject line. Tai Chi & Qigong are expanding through media worldwide, we recently got an article in an Australian popular culture publication, and this month Fit, Men's Fittness, and Vogue Magazine are supposed to have Tai Chi or Qigong articles, and last week Time Magazine called Tai Chi the "Perfect exercise." ON INT'L ARTHRITIS DAY -- AND GETTING THE TAI CHI/QIGONG WORD OUT! I just got the following message from Dr. Paul Lam of Australia who's done some wonderful work with Tai Chi and arthritis. Since both Tai Chi and Qigong's gentle forms have proven beneficial for arthritis Dr. Lam has wisely suggested we should get involved with International Arthritis Day each year. You can contact them to find out how to get involved locally by holding Tai Chi or Qigong teach-ins, workshops, presentations in conjunction with their celebrations (or perhaps explore writing articles for their publications or local news) at: www.taichiforarthritis.com Thanks to all for your work to help the world discover these healing tools. Bill Douglas, World T'ai Chi & Qigong Day Founder INTERNATIONAL ARTHRITIS DAY - the 12th October. To commemorate this occasion, Arthritis foundation of Australia is organizing Tai Chi demonstration in the park throughout Australia. Many other arthritis foundations will include Tai Chi as part of their activities on the day. I would like to encourage any Tai Chi practitioners or students to join in by staging a tai chi demo in your local park. If you would like to participate please contact your local arthritis organizations or contact me. If you keep a journal and take some photos I will post event on the website so that we can these activities worldwide. For Sydney, this event will be held on the 11th October in First Fleet Park Circular Quay (near the Museum of Contemporary Art ) at 10 am - 12 noon. I have posted this info in my web sites: www.taichiforarthritis.com
www.taichiproductions.com Dr. Paul Lam