Volume 18, Numbers 2 and 3, Spring and Summer (special issue): Understanding Tomorrow’s Mind: Advances in Chaos Theory, Quantum, Theory, and Consciousness in Psychology by Larry Vandervert (Editor) American Nonlinear Systems
Understanding Tomorrow’s Mind: Advances in Chaos Theory, Quantum, Theory, and Consciousness in Psychology, by Larry Vandervert (Editor) American Nonlinear Systems.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior , Summer 1990, Vol. 11, No. 3, Pages 247 -258 , ISSN 0271-0137, ISBN 0-930195-08-6
Chaos theory and related things are described by way of differences between traditional (linear) science and non-traditional (nonlinear) science. Differences described between linear and nonlinear models of science respectively include the following: quantitative vs qualitative, analytic vs non-analytic, predictability vs unpredictability, fundamental scaling vs scaling relations, and superposition vs emergence. Common themes in non-traditional science are the existence of nonlinearity, scaling relations, and unpredictability. Data are provided that show that many social and psychological phenomena can be understood only through nonlinear modeling. It is concluded that as the old and new views of science coalesce, the newer mathematical tools will help make understandable the irregular and erratic features of everyday life.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce J. West, Ph.D., Director, Center for Nonlinear Science, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 305370, Denton, Texas 76203.
An attempt is made to give a coherent account of the logical essence of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. The central point is that quantum theory is fundamentally pragmatic, but nonetheless complete. The principal difficulty in understanding quantum theory lies in the fact that its completeness is incompatible with external existence of the space—time continuum of classical physics.
This article is reprinted from American Journal of Physics, 1972, 40(8), 1098–1116 with permission from the author, and the American Institute of Physics ©.
A model is described in which subjective consciousness is generated through an unusual property of quantum non-locality. Chaos and bifurcation serve to link quantum transactions to global brain dynamics through the fractal architecture and dynamics of the central nervous system. The resulting process operates at the boundary between quantum computation and wave-particle reduction, thus combining optimality and free-choice. It is concluded that subjective consciousness has an evolutionary role as a non-computational predictive faculty, first emerging from chaotic excitations in single-celled organisms; and that conscious anticipation, rather than computation, has been the principal factor promoting selective advantage in the development of the brain.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Chris King, Ph.D., Department of Mathematics, School of Mathematics and Informational Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
Quantum theory can be regarded as a rationally coherent theory of the interaction of mind and matter, and it allows our conscious thoughts to play a causally efficacious and necessary role in brain dynamics. It therefore provides a natural basis, created by scientists, for the science of consciousness. As an illustration it is explained how the interaction of brain and consciousness can speed up brain processing, and thereby enhance the survival prospects of conscious organisms, as compared to similar organisms that lack consciousness. As a second illustration it is explained how, within the quantum framework, the consciously experienced “I” directs the actions of a human being. It is concluded that contemporary science already has an adequate framework for incorporating causally efficacious experiential events into the physical universe in a manner that: (1) puts the neural correlates of consciousness into the theory in a well defined way, (2) explains in principle how the effects of consciousness, per se, can enhance the survival prospects of organisms that possess it, (3) allows this survival effect to feed into phylogenetic development, and (4) explains how the consciously experienced “I” can direct human behavior.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Henry Pierce Stapp, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.
Nonlinear Brain Systems With Nonlocal Degrees of Freedom
Gordon G. Globus, University of California, Irvine and Catholic University of Brasilia.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 195–204, ISSN 0271–0137
Quantum degrees of freedom greatly enrich nonlinear systems, which can support nonlocal control and superposition of states. Basing my discussion on Yasue’s quantum brain dynamics, I suggest that the Cartesian subject is a cybernetic process rather than a substance: I am nonlocal control and my meanings are cybernetic variables. Meanings as nonlocal attunements are not mechanically determined, thus is it concluded we have freedom to mean.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gordon G. Globus, M.D., 360 San Miguel Drive, Suite 603, Newport Beach, California 92660.
Magic Without Magic: Meaning of Quantum Brain Dynamics
Mari Jibu, Okayama University Medical School and Notre Dame Seishin University and Kunio Yasue, Notre Dame Seishin University.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 205–228, ISSN 0271–0137
A theoretical framework called “Quantum Brain Dynamics” to describe long range ordered dynamics of the quantum system of electromagnetic field and water dipole field in the brain is proposed as a revival of the original idea developed by Umezawa in the early 1960s. Based on Umezawa’s world view of quantum field theory, the manifestation of long range ordered dynamics is a macroscopic object of quantum origin, and so it reveals the existence of specific macroscopic objects in the brain called “tunneling photon water.” Tunneling photon water is shown to manifest several interesting quantum phenomena involving coherent photon emission and transmission, and is suggested to play an important role in quantum brain dynamics. The ordered quantum dynamics of such a macroscopic condensate of tunneling photons with nonvanishing effective charge and mass as tunneling photon water is governed by the macroscopic Schrödinger equation, and ensures superconducting phenomena in the brain at body temperature. The meaning of quantum brain dynamics is clearly explained for brain and cognitive scientists who have been confused by either (a) the overstatement with misplaced quantum concepts usually given by those not appropriately schooled in physics or (b) the understatement with textbook quantum concepts given by technical physicists.
Requests for reprints should be sent to M. Jibu, Research Institute for Informatics and Science, Notre Dame Seishin University, 2–16–9 Ifuku-cho, Okayama 700, Japan.
Quanta Within the Copenhagen Interpretation as Two-Neuro-Algorithm Referents
Larry Vandervert, American Nonlinear Systems.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 18, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 229–246, ISSN 0271–0137
Neurological Positivism’s (NP) single- and two-neuro-algorithmic referent (informational patterns in the brain) conceptions of subjective and objective experience respectively are discussed. NP’s account of Bohr and Heisenberg’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum reality is then described in terms of nonlinear constructions of two-neuro-algorithmic referents that are proposed also to undergird William James’s pragmatic conception of truth. In turn, qualia are depicted as nonlinear single-neuro-algorithmic referents in relation to the two-neuro-algorithmic quantum measurement procedure. Experientially, qualia are described as nonlinear “black twinkling” neuro-flux patterns (information) which in the context of overall brain organization in both phylogeny and ontogeny increase the brain’s probability of survival. It is concluded that (1) ontological questions are really about the relationships between the two-neuro-algorithmic referent systems in the brain, and (2) the quantum theoretical measurement procedure is the best “test” of NP’s two-neuro-algorithmic hypothesis and, as a test, greatly alters the traditional interpretation of Bell’s theorem.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Larry Vandervert, Ph.D., American Nonlinear Systems, W. 711 Waverly Place, Spokane, Washington 99205–3271.
The Brain and Subjective Experience: Question of Multilevel Role of Resonance
Paul D. MacLean, NIMH Neuroscience Center at St. Elizabeths.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 18, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 247–268, ISSN 0271–0137
Everything we experience and do as individuals is assumed to be a function of the nervous system. It is as though we were born with a total supply of algorithms for all given forms of psychic states and solutions for immediate or eventual actions. There is evidence that the forebrain is, so to speak, the central processor for psychic experience and psychologically directed behavior. Since information itself is immaterial, all forms of psychic experience represent immaterial emanations of the forebrain, including sensations, perceptions, drives, affects, thoughts, and the precisely measured, cold hard facts of science. But it is to be emphasized that there can be no manufacture or communication of information without the intermediary of behaving entities. Because of the immateriality of information and the Gödel-like problem of self-reference, a central question arises as to whether or not we can ever rely on the brain with its viscoelastic properties to achieve a reliable yardstick for measuring time and space and the general nature of things. Most needed at the present time is a refined picture of the anatomy and chemistry of the brain’s circuitry accounting for its particular species of algorithms. Emphasis is given to the basic role of various proteins in generating subjective experience. Because of the role of resonance in contributing to the dynamical excitability of neural circuits, examples are given here of how it might play an algorithmic role at macroscopic, microscopic, molecular, and atomic levels. To describe this idea attention is focused on three evolutionary types of cortex that have developed in the triune evolution of the mammalian forebrain from the mammal-like reptiles (therapsids) to human beings.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul D. MacLean, M.D., Room 503, NIMH Neuroscience Center, 2700 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave SE, Washington, DC 20032.
Nonlinear Dynamics and the Explanation of Mental and Behavioral Development
Paul van Geert, University of Groningen.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 18, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 269–290, ISSN 0271–0137
This article argues that the process of development as such explains a great deal of the forms and properties of individual developmental trajectories, without the necessity of having to rely on either external or internal factors or causes. Both the problem of developmental change (dissimilarity) and invariance (similarity) can be explained by employing a dynamic systems conceptualization of development. It is shown that dynamic systems models on the one hand and those of the genuine developmental models in psychology on the other, share a set of important general properties that are able to explain both the universal and the idiosyncratic aspects of developmental processes. The concept of mental and behavioral ecology, which may serve as a starting point for specific theories of development of cognition, social behavior, personality and so forth, is discussed. It is concluded that both long-term and short-term developmental patterns will be shown to follow similar abstract dynamical principles.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul van Geert, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
Study of electroencephalographic brain activity in behaving animals has guided development of a model for the self-organization of goal-directed behavior. Synthesis of a dynamical representation of brain function is based in the concept of intentionality as the organizing principle of animal and human behavior. The constructions of patterns of brain activity constitute meaning and not information or representations. The three accepted meanings of intention: “aboutness,” goal-seeking, and wound healing, can be incorporated into the dynamics of meaningful behavior, centered in the limbic system interacting with the sensory and motor systems. Evidence is noted for the maintenance in cortical neuropil of a felt work of synaptic connections, that have incorporated past experience by changes in learning, and that act as a unified whole in shaping each intentional action at each moment. This constitutes the intentional structure of the brain. Meaning is a focus having a place without edges in this structure. The focus continually moves through it along a chaotic trajectory; the meaning occupies the whole structure. In this view, consciousness is the active state of an intentional structure, and awareness is the subjective aspect of the shifting focus.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Walter J. Freeman, M.D., Department of Molecular and Cell Biology LSA 129, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720–3200.
Dynamics and Psychodynamics: Process Foundations of Psychology
Hector C. Sabelli, Center for Creative Development, Linnea Carlson–Sabelli, Rush University, Minu Patel, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Arthur Sugerman, Center for Creative Development.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 18, Nos. 2 and 3, Pages 305–334, ISSN 0271–0137
The dynamics of creative processes offers a theoretical foundation for psychodynamics, and practical methods for research and clinical practice. Psychological phenomena are complex sequences of physical action (action = energy x time). The same simple processes repeat at every level of organization: (0) spontaneous fluctuations; (1) temporal flow; (2) oppositions (harmonic, conflictual and creative) but not equilibrium; (3) co-creations of tridimensional structure, and of higher dimensional organization. Simpler processes have priority, but complex organization acquires supremacy (as contrasted to both biological reductionism and psychological autonomy). Operationalizing these principles, the process method studies processes as time series, analyzes change in terms of opposites (harmony/conflict, attraction/repulsion) using a coordinate plane, and measures organization by quantifying recurrences and entropy in multidimensional frameworks. The process method is illustrated by longitudinal recordings of mood (psychogeometry), of interpersonal relations (sociodynamic tests), and of heart rate patterns associated with emotions. These studies reveal novelty-rich multidimensional patterns (complexes), instead of the stable low-dimensional attractors of deterministic dynamics, or the random distributions of probabilistic models. Conceptualizing psychological processes as complex and creative physiological actions suggests a new approach to clinical diagnosis and treatment.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Hector C. Sabelli, M.D., Ph.D., Center for Creative Development, 2400 N. Lake View Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614, or Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Two classic learning situations are critically reviewed and interpreted from a synergetic point of view: (a) human learning of complex skills, and (b) animal discrimination learning. Both show typical characteristics of nonlinear phase transitions: instability, fluctuations, critical slowing down and reorganisation. Plateaus in the acquisition curves of complex skills can be viewed as phases of arrested progress in which a reorganisation of simple skills is necessary before their integration into complex units is possible. Fluctuations and critical slowing down are expressed in instances of “vicarious trial-and-error,” which describe the oscillating behavior of rats at a choice point that is shown only just before discrimination learning is completed. It is concluded that education might pay more attention to the role of individual learning rhythms.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Günter Vetter, Ph.D., Institut für Psychologie und Kognitionsforschung, Universität Bremen, Postfach 33 04 40, 28334 Bremen, Germany.