How Quantum Brain Biology Can Rescue Conscious Free Will
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEW ARTICLE published: 12 October 2012 INTEGRATIVE NEUROSCIENCE doi: 10.3389/fnint.2012.00093 How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will Stuart Hameroff 1,2* 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 2 Department of Psychology, Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Edited by: Conscious “free will” is problematic because (1) brain mechanisms causing Jose Luis Perez Velazquez, Hospital consciousness are unknown, (2) measurable brain activity correlating with conscious for Sick Children and University of perception apparently occurs too late for real-time conscious response, consciousness Toronto, Canada thus being considered “epiphenomenal illusion,” and (3) determinism, i.e., our actions Reviewed by: Jack Adam Tuszynski, University of and the world around us seem algorithmic and inevitable. The Penrose–Hameroff theory Alberta, Canada of “orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)” identifies discrete conscious moments Andre Chevrier, University of with quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons, e.g., 40/s in concert Toronto, Canada with gamma synchrony EEG. Microtubules organize neuronal interiors and regulate *Correspondence: synapses. In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in Stuart Hameroff, Department of Anesthesiology, Center for dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized Consciousness Studies, by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons. Quantum University of Arizona, computations in entangled microtubules terminate by Penrose “objective reduction (OR),” PO Box 245114, Tucson, AZ 85724, a proposal for quantum state reduction and conscious moments linked to fundamental USA. e-mail: [email protected] spacetime geometry. Each OR reduction selects microtubule states which can trigger axonal firings, and control behavior. The quantum computations are “orchestrated” by synaptic inputs and memory (thus “Orch OR”). If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency, resolving problem 1. Regarding problem 2, Orch OR can cause temporal non-locality, sending quantum information backward in classical time, enabling conscious control of behavior. Three lines of evidence for brain backward time effects are presented. Regarding problem 3, Penrose OR (and Orch OR) invokes non-computable influences from information embedded in spacetime geometry, potentially avoiding algorithmic determinism. In summary, Orch OR can account for real-time conscious causal agency, avoiding the need for consciousness to be seen as epiphenomenal illusion. Orch OR can rescue conscious free will. Keywords: microtubules, free will, consciousness, Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR, volition, quantum computing, gap junctions, gamma synchrony INTRODUCTION: THREE PROBLEMS WITH FREE WILL DETERMINISM We have the sense of conscious control of our voluntary behav- Even if consciousness and a mechanism by which it exerts real- iors, of free will, of our mental processes exerting causal actions time causal action came to be understood, those specific actions in the physical world. But such control is difficult to scientifically could be construed as entirely algorithmic and inevitably pre- explain for three reasons: ordained by our deterministic surroundings, genetics and previ- ous experience. CONSCIOUSNESS AND CAUSAL AGENCY We do know that causal behavioral action and other cog- What is meant, exactly, by “we” (or “I”) exerting conscious nitive functions derive from brain neurons, and networks of control? The scientific basis for consciousness, and “self,” are brain neurons, which integrate inputs to thresholds for outputs unknown, and so a mechanism by which conscious agency may as axonal firings, which then collectively control behavior. Such act in the brain to exert causal effects in the world is also actions may be either (seemingly, at least) conscious/voluntary, unknown. or non-conscious (i.e., reflexive, involuntary, or “auto-pilot”). The distinction between conscious and non-conscious activity DOES CONSCIOUSNESS COME TOO LATE? [the “neural correlate of consciousness (NCC)”] is unknown, but Brain electrical activity correlating with conscious perception of a often viewed as higher order emergence in computational net- stimulus apparently can occur after we respond to that stimulus, works of integrate-and-fire neurons in cortex and other brain seemingly consciously. Accordingly, science and philosophy gen- regions (Scott, 1995). Cortical-cortical, cortical-thalamic, brain- erally conclude that we act non-consciously, and have subsequent stem and limbic networks of neurons connected by chemical false memories of conscious action, and thus cast conscious- synapses are generally seen as neurocomputational frameworks ness as epiphenomenal and illusory (e.g., Dennett, 1991; Wegner, for conscious activity, (e.g., Baars, 1988; Crick and Koch, 1990; 2002). Edelman and Tononi, 2000; Dehaene and Naccache, 2001), with Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org October 2012 | Volume 6 | Article 93 | 1 Hameroff Temporal non-locality and real-time causal agency pre-frontal and pre-motor cortex considered to host executive to “perceptrons” (Rosenblatt, 1962; Figure 1) and self-organizing functions, planning and decision making. “artificial neural networks” capable of learning and self-organized But even if specific networks, neurons, membrane, and behavior. Similarly, according to the standard “Hodgkin and synaptic activities involved in consciousness were completely Huxley” (1952) model, biological neurons are “integrate-and- known, questions would remain. Aside from seemingly occur- fire” threshold logic device in which multiple branched dendrites ring too late for conscious control, neurocomputational activity and a cell body (soma) receive and integrate synaptic inputs fails to: (1) distinguish between conscious and non-conscious as membrane potentials. The integrated potential is then com- (“auto-pilot”) cognition, (2) account for long-range gamma pared to a threshold potential at the axon hillock, or axon synchrony electro-encephalography (“EEG”), the best measur- initiation segment (AIS). When AIS threshold is reached by able NCC (Singer and Gray, 1995), for which gap junction the integrated potential, an all-or-none action potential “fir- electrical synapses are required, (3) account for “binding” of ing,” or “spike” is triggered as output, conveyed along the disparate activities into unified percepts, (4) consider scale- axon to the next synapse. Axonal firings can manifest will and invariant (“fractal-like,” “1/f”) brain dynamics and structure, behavior, e.g., causing other neurons to move muscles or speak and (5) explain the “hard problem” of subjective experience words. (e.g., Chalmers, 1996). A modified type of neuronal network can Some contend that consciousness emerges from axonal firing resolve some of these issues, but to fully address consciousness outputs, “volleys,” or “explosions” from complex neurocompu- and free will, something else is needed. Here I propose the missing tation (Koch, 2004; Malach, 2007). But coherent axonal firings ingredient is finer scale, deeper order, molecular-level quantum are preceded and caused by synchronized dendritic/somatic inte- effects in cytoskeletal microtubules inside brain neurons. grations, suggesting consciousness involves neuronal dendrites In particular, the Penrose–Hameroff “Orch OR” model sug- and cell bodies/soma, i.e., in integration phases of “integrate- gests that quantum computations in microtubules inside brain and-fire” sequences (Pribram, 1991; Eccles, 1992; Woolf and neurons process information and regulate membrane and synap- Hameroff, 2001; Tononi, 2004). Integration implies merging tic activities. Microtubules are lattice polymers of subunit and consolidation of multiple input sources to one output, proteins called “tubulin.” Orch OR proposes tubulin states in microtubules act as interactive information “bits,” and also as quantum superpositions of multiple possible tubulin states (e.g., quantum bits or qubits). During integration phases, tubulin qubits interact by entanglement, evolve and compute by the Schrödinger equation, and then reduce, or collapse to definite states, e.g., after 25 ms in gamma synchrony. The quantum state reduction is due to an objective threshold [“objective reduction (OR)”] proposed by Penrose, accompanied by a moment of con- scious awareness. Synaptic inputs and other factors “orchestrate” the microtubule quantum computations, hence “orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR).” Orch OR directly addresses conscious causal agency. Each reduction/conscious moment selects particular microtubule states which regulate neuronal firings, and thus control conscious behavior. Regarding consciousness occurring “too late,” quantum state reductions seem to involve temporal non-locality, able to refer quantum information both forward and backward in what we perceive as time, enabling real-time conscious causal action. Quantum brain biology and Orch OR can thus rescue free will. CONSCIOUSNESS, BRAIN, AND CAUSALITY Consciousness involves awareness, phenomenal experience (com- posed of what philosophers term “qualia”), sense of self, feelings, apparent choice and control of actions, memory, a model of the world, thought, language, and, e.g., when we close our eyes, FIGURE 1 | Three characterizations of integrate-and-fire neurons. Top: or meditate,