Is the brain quantum in some way

The I and its Brain - An examination of the dualism of John C. Eccles

Table of Contents

1 Introduction
1.1 Plato's arguments for the immortality of the soul
1.2 Descartes arguments for the existence of the soul
1.3 Three theses on the mind-body problem
1.4 3-worlds theory by Karl R. Popper

2. The interactionist dualism of John C. Eccles
2.1 The cerebral cortex and its modular concept
2.2 The liaison brain theory
2.2.1 General considerations and theses
2.2.2 The interaction between world 1 and world
2.2.3 Communication with the dominant brain hemisphere
2.2.4 Functions of the hemispheres
2.2.5 Different forms of unconsciousness
2.2.6 Conscious memory
2.2.7 Summary of the liaison brain theory
2.3 The quantum mechanical theory
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 The structure and function of a chemical synapse in the central nervous system of vertebrates
2.3.3 How mental events produce neural events
2.3.4 The basic unit of the cerebral cortex: the dendron
2.3.5 The basic unit of the mental: the psychon
2.3.6 How neural activity could evoke conscious perceptions
2.3.7 Evolutionary origin of consciousness
2.3.8 A quantum mechanical model of exocytosis
2.3.9 Change in likelihood of exocytosis due to volition
2.3.10 Summary of the quantum mechanical theory
2.4 Critical remarks on Eccles' two theories

3. Dualism: Pros and Cons
3.1 Arguments for dualism
3.1.1 The incomplete knowledge argument
3.1.2 The argument of the Chinese room
3.1.3 The enigmatic unity of consciousness and the uniqueness of the person
3.1.4 The freedom of thought
3.1.5 The insurmountable difference between phenomenal and theoretical knowledge
3.1.6 Values ​​and the crucial role of the world
3.2 Arguments against the interactionist dualism
3.2.1 Causal closeness of the physical world and impossibility of interaction between matter and spirit
3.2.2 The problem of unconsciousness Effects of brain damage on experience and behavior Phineas Gage's personality change Emotional basis of decisions and free will
3.2.3 Thought disorders and psychoses

4. Limits of scientific explanations in the mind-body debate
4.1 The question of "how"
4.2 "Unconscious" science
4.3 Can we see the whole world?

5. Closing words


1 Introduction

Dualism as a philosophical position is based on the assumption that there are two different substances, or rather two different entities: matter and spirit. Matter includes, for example, our planet, mountains, rivers, living beings, various human artifacts, etc. Spirit or spiritual phenomena include all our sensations, emotions, different psychological states. The material world is subjectively perceptible, intersubjectively verifiable and ultimately objectively given. She is known to everyone from the outside. The spiritual world has its origin inside every subject, it is purely subjective from the beginning and can only be experienced in this way. Fortunately, these experiences can be exchanged between different subjects using language and, as far as possible, compared. This gives them an intersubjective status.

But what generally differentiates mental phenomena from material objects is that they cannot be checked. We can say that a certain box is 40 cm long, 20 cm wide, 30 cm high and weighs 2.5 kg. This claim can be verified by several subjects by measuring and weighing this box with recognized tools. But if someone claims they are in severe pain or very happy, we cannot use any tool to measure how severe the pain actually is or how happy they are. These sensations and experiences are only accessible and known to this one person who reports about them. Since we are all familiar in a certain way with the states of consciousness “having pain” or “being happy”, we can imagine what this person feels and how he feels. And we do this by remembering our own sensations and projecting them onto the affected person. "I was in a lot of pain and I know how it feels" or "I was in seventh heaven with happiness and I know what a feeling it is" - the thoughts should be similar. We can not only describe material objects, but in most cases also touch them or grasp them with the other senses. Anyone can pick up the box mentioned above to experience what it feels like to hold one pound in their hands. But neither is able to borrow someone else's pain or happiness for a moment to test how it makes one feel. The psychological aspects of every person are private and can only be communicated to others or concealed at their request. Of course, the facial expression of the respective person can tell us a lot, but we also know that we can lie or control our body so well that nothing is communicated to others with the neutral facial features.

So the human being is a spiritual and physical unit. To denote ourselves, we use the word "I". I am the one who has a body, but also the one who thinks, feels and makes decisions. In everyday life we ​​unconsciously represent dualism. Our actions are determined by our will and our convictions and decisions. When the question “Why did you do this and that?” The answer is “Because I wanted it that way”, we usually don't ask any further questions. The conviction that I make the decisions about what to do and what not to do is firmly anchored in us. Without this certainty, any society could not function and the terms “responsibility”, “promise”, “loyalty”, “oath” etc. would be pointless. Because when I make a promise, I make a decision to act in a certain way and then I am responsible for that promise. That is why it is also clear to every human being that he alone is the source, the starting point for his actions. We are convinced that we are free. This freedom sometimes transcends the moral norms of a society and there are trials for that. Once it is established who committed the crime, no further causes are sought. There may be a thousand reasons why and why a crime was committed. It may be particularly "unfavorable" moon phases or star constellations, it may be various socio-economic or even cultural factors. But ultimately the decision to act is made solely by the person. And for this reason the respective person is punished, because one is firmly convinced that the source of the causal chain originates in this person. Free will is one of the riddles of consciousness. If consciousness is realized through the functions of the brain, how is it possible that we are free? Or is freedom just an illusion? We may doubt the freedom of our actions, but how can we deny the freedom of our thought?

But how does man act? How does it come about that he can move his limbs? How does a movement come about? We know from anatomy lessons that humans have a central nervous system that enables all of their movements. The nerve tracts are distributed throughout the body and ultimately connected to the most important organ - the brain. The brain is like a strategic center into which all information enters through the senses and from which all commands to move any limb are sent. So if we want to understand how and why humans act, we have to look for the causes in the brain.

Modern brain research always tries to provide answers to these questions. But it is not an easy task. The brain is the most complex organ and even the most complex of all that is known to us in the universe. It has an estimated 100 billion to a trillion neurons that come together in networks of tremendous complexity. It is estimated that the number of all possible neuron connections in the brain exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. In addition, it is not a static, but a dynamic system that is constantly changing. The neural networks that are not used for a long time become weaker and ultimately disintegrate, the synapses of the neurons that have become free join the new networks, so neurons are used for other tasks. But one thing is certain - the brain must remain intact and function properly in order for us to be conscious and to experience something. This close bond suggests that consciousness arises on the basis of the brain and is probably only possible on this basis. In order to achieve a certain level of awareness, one needs a correspondingly complex brain.

Imaging methods can be used to determine which areas of the brain are active when the person being examined sees, hears, smells, feels something, does calculations in the head or imagines something. There are several methods of observing brain processes. With positron emission tomography one can measure the blood flow in the brain regions. The strength of the blood flow is directly related to the activity of the neurons. For example, when a person looks at a beautiful painting, one notices the increased neuron activity in the visual center of the brain. Another procedure is magnetencephalography. The changes in the magnetic field on the head surface are measured here. This magnetic field is caused by the active currents of the nerve cells. In this case, too, it is possible to observe precisely which areas in the brain are particularly active when the test person has different mental states. There are a few other imaging methods, but they are of less interest to us, as they are only about technical features. But what all these procedures have in common and what they all serve in the end is the possibility to take a look into the brain processes. Brain research wants to know what exactly happens in our brains when we have this and that state of consciousness, when we feel, when we think.

The most important question - in what wonderful way consciousness arises from brain activity - remains unanswered to this day. We experience ourselves as a unit, as "I" who can see, but also smell, feel pressure, have a pleasant feeling and go for a walk. There are different areas in the brain that process different environmental stimuli. Video information is treated separately from audio information, and smells are treated separately from button presses. But nowhere in the brain could one find an area in which all this processed information converges. There is no center, no "I" in the brain. Either I am the brain or its functionality or I am something else that cannot be grasped with any scientific methods. The origin and nature of consciousness remains a mystery.

The brain processes that accompany or enable our perceptions, feelings and thoughts have a qualitative difference to the perceptions, feelings and thoughts themselves. Research can provide us with descriptions and images of neuronal activity that are measured when one hears a beautiful melody, for example. But with these pictures she cannot say what it is like to hear this music. We can show a deaf person the colored images of brain activity recorded while listening to a music lover; we can also demonstrate the notes of this piece of music to him. But will people who have never experienced what it is like to hear understand what music actually is? Rather not. He may know a lot about the technical-descriptive side of sounds, but the states of consciousness in which one perceives music are completely inaccessible to him. The experience qualities or qualia are only accessible from the first-person perspective. Only I know what it feels like when I hear a certain melody, ride a bike or smell flowers. Science provides us with a description of the world from a third-person perspective. In brain research one has learned a lot about the material basis of the states of consciousness, but nothing at all about the states themselves. The neuron processes are material, the states of consciousness are not. As we can see, qualia defy scientific description.

The belief that one day everything in the world could one day be explained with the help of science is very popular among recognized and leading scientists. It is only a matter of time before humans have such precise and high-resolution measurement techniques at their disposal that they can research the smallest building blocks in the world and develop the corresponding “theory of everything”. Everything that exists in the universe has its origin in matter and is accordingly only a special fact of this matter, which is formed by natural laws. This position is very strict and simple. Everything has to be measured and observed. If something cannot be measured, one has to wait until one has the appropriate measuring instruments. If a phenomenon is in principle immeasurable, it is either ignored as unscientific or the material causes of the phenomenon are searched for. The starting point of the research determines the approach.

The phenomenon of consciousness is immediately given to us. There are currently many theories about the nature of the experiencing "I". John Eccles developed a dualistic theory in which he tries to show how the mind as a programmer operates the brain as a machine. His considerations are not purely scientific in nature, but philosophical-scientific or even religious-scientific. Because of the mixture of philosophy and science, he was heavily criticized. Whether this criticism is justified or not depends of course on the worldview of the respective critic. In the later course of this work we will try to deal with some points of criticism in more detail.

But before we start with Eccles, let's take a look at the history of dualistic philosophy. We are interested first in Plato and then in Descartes.

1.1 Plato's arguments for the immortality of the soul

In the ancient world, too, many thinkers were convinced that man has a body on the one hand and a soul on the other. Although these two substances are related in some way, they are essentially different. The soul was presented as something immaterial that constituted the true human being.

in the Phaedo 4 arguments of Plato for the immortality of the soul can be found:

1. The cycle of arising and passing away. For every process that leads from A to B - the opposite of A - there must be an opposite process that leads from B back to A - that is, the process of resurrection for dying. But to die means nothing else than the separation of the soul from the body; so the resurrection must consist in the soul re-entering the body. The souls of people therefore have to stay somewhere after death so that they can return to a body from there.
2. Memory. The soul must have existed before birth because we have knowledge that we can only have acquired before birth (by looking at the ideas).
3. Relationship. The soul strives for the knowledge of ideas, the body, on the other hand, concentrates on the world of transitory empirical things. So there is a relationship, and that means also a relationship of fate, between the body and the transitory world on the one hand and the soul and the world of ideas on the other. So the body is perishable and the soul (like ideas) is imperishable.
4. The soul as a principle of life. Just as fire gives warmth to everything in which it dwells, the soul gives life to everything it takes possession of. If something conveys a share in the idea F to all objects in which it is inherent and prevents their participation in the opposite idea F ', then this mediator itself cannot absorb the idea F' even more. So the soul is immortal. (Beckermann, 1999, p. 28)

To 1: Plato is convinced that such processes exist for all things. Opposites like the beautiful and the ugly, the unjust and the just, the small and the big arise apart. When something gets bigger, it moves from the small (A) to the large (B). If it is to be even bigger, then it has to move further away from the little one and move closer to the big one. That is the movement from A to B. But when something gets smaller, it moves in the opposite direction, i.e. from B to A. This is also how life and death are to be considered - two opposites that exclude each other and arise apart.

Perhaps Plato did not consider enough examples because obviously there are some things in the world that do not have an opposite process. As you get older, you can't possibly get younger; once a word is spoken, it cannot be taken back. The beautiful does not necessarily have to arise from the ugly and the great does not have to arise from the small (cf. Beckermann, p. 22). Therefore, life does not necessarily have to arise from death, although the last arises from the first.

To 2: Here Plato demonstrates that we have some terms that we could never have gained from experience. In his view, the concept of the same, for example, cannot possibly come from the perceptible world of things. Because two objects may appear the same to one and unequal to the other. In a way, all objects are a little unequal. And yet we are familiar with the idea of ​​equality. We could only have acquired the same in itself before birth, when our soul saw the realm of ideas or was part of that realm.

It is quite possible that we can never know the same thing in and of itself from experience. But this idea, this pattern of recognition could be innate in us. If one speaks in terms of functionalism, it could be a basic function of the brain. If one argues evolutionarily, this function could have arisen through natural selection, since, in some way, the recognition of the same things should have given an advantage in the struggle for survival. On the other hand, it is possible that we are able to form these concepts analytically. When a new phenomenon is experienced, in this case two objects that I gradually grasp with all my senses and realize that I cannot find any quality that one object has and the other does not, it could be possible that I am in At this moment I call this phenomenal experience and finally my judgment about these two objects “equality” and thereby form a new concept. So it does not follow from this thesis that we have knowledge of the ideas before birth.

To 3: The soul actually means the entire psychic world of the human being. Sensations, feelings and above all thinking are part of it. From birth man strives for knowledge. He is the only living being interested in the structure of the world and looking for the meaning of life. The soul is always trying to see the ideas. As already mentioned, only through the relationship of the soul to the realm of ideas can we recognize the beautiful in itself, the same in itself, and so on. All of this is invisible and, according to Plato, unchangeable and eternal. So the invisible soul must also be imperishable and immortal, like the ideas. The material world is constantly changing. Nothing stays the way it used to be. So does the body of people who get older and change their shape until they crumble after death and finally disappear. The ideas are uniform and qualitative, there is only one beautiful, one good, etc. They are indivisible. Material things are compound, quantitative and divisible. There is a major difference between the world of ideas and the world of matter. After death, the soul leaves its body prison and returns to the realm of ideas and thus to true knowledge.

This thesis seems to be much stronger than the first two. If we are not able to form the ideas, the relationship of the soul to the higher spiritual world is to be assumed.

To 4: Using the example of numbers, Plato shows that not only opposites are mutually exclusive, but also some ideas. He takes the idea of ​​odd numbers, which is inconsistent with the idea of ​​even numbers. It could never happen that three becomes an even number like the four becomes an odd number. So there is no way the three can assume the attribute “straight”. Starting from this point of view, Plato regards the soul as a quality of life, as a principle of life. Everything that is animated is necessarily alive. Everything that is not alive has nothing to do with the soul either. Death, too, cannot possibly affect the soul, since these ideas are mutually exclusive. That is why the soul has to be immortal, it cannot participate in the idea of ​​death.

Here one could of course ask whether it still makes sense to talk about the immortality of the soul. If we assume that the soul exists as some immaterial substance, then it is strange to speak of its death. We know from experience that it is probably material living beings who die one day, who quasi give up the quality of being "alive" and take on the quality of being "dead". If the soul is to be equated with life, then it goes without saying that it is incompatible with death. Life in itself is not dead and death in itself is not alive. These are just ideas. Only living things can be either dead or alive. With this argument, Plato only showed that abstract entities cannot assume any properties of concrete entities.

It is important that the existence of the soul is beyond doubt for Plato and his fellow thinkers. The world is divided into spirit and matter. The mind rules matter and is free in its thinking. It cannot die or perish because it does not belong to the material world.

1.2 Descartes arguments for the existence of the soul

René Descartes provided a fundamental thought on the mind-body debate, who questioned all of his experiences. He started from the beginning, from himself, and asked what he actually was. It was clear to him that he has a body and that he perceives the whole world through his senses. But he knew from experience that his sensory impressions sometimes deceived him. He also knew that in many dreams he was certain to see, feel and hear this and that, and that he believed dreams to be reality. On the basis of this thought, he wondered if it might not be that he was being deceived in all of his experiences. It could be that he has no body at all and that the whole world around him is just an illusion. Only one thing was certain - he is the one who is being fooled. He could doubt anything except the fact that he doubts. So Descartes comes to the conclusion that he is a thinking, doubting something. And that is what defines its essence.

But if the world is real and exists, we have to distinguish between two different substances: res cogitans (the thinking I, the soul) and res extensa (material, extended world, body). The soul is immaterial, thinking and not extended; the bodies are material, non-thinking, and extended. As soon as Descartes discovers this difference, he suspects that it would also be possible for him to exist entirely without a body. He argues as follows:

“And although I may - or even certainly, as I will explain later - have a body that is very closely connected to me, on the one hand I have a clear and distinct idea of ​​myself, insofar as I am am only a thinking, non-extended thing, and on the other hand a clear idea of ​​the body, insofar as this is only an extended non-thinking thing, I say, it is certain that I am really different from my body and exist without it can ”(Descartes, Meditations, p. 214).

To exist without bodies does not mean to exist in the world of physical objects. With this consideration Descartes divides the universe into two worlds: the world of spirit and the world of matter. Both worlds can exist independently of each other. "I" can exist with the quality of thought alone, without being extended. Any body can exist with the property of expansion alone without thinking.

But how does the interaction between body and mind work? Can they interact? According to Descartes, the human body is a kind of machine that is controlled by the mind on the one hand and sends messages to the mind from the outside world on the other. Signals reach the brain via nerve tracts, which then also send commands to move the individual limbs. The mind only gets the impressions from the brain and only has its effect there. Where exactly does this interaction take place? Descartes suggested that this happened in the pineal gland. This is the only part of the brain that is not duplicated. Here all impressions from different sensory organs should be put together to form one picture.

Of course, in Descartes' time there was no knowledge of the functions of this gland. Today it is known that it controls our sheep and wake periods and our mood. It is also responsible for the measurement and timing of the body (cf. Goller, 2003, p. 86). As we can see, Descartes' conjecture was wrong. There is no center in the brain where all impressions are put together to form the overall picture. Perhaps the brain alone is enough to explain all phenomena of consciousness without presupposing an immaterial mind? Descartes denies this question and brings up in his work Discours de la Méthode two further arguments for the existence of the immaterial soul.

He makes a thought experiment and imagines that, in principle, one could build machines that are so good that they perfectly imitate different living beings in their activities. Then he wonders if it would be possible for us to first distinguish these machines from real animals. Descartes sees no possibility here. But in the case of a machine that imitates a human being, he sees two methods of finding out whether it is a human or a mechanical copy. Because only people are able to speak. This function is not just about producing words acoustically, as some parrots are very good at, but the ability to combine words in different ways into sentences that also make sense. This can only be done by humans and not by animals or machines. So you cannot build a physical system, after all, no such system is possible that can produce this intellectual achievement. People have thoughts that they express through the words. Machines have no thoughts, they can only perform certain functions, in modern terms - they can only execute certain program instructions that a person has programmed.

The second argument is our intelligent behavior and intellect in general. According to Descartes, both animals and machines can only certain Solve tasks. Animals follow instinct and don't think about how to do the same thing better. But modern animal research can determine the signs of intelligence in higher animals (great apes, dolphins, elephants and even parrots). They are very capable of finding solutions to new problems. Of course, their intellectual achievements are far from human ones. It looks different with machines. Machines are only for certain Purposes and problem solving built and are unable to an unknown, a new Task to cope with. Nowadays we are still far from programming a speech computer that could only come close to achieving human linguistic abilities. With this argument Descartes shows that intelligence cannot, in principle, be physically realized. The Generality stands in the way here. How can a physical system be a problem per se realize how can it sense detect? How can Think be materially realized? In this case too, Descartes is forced to assume the existence of a non-physical substance - the soul. And since he has already shown before that nothing can be more certain than the existence of one's own spirit, he believes that he has also proven the existence of the soul here.

Objection can of course also be raised here. First, Descartes only showed that it cannot yet be explained how intelligence can arise from the functions of the brain. Perhaps one day science can provide us with the evidence that all functions and phenomena of consciousness are realized through physical processes in the brain. The assumption of an immaterial substance that cannot be proven empirically by any means is superfluous and ultimately does not explain anything further. Second, certain properties of a physical system may only appear and become possible after a certain degree of complexity. Here one speaks of Emergence. That means - one cannot explain these properties from the parts of the system. When we apply emergence theory to the human brain, it says that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain that arises from certain complex connections and activities of neurons. It cannot be explained from individual neurons. Only a certain interaction, a certain activity pattern of the nerve cells brings about consciousness. Of course Descartes could not have known about this theory, since it was formulated only in the 19th century. But even this theory is just a theory. The question of whether consciousness is an emergent property of the brain remains unanswered.

With his considerations, René Descartes provided the important foundations of the interaction theory of body and mind and thus influenced later discussions of the mind-body problem.

1.3 Three theses on the mind-body problem

The mind-body problem can be summarized in three theses (see Bieri, 1993, p.5):

[1] The mental is not the physical.
[2] Mental is causally effective in the area of ​​the physical.
[3] The realm of the physical is causally closed.

These three theses cannot be true at the same time. You can only combine two sentences at a time. The third is then logically excluded. Theorem [1] corresponds to ontological dualism. There are two independent entities - mind and matter. Sentence [2] contains the statement that it is possible for spirit to have a causal effect on matter. This effect is also called mental causation. We know from our everyday life that our desires, intentions and decisions are the causes of our actions. When we do something, it is only because we want it, want it, or in some cases have to. Not only our volitional decisions play a role, but also social, ethical and religious norms of our society. Emotions also influence our behavior. We jump and laugh with happiness, lower our heads and grimace when we are sad or trembling with fear. Many mental states can be guessed from the posture of the other person. On the other hand, there is also a retroactive effect. When a part of the body is injured, we feel pain. Ingestion of food causes the feeling of satiety. Theorem [3] claims that there can only be material causes. The realm of the physical is causally closed, the whole universe can be completely explained by physical laws of nature. All, really all processes can and must be explained in this sense. There must be a physical cause for every physical effect. If a phenomenon cannot be explained in this way, then it is an indication of the poor state of scientific research. Ultimately, there are no gaps in the physical world through which the mind can operate. The mental is causally ineffective. If the realm of the physical is causally closed, then in the end the mental is also physical. Consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from brain processes that are purely material in nature. The mental is based on the physical and is impossible without matter. The belief in the omnipotence of physical theories is dominant in the scientific world today. Everything that exists can be scientifically researched. Man must then also be fully explained from the causal laws of the material world.

Let us now consider various possible combinations of the three theses. If any two sentences are combined and are supposed to be true, then the rest of the sentence is automatically false. For example, if sentences [1] and [3] are true, then sentence [2] is false. If the mental is not physical and the realm of the physical is causally closed, then the mental cannot affect the physical. Sentences [1] and [2] give the position of the Interaction theory. This theory is supported by John C. Eccles. We shall consider its assumptions in detail later. Sentences [1] and [3] correspond to this psychophysical parallelism and the Epi-phenomenalism. Sentences [2] and [3] represent the materialistic identity theory, the eliminative materialism and the functionalism. The exact description of these theories can be found in the relevant specialist literature (e.g. Zoglauer, 1998).

1.4 3-worlds theory by Karl R. Popper

Since the interaction theory of Eccles is very closely related to the 3-worlds theory of Popper, we have to take a closer look at it.

Popper divides the universe into three worlds. To World 1 include all physical objects (all material bodies) and states (processes, forces, force fields). Since these forces can be observed in the interactions of the material bodies, they are believed to be real, although their reality is only assumed.In this way Popper suspects that there are also psychological states. They are real because they interact with our bodies. Using the example of a toothache, we can observe a condition that is both physical and psychological. Caries is a physicochemical process in the tooth that can be empirically proven and leads to physical changes in the tooth. The pain is of a psychological nature, it is only felt by the person concerned. The sensation of pain causes our body to move, for example when we decide to go to the dentist. If you have no pain and you do not notice the caries, the possibility of a visit to the doctor is not realized. Although mental states are not material, they are still "real" or "real" because they have causal effects on body movements. To World 2 include all mental states (emotions, sensations, desires, conscious and unconscious states). Now one could say that this would suffice for a dualistic interpretation of the world. On the one hand we have matter and its states as World 1 and on the other hand mind and its states as World 2. But there is something else. The contents of thought and the products of the human mind (language, theories, music, etc.). Popper calls this world World 3:

“By world 3, I mean the world of the products of the human mind, such as narratives, explanatory myths, tools, scientific theories (true and false), scientific problems, social institutions, and works of art. The objects of world 3 are created by ourselves, although they are not always the result of the planned creation of individual people.

Many objects of world 3 exist in the form of material bodies and in some ways belong to both world 1 and world 3. Examples are sculptures, paintings and books of a scientific or literary nature. A book is a physical thing and therefore belongs to world 1; but what makes it a meaningful product of human thought is its Content: that which remains unchanged in the various editions and editions. This salary belongs to world 3 ”(Popper, 2005, p. 64).

As we can see from this example, the content of a book is what defines a book. Size, color, font are essential properties of a book in World 1, but they have no effect on the subject of World 3 - the content. So the objects of the world 3 are of an incorporeal nature.

Let's take interaction theory as an example. Obviously, before this was formulated, someone had encountered a problem. The mind-body problem. This problem manifested itself from the observation that humans have both physical and mental characteristics. However, the physical and the mental are very different. How can it be that spirit arises from matter? How can it be that something immaterial like spirit can affect the material body? And so on in this sense. These questions arise in world 2 and as soon as they are communicated to any other subject they belong to world 3. Popper describes the attempt to understand any problem as an attempt of world 2 to grasp an object of world 3. Once you understand what the problem is, you try to find a plausible explanation. This is how a new object in world 3 emerges - a theory. Theories are products of the human mind, but they also have a certain autonomy. As part of a theory, new problems / consequences can later be discovered that were not recognized / seen by the author at the beginning. Popper believes that as soon as theories become objects of world 3, they begin to lead a life of their own. We can see this using the example of a number system. According to Popper, it is more of a human construction or invention than a discovery. What was discovered later, however, are, for example, even and odd numbers, prime numbers, etc. Popper describes these certain groups of numbers as unintended consequences in the construction of the system, which logically follow from them. And that is the case with any scientific theory. The task of science is to discover the meaningful consequences of a new theory and to discuss them in the light of existing theories. Problems are discovered rather than invented, although some problems may well be considered invented. For example the problem of the greatest prime number or the three-body problem of Newtonian dynamics (cf. Popper, 2005, p. 66).

The acquisition of an object in world 3 should be understood as an active process. Objects in this world are made and modified by people. To understand a problem, one must first try some solutions that have come to mind and determine that they are wrong. Popper calls this process the rediscovery of difficulty. Understanding here means breaking down a world3 object into its logical components.

All three worlds interact. Worlds 1 and 3 can only have a direct effect on world 2. When a new phenomenon is observed in nature, world 1 acts on world 2. In order to explain this phenomenon, consciousness (world 2) drafts a theory which, through publication, becomes the object of world 3. World 1 has an indirect effect on World 3 in this way. It may later be found that this theory is sketchy and cannot explain some aspects of the phenomenon. Then it is modified and some new experiments are carried out. World 3 also has an indirect effect on world 1. The mediating role here is always played by world 2.

World 3 objects are abstract and real. They are powerful tools for changing world 1. However, this is only possible through human intervention. World 2 should therefore be viewed as active (productive and critical). This activity is especially important when learning a language. General curiosity and the need to learn a language are innate in us. The process of learning, however, is not genetically controlled. It is influenced and guided by culture, i.e. world 3. The human being is a tool-making living being, but none of these tools is genetically determined. Language can be seen as the only tool that has a genetic basis. It is not material and appears in various physical forms - sounds and scripts (cf. Popper, 2005, pp. 74-76).

With these considerations, Popper wants to show that we must presuppose the reality of world 3 if we want to fully explain the essence of man. Because a person does not only consist of his material body, a person is also a person. And a person has their worldview, their culture and upbringing, their value system. The heritage of the world 3 influences and controls a person's development. Language plays a crucial role in this.

World 3 is the place of intersubjectivity. Because when two subjects communicate, they use any language they are familiar with. But language is only a tool, as mentioned above. The purpose of the conversation is the discussion / description certain circumstances, conditions or Operations in the universe. But there is still Knowledge about the context, about the whole system. This knowledge is part of World 3, a prerequisite for meaningful communication. In order to understand what the other is saying, we have to be able to grasp the abstract objects of world 3. A subject of world 2 formulates objects of world 3 and only in this way is it possible for the other subject to “understand” them. There is no direct way. We must first formulate our ideas, our thoughts in words and sentences before they can be communicated to the others. World 3 is thus a global information field that enables human communication and turns a person into a person in the truest sense of the word.

2. The interactionist dualism of John C. Eccles

The brain researcher and Nobel Prize winner John C. Eccles dealt with the mind-brain problem all his life. Together with the philosopher Karl R. Popper, he wrote the book "Das Ich und seine Kirchen", which was published in 1982 in German. In this work he developed a new theory about the interaction between mind and brain. He suspected this interaction was in the liaison brain (the cerebral cortex of the dominant hemisphere). The discovery of the delimited groups of up to 10,000 neurons, which are built vertically in 6 layers and which Eccles calls modules, led him to hypothesize that the interaction between the self-conscious mind and brain could take place through these modules. On the one hand, the mind could "scan" certain modules depending on its interests and thus build up a conscious holistic experience, on the other hand it could act on modules and in this way cause or change the brain processes. The detailed description of this theory will be given in Section 2.2.

Eccles later developed a new theory based on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to this theory, the interaction between mind and brain consists in the change in the probability field of neurotransmitter release from presynaptic vesicles. Since the law of conservation of the wave function consists only in the conservation of probability, different final states are possible without additional energy being needed. With this theory, which is considered in Section 2.3, Eccles tried to show how the interaction between mind and brain could take place without violating the law of conservation of energy in physics. This phrase has often been used as a critique of dualistic theories, since it was believed that the mind, through its causal intervention, must effect a change in the overall energy of a physical system. According to this sentence, however, it is impossible to generate or destroy energy within a closed system. Eccles solved this problem by excluding energy from the game.

With his work, Eccles also tries to challenge materialism. The success of the materialistic worldview in science often leads to neglect or even neglect of other perspectives. Eccles would like to doubt the belief that all the riddles of the universe can ultimately be explained by physics. In his view, there are many phenomena of consciousness that cannot be reduced to World 1. The existence of the abstract objects of world 3, which have an enormous and decisive influence on human thought and action (world 2) and thus also on world 1 of material objects, lose their meaning and essence when they are reduced to world 1 become.

The experience that it is we ourselves who think, make decisions and have an influence on our actions is given to us immediately. If all of this is just an illusion and the world can be fully explained by the laws of physics, then why have we various Opinions and can not agree? How can at all new Theories arise when our thinking is determined by brain processes? We are all in one universe, but we each interpret the sensory data in their own way. And if only one of these interpretations is true, then all other brains with other interpretations are "defective". But we also know that a person can change his worldview in the course of his biological life, e.g. through the influence of another person. So it is in principle possible to “repair” a “defective” brain or to “break” a “properly” functioning one. For what reason are there “defective” brains at all, if they have to be eliminated by natural selection long ago? I only see one way out - I have to embrace freedom of thought. Only this freedom gives meaning to our statements and assertions; only it enables us to freely interpret the world, to believe or not to believe something. Whether this freedom can be realized in material brain processes is a big question. Eccles can't believe it, which is why he postulates the self-confident mind that controls the brain. This mind is limited in its effects on matter, namely only on certain brain regions, but it is free in its interpretations, views, intentions and in its thinking. Eccles was religious and believed in God and in the continued existence of the spirit after the death of the body. The freedom of the soul is made possible through God. Of course, there are metaphysical assumptions that cannot be scientifically tested or proven by any means. So far, materialism has not been able to convince everyone, which is why there are other theories with speculative assumptions that postulate other conditions in addition to matter. Human thinking breaks through the boundaries of the sensory world and makes use of the infinity of its imagination.