Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0710.5569

The Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Linkages: The Quantum Zeno Effect in Binocular Rivalry

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published Oct 30, 2007• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A quantum mechanical theory of the relationship between perceptions and brain dynamics based on von Neumann's theory of measurments is applied to a recent quantum theoretical treatment of binocular rivaly that makes essential use of the quantum Zeno effect to give good fits to the complex available empirical data. The often-made claim that decoherence effects in the warm, wet, noisy brain must eliminate quantum effects at the macroscopic scale pertaining to perceptions is examined, and it is argued, on the basis of fundamental principles. that the usual decoherence effects will not upset the quantum Zeno effect that is being exploited in the cited work.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0710.5569

Related papers

Decoherence, Quantum Zeno Effect, and the Efficacy of Mental Effort

Henry Pierce Stapp

Recent theoretical and experimental papers support the prevailing opinion that large warm systems will rapidly lose quantum coherence, and that classical properties will emerge. This rapid loss of coherence would naturally be expected to block any critical role for quantum theory in explaining the interaction between our conscious experiences and the physical activities of our brains. However, there is a quantum theory of mind in which the efficacy of mental effort is not affected by decoherence effects. In this theory the effects of mental action on brain activity is achieved by a Quantum Zeno Effect that is not weakened by decoherence. The theory is based on a relativistic version of von Neumann's quantum theory. It encompasses all the predictions of Copenhagen quantum theory, which include all the validated predictions of classical physical theory. In addition, it forges two-way dynamical links between the physical and experiential aspects of nature. The theory has significant explanatory power.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003065•Mar 16, 2000•6 citations

A model of the quantum-classical and mind-brain connections, and of the role of the quantum Zeno effect in the physical implementation of conscious intent

Henry Pierce Stapp

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurement and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.

arXiv:0803.1633•Mar 11, 2008•2 citations

Monte Carlo simulation of quantum Zeno effect in the brain

Danko Dimchev Georgiev

Environmental decoherence appears to be the biggest obstacle for successful construction of quantum mind theories. Nevertheless, the quantum physicist Henry Stapp promoted the view that the mind could utilize quantum Zeno effect to influence brain dynamics and that the efficacy of such mental efforts would not be undermined by environmental decoherence of the brain. To address the physical plausibility of Stapp's claim, we modeled the brain using quantum tunneling of an electron in a multiple-well structure such as the voltage sensor in neuronal ion channels and performed Monte Carlo simulations of quantum Zeno effect exerted by the mind upon the brain in the presence or absence of environmental decoherence. The simulations unambiguously showed that the quantum Zeno effect breaks down for timescales greater than the brain decoherence time. To generalize the Monte Carlo simulation results for any n-level quantum system, we further analyzed the change of brain entropy due to the mind probing actions and proved a theorem according to which local projections cannot decrease the von Neumann entropy of the unconditional brain density matrix. The latter theorem establishes that Stapp's model is physically implausible but leaves a door open for future development of quantum mind theories provided the brain has a decoherence-free subspace.

arXiv:1412.4741•International Journal of Modern Physics B•Dec 10, 2014•11 citations

Reply to a Critic: “Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental Decoherence”

Henry Pierce Stapp

The original Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was offered as a pragmatic methodology for making predictions about future experiences on the basis of knowledge gleaned from past experiences. It was, therefore, fundamentally about mental realities, and refrained from speaking about a more inclusive reality. Von Neumann created, later, what is called the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics. It incorporates all of the Copenhagen-based predictions about connections between experiences into a rationally coherent conception of a dynamically integrated psychophysical reality. Von Neumann’s formulation allows the same laws and concepts that are used to make predictions about atomic phenomena to account for the capacity of our mental intentions to influence our bodily actions. Danko Georgiev claims to have found logical flaws in my use of von Neumann’s theory to explain this causal effectiveness of our mental intentions. The bulk of Georgiev’s paper gives a detailed discussion of a system with just two base states, up and down. This is not an adequate model of the pertinent physical system, a human brain. Georgiev’s attempt to relate his two-state work to the case at hand is flawed by statements such as “…in von Neumann’s formulation there are no such things as minds, spirits, ghosts, or souls, …” Von Neumann’s formulation certainly does involve minds. Georgiev’s choice of words seems designed to suggest that I am introducing mental qualities and assumptions that go beyond what are already parts of von Neumann’s theory. I explain here why these allegations, and all his other allegations of errors, are incorrect. NeuroQuantology | December 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 4| Page 601-605

NeuroQuantology•Oct 13, 2012•9 citations

The Mind-Brain Problem and the Measurement Paradox of Quantum Mechanics: Should We Disentangle Them?

Javier Sánchez Cañizares

In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrodinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.

NeuroQuantology•Oct 30, 2013•2 citations

Neural Oscillations & Consciousness: Attention as a Litmus Test for the Quantum Mind Hypothesis

Sean O Nuallain

The “quantum mind” hypothesis, the notion that quantum phenomena are causal and perhaps even essential in mentation and particularly consciousness, has met with fierce resistance. This has been particularly the case over the past 20 years, and the first task of this paper is to show that while there are indeed strong - mainly empirical - arguments against the thesis, the ‘in principle arguments published to date evince premature closure. The burgeoning field of “Quantum cognition” has established that quantum models are appropriate for decision-making, and that of “Quantum biology” has now made the notion of quantum effects at physiological temperatures plausible. If quantum effects are relevant to consciousness, they are likely to be seen in the contrast between attended to and not attended to streams of information. An exciting confirmation of this theme is the fact that attended to streams involve a decorrelation of the informational fluctuations in streams not so attended to. This gives rise to the idea that perhaps what enters our consciousness is the result of such a decorrelation from a superposed state. Decorrelation for the purposes of sparsification is prevalent in the brain; what may enter consciousness in the schema proposed here is mental processes with a duration greater than the sampling rate of consciousness (about 80ms) the wave function of which is undergoing state-vector reduction in a manner described by the Quantum Zeno effect. This allows also for truly voluntary action in the manner Von Neumann suggested. This is distinct from the situation with binocular resolution dichoptic stimuli which is a mixture, and is an example of what Fodor calls a “vertical” module with its operation mandatory. There is nothing to be gained by making binocular synthesis subject to voluntary choice. Likewise, it is realistic to propose that attention in lower animals with their less complex brains involves a much simpler mechanism than human consciousness. A model of the individual neuron as a harmonic oscillator is outlined, with a causal role for ion channels in the generation of the oscillations. It is clear that ion channels are critical for attention. Moreover, at a mesoscopic level, it is demonstrated that the brain enters a quiet “shutter” mode several times a second in which quantum effects may be appropriately amplified. If quantum effects exist in the brain, it is likely that this complex of phenomena will be central to them. The de Barros and Suppes models, in addition to the similar formalism due to Henry Stapp, are also briefly described.

Journal of consciousness exploration & research•Jul 31, 2013•2 citations
A quantum mechanical theory of the relationship between perceptions and brain dynamics based on von Neumann's theory of measurments is applied to a recent quantum theoretical treatment of binocular rivaly that makes essential use of the quantum Zeno effect to give good fits to the complex available empirical data. The often-made claim that decoherence effects in the warm, wet, noisy brain must eliminate quantum effects at the macroscopic scale pertaining to perceptions is examined, and it is argued, on the basis of fundamental principles. that the usual decoherence effects will not upset the quantum Zeno effect that is being exploited in the cited work.
Recent theoretical and experimental papers support the prevailing opinion that large warm systems will rapidly lose quantum coherence, and that classical properties will emerge. This rapid loss of coherence would naturally be expected to block any critical role for quantum theory in explaining the interaction between our conscious experiences and the physical activities of our brains. However, there is a quantum theory of mind in which the efficacy of mental effort is not affected by decoherence effects. In this theory the effects of mental action on brain activity is achieved by a Quantum Zeno Effect that is not weakened by decoherence. The theory is based on a relativistic version of von Neumann's quantum theory. It encompasses all the predictions of Copenhagen quantum theory, which include all the validated predictions of classical physical theory. In addition, it forges two-way dynamical links between the physical and experiential aspects of nature. The theory has significant explanatory power.
A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurement and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.
Environmental decoherence appears to be the biggest obstacle for successful construction of quantum mind theories. Nevertheless, the quantum physicist Henry Stapp promoted the view that the mind could utilize quantum Zeno effect to influence brain dynamics and that the efficacy of such mental efforts would not be undermined by environmental decoherence of the brain. To address the physical plausibility of Stapp's claim, we modeled the brain using quantum tunneling of an electron in a multiple-well structure such as the voltage sensor in neuronal ion channels and performed Monte Carlo simulations of quantum Zeno effect exerted by the mind upon the brain in the presence or absence of environmental decoherence. The simulations unambiguously showed that the quantum Zeno effect breaks down for timescales greater than the brain decoherence time. To generalize the Monte Carlo simulation results for any n-level quantum system, we further analyzed the change of brain entropy due to the mind probing actions and proved a theorem according to which local projections cannot decrease the von Neumann entropy of the unconditional brain density matrix. The latter theorem establishes that Stapp's model is physically implausible but leaves a door open for future development of quantum mind theories provided the brain has a decoherence-free subspace.
The original Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was offered as a pragmatic methodology for making predictions about future experiences on the basis of knowledge gleaned from past experiences. It was, therefore, fundamentally about mental realities, and refrained from speaking about a more inclusive reality. Von Neumann created, later, what is called the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics. It incorporates all of the Copenhagen-based predictions about connections between experiences into a rationally coherent conception of a dynamically integrated psychophysical reality. Von Neumann’s formulation allows the same laws and concepts that are used to make predictions about atomic phenomena to account for the capacity of our mental intentions to influence our bodily actions. Danko Georgiev claims to have found logical flaws in my use of von Neumann’s theory to explain this causal effectiveness of our mental intentions. The bulk of Georgiev’s paper gives a detailed discussion of a system with just two base states, up and down. This is not an adequate model of the pertinent physical system, a human brain. Georgiev’s attempt to relate his two-state work to the case at hand is flawed by statements such as “…in von Neumann’s formulation there are no such things as minds, spirits, ghosts, or souls, …” Von Neumann’s formulation certainly does involve minds. Georgiev’s choice of words seems designed to suggest that I am introducing mental qualities and assumptions that go beyond what are already parts of von Neumann’s theory. I explain here why these allegations, and all his other allegations of errors, are incorrect. NeuroQuantology | December 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 4| Page 601-605
In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrodinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.
The “quantum mind” hypothesis, the notion that quantum phenomena are causal and perhaps even essential in mentation and particularly consciousness, has met with fierce resistance. This has been particularly the case over the past 20 years, and the first task of this paper is to show that while there are indeed strong - mainly empirical - arguments against the thesis, the ‘in principle arguments published to date evince premature closure. The burgeoning field of “Quantum cognition” has established that quantum models are appropriate for decision-making, and that of “Quantum biology” has now made the notion of quantum effects at physiological temperatures plausible. If quantum effects are relevant to consciousness, they are likely to be seen in the contrast between attended to and not attended to streams of information. An exciting confirmation of this theme is the fact that attended to streams involve a decorrelation of the informational fluctuations in streams not so attended to. This gives rise to the idea that perhaps what enters our consciousness is the result of such a decorrelation from a superposed state. Decorrelation for the purposes of sparsification is prevalent in the brain; what may enter consciousness in the schema proposed here is mental processes with a duration greater than the sampling rate of consciousness (about 80ms) the wave function of which is undergoing state-vector reduction in a manner described by the Quantum Zeno effect. This allows also for truly voluntary action in the manner Von Neumann suggested. This is distinct from the situation with binocular resolution dichoptic stimuli which is a mixture, and is an example of what Fodor calls a “vertical” module with its operation mandatory. There is nothing to be gained by making binocular synthesis subject to voluntary choice. Likewise, it is realistic to propose that attention in lower animals with their less complex brains involves a much simpler mechanism than human consciousness. A model of the individual neuron as a harmonic oscillator is outlined, with a causal role for ion channels in the generation of the oscillations. It is clear that ion channels are critical for attention. Moreover, at a mesoscopic level, it is demonstrated that the brain enters a quiet “shutter” mode several times a second in which quantum effects may be appropriately amplified. If quantum effects exist in the brain, it is likely that this complex of phenomena will be central to them. The de Barros and Suppes models, in addition to the similar formalism due to Henry Stapp, are also briefly described.