The two stages of visual perception according to the models of visual search, the preattentional and the attentional, are presented. The first stage is related to the left cerebral hemisphere, while the second to the left one. The phenomenon of illusory conjunction of features during the object‐integration in the macroscopic world is described. It is suggested that the illusory conjunction is similar to the quantum entanglement of microscopic particles. The imagining of microscopic particles, like electron, is explained by the theory of re‐entrant, namely, as activation of primary visual cortical areas by the higher neural system. It is suggested that both macroscopic object‐integration and the microscopic collapse of the wave function are an exchange of the cerebral hemisphere, which create the ontological model of the perceived phenomenon.
The two stages of visual perception according to the models of visual search, the preattentional and the attentional, are presented. The first stage is related to the left cerebral hemisphere, while the second to the left one. The phenomenon of illusory conjunction of features during the object‐integration in the macroscopic world is described. It is suggested that the illusory conjunction is similar to the quantum entanglement of microscopic particles. The imagining of microscopic particles, like electron, is explained by the theory of re‐entrant, namely, as activation of primary visual cortical areas by the higher neural system. It is suggested that both macroscopic object‐integration and the microscopic collapse of the wave function are an exchange of the cerebral hemisphere, which create the ontological model of the perceived phenomenon.
It was suggested by Fidelman that Kantian ideas, namely, actual Infinity, the cosmos, a reason for the cosmos and consciousness, involve a cognitive conflict. This cognitive conflict is caused by a competition between the left‐ and right‐hemispheric cerebral mechanisms, and it causes us to feel that we encounter a paradox. It is suggested in this study that quantum particles too are Kantian ideas. According to Kant the logic of experience does not necessarily apply to Kantian ideas, which are not part of experience. Thus, Kant explained the paradoxes related to them. It is suggested that the cognitive paradoxes related to quantum particles are also related to a conflict between the hemispheric mechanisms.
ABSTRACT Recent advances at the intersection of quantum physics, neuroscience, and cognitive science have renewed interest in whether quantum phenomena and quantum‐inspired formalisms can inform models of human cognition and decision‐making. While classical neural and computational models explain many aspects of perception and behavior, they face limitations in accounting for contextuality, order effects, probabilistic reasoning violations, ambiguity resolution, and rapid information integration. This review synthesizes evidence and theoretical frameworks linking quantum‐related principles to cognition, with emphasis on quantum sensing in biological systems, molecular and subcellular quantum‐relevant mechanisms, quantum‐to‐classical transition pathways, quantum‐inspired models of perception and decision‐making, and quantum‐inspired computational approaches. It also extends beyond the probabilistic arm of quantum cognition by considering emerging equilibrium‐based and causal‐logical theories, including mental equilibrium, brain‐universe similarity, mind‐light‐matter unity, quantum emergence, and quantum intelligence. Throughout, the review distinguishes physically instantiated quantum mechanisms from abstract quantum‐like formalisms that model contextuality, mental entanglement, and non‐separable cognitive dynamics without requiring sustained macroscopic quantum coherence in the brain. Finally, it identifies methodological challenges and future directions for advancing quantum cognitive science toward experimentally testable and biologically meaningful theories.
In 1929 Szilard pointed out that the physics of the observer may play a role in the analysis of experiments. The same year, Bohr pointed out that complementarity appears to arise naturally in psychology where both the objects of perception and the perceiving subject belong to 'our mental content'. Here we argue that the formalism of quantum theory can be derived from two related intuitive principles: (i) inference is a physical process performed by physical systems, observers, which are part of the experimental setup---this implies non-commutativity and imaginary-time quantum mechanics; (ii) experiments must be described from a first-person perspective---this leads to self-reference, complementarity, and real-time quantum dynamics. This approach sheds new light on the foundations of quantum theory and suggests fundamental equations in physics are typically of second order due to the physical nature of the observer. It also suggests some experimental conjectures: (i) the quantum of action could be understood as the result of the additional energy required to transition from unconscious to conscious perception; (ii) humans can observe a single photon of visible light; (iii) self-aware systems and the neural correlates of the self should be composed of two complementary sub-systems, much like the DNA molecule is composed of two strands---this may help explain the double-hemisphere architecture of the brain. Moreover, this approach may help bridge the gap between science and human experience. We discuss the potential implications of these ideas for the modern research programs on consciousness and contemplative science. As side results: (i) we show that message-passing algorithms and stochastic processes can be written in a quantum-like manner; (ii) we provide evidence that non-stoquasticity, a quantum computational resource, may be related to non-equilibrium phenomena.
In 1929 Szilard pointed out that the physics of the observer may play a role in the analysis of experiments. The same year, Bohr pointed out that complementarity appears to arise naturally in psychology where both the objects of perception and the perceiving subject belong to 'our mental content'. Here we argue that the formalism of quantum theory can be derived from two related intuitive principles: (i) inference is a physical process performed by physical systems, observers, which are part of the experimental setup---this implies non-commutativity and imaginary-time quantum mechanics; (ii) experiments must be described from a first-person perspective---this leads to self-reference, complementarity, and real-time quantum dynamics. This approach sheds new light on the foundations of quantum theory and suggests fundamental equations in physics are typically of second order due to the physical nature of the observer. It also suggests some experimental conjectures: (i) the quantum of action could be understood as the result of the additional energy required to transition from unconscious to conscious perception; (ii) humans can observe a single photon of visible light; (iii) self-aware systems and the neural correlates of the self should be composed of two complementary sub-systems, much like the DNA molecule is composed of two strands---this may help explain the double-hemisphere architecture of the brain. Moreover, this approach may help bridge the gap between science and human experience. We discuss the potential implications of these ideas for the modern research programs on consciousness and contemplative science. As side results: (i) we show that message-passing algorithms and stochastic processes can be written in a quantum-like manner; (ii) we provide evidence that non-stoquasticity, a quantum computational resource, may be related to non-equilibrium phenomena.
The mind–matter relationship remained in the domain of philosophers for aeons. However, the inquisitiveness of the scientific minds has always been trying to understand the science behind its various functions. The scientific temper ushered in by the Renaissance about the 15th century saw the scientists exploring this problem from a science point of view. Technological advances during the later part of the 20th century enabled neuroscientists to explore and localise functions of the brain. However, the most difficult has been understanding the origin of a conscious experience scientifically or materialistically. Despite the delineation of many functions of the brain, the origin of conscious experience, the qualia, in the material brain remains elusive, so much so it came to be called the holy grail of neuroscience. Heisenberg wrote: ‘Physics entered the domain of philosophy with the emergence of consciousness in quantum observation, which incidentally opened the door for reconciliation of science and philosophy’,[1] an event which enabled the predictions of Snow of the merging of arts and sciences.[2,3] Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics relating to very small particles – subatomic particles – electrons, photons, and everything in the submolecular realm, being the smallest units in matter. Quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter available at present. Some basic concepts of quantum physics need to be understood. These include “superposition”, where in subatomic particles exist either as waves or particles in a dual nature, never simultaneously. They exist as waves in more than one place at a time and once an observer observes or interferes with (such as measuring) their superposition state collapses to particle state. Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles which are generated, interact with or share special proximity such that they remain connected even when separated by vast distances. Consciousness is a manifestation of quantum process. Q mind or Q consciousness comprises a group of hypotheses proposing that quantum mechanical phenomena such as entanglement and superposition may play an important part in the functions of the brain and could thus explain the origin of consciousness. Several theories of quantum consciousness have been proposed. Wigner proposed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind and proposed that the wave function collapse in the interaction with conscious observation creates consciousness.[4] Vitiello and Freeman[5] proposed quantum field theory (QFT) of brain states. This theory deals with systems and provides formal elements from which a standard description of brain activity can be inferred. According to QFT, particles are only excited states or simply manifestations of a field. Every particle has its own field that covers all of the universe, which means that, according to QFT, all of the electrons of the universe belong to the same field and could be regarded as one. Bohm formulated the QFT as a deeper theory of quantum theory plus relativity.[6] He viewed mind and matter as projections into our explicate order underlying the implicate order. Quantum brain dynamics (QBD) hypothesis explains the function of the brain within the framework of QFT.[7] It is not yet known exactly how quantum superpositions and their collapse result in the genesis of the raw feels of consciousness, the qualia. Feynman stated ‘if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you do not!’[8] Pribram proposed the holonomic brain theory (quantum holography). He invoked quantum mechanics to explain the higher-order processing by the mind. Pribram provided evidence on how much of the processes in the brain take place in a distributed fashion.[9,10] The composite model of Pribram-Bohm of holoflux hypothesis addresses observed phenomenon of non-locality both spacially and temporally. Bose and Einstein, who first predicted Bose Einstein condensate proposed that water at dendritic membrane surfaces might operate by structuring condensation,[11] supporting QBD. Penrose and Hamoreff proposed the orchestrated-objective reduction (ORCH-OR) in 1989 through 2013. According to them, the microtubules in the neurons (neurotubules), the tubulin protein polymer at the site of quantum collapse, leads to conscious experience. The quantum superposed states which develop in the tubulins remain coherent and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold is reached. At this point, self-collapse or objective reduction occurs, which is equated to a discrete conscious event. Cascades of ORCH-OR events give rise to the stream of consciousness.[12,13] Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.[14] Quantum vibrations in the microtubules proposed by Bandyopadhyay[15] have been shown to be source of conscious experience by corroborating the Penrose-Hemeroff’s ORCH-OR hypothesis.[13,16] In April 2022, the results of two related experiments at the University of Alberta and Princeton University, announced at The Science of Consciousness conference, provided further evidence to support quantum processes operating within microtubules. However, in another experiment, Gregory D. Scholes and Aarat Kalra of Princeton University used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules further than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anaesthesia.[17,18] Beck and Eccles considered quantum mechanics at the synaptic level. If Orchestrated objective reduction (ORCH-OR) theory is applicable, a similar phenomenon in the microtubules at the presynaptic level, the axon terminal could be invoked for the genesis of consciousness.[19] A recent study by scientists at Trinity College, Dublin, in October 2022,[20] suggests that quantum processes underlie the cognitive and conscious brain functions. The brain–mind operational architectonics is the boundary between and integration point of quantum physics and eastern metaphysics and that it may inspire building a richer and more inclusive paradigm of the brain–mind relation, where quantum physics and eastern metaphysics are inherently intertwined. A body of empirical evidence[21-24] supports these possibilities, strengthening the proposal that the mind–brain relationship may be partially quantum. Quantum information theory clarifies the distinction between the unobservable mind and the observable brain and supports a solid physical foundation for consciousness research. With all these theories trying to explain and understand the theoretical/hypothetical framework for consciousness to explain the subjective experience of consciousness, the experts of this field feel it is still a long way to bridge the gap between current neurobiological and physical–mathematical concepts with their associated quantum–mind theories. Though there is still a long way to go for explaining conscious experience scientifically, when ever this happens, it will become one of the benchmarks in science. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the preparation of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.
The majority of quantum models of cognition are based on quantum physical reductionism. Since the brain is composed of quantum systems, one might try to use QM (as a physical theory) to describe such quantum-like features of mind as complementarity (which was well established in psychology long before creation of QM), interference of minds and recently even nonlocality (under the influence of the EPR-Bohr debate and recent results on Bell's inequality). Opposite to the traditional quantum reductionism, we present a quantum-like model of the brain functioning which is not related to the evident fact that the brain is composed of quantum systems. In our model the quantum-like brain is described by the mathematical formalism of QM. However, quantum-like features are generated on the macrolevel - from processing of information on two time scales: precognitive (the quick one) and cognitive (the slow one). Our basic postulate is that the brain operates with averages (encoding mental quantities - images, emotions, minds) of stochastic processes evolving on the precognitive scale and that these averages are computed approximately by using the mathematical formalism of QM.