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

Revista Eletrônica Informação e Cognição (Cessada)

São Perceptual Campos Campos Quantum?

Brian Flanagan

Published Dec 31, 1969• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We discuss Chalmers’ “hard problem” in respect of a mind/brain identity theory. We examine a handful of mathematical parallels between the visual field and its concomitant quantum field, and argue for an identity between the two fields.
DOI
10.36311/1807-8281.2001.v3n1.712

Related papers

Are Perceptual Fields Quantum Fields?

Brian J. Flanagan

We discuss Chalmers ’ “hard problem ” in respect of a mind/brain identity theory. We examine a handful of mathematical parallels between the visual field and its concomitant quantum field, and argue for an identity between the two fields.

NeuroQuantology•Sep 4, 2007•10 citations

The Hard Problem: A Quantum Approach

Henry Pierce Stapp

Contents: 1. Introduction: Philosophical Setting 2. Quantum Model of the Mind/Brain 3. Person and Self 4. Meeting Baars's Criteria for Consciousness 5. Qualia 6. Free-Will

arXiv:quant-ph/9505023•May 30, 1995•39 citations

The Hard Problem for Physics: In Search of a Place for Consciousness in Physical Theories

O.A. Lange

Although it is not endorsed by every theoretical physicist, I hold that - paraphrasing Abner Shimony - a theory of everything must 'close the circle'. That is, it must provide an account of the existence of consciousness in nature. Phenomenal consciousness, this intimate 'feel of me being me', is difficult to grasp in physical terms. David Chalmers famously distinguished the 'easy' cognitive problems of the mind from the true 'hard problem': physical theories describe worlds that could have been zombie-worlds as well, i.e. worlds occupied by creatures who act the way we do, but who do not share with us that special aspect we call phenomenal consciousness. That is to say, the facts of physics do not entail it.\nIn this thesis I explore how we should understand the problem from the perspectives of a discipline that seems to be concerned by its very nature with 'a view from the outside'. The burden of the hard problem of consciousness for physics seems to be concerned with putting a shift from the third- to the first person's perspective somewhere into physics. A deeper analysis of two concrete proposals for a physical theory of the mind reveals that specific interpretations of quantum mechanics take this first person's perspective as fundamental from the outset. It turns out that views on the ontology of quantum theory sometimes perfectly align with perspectives on the ontology of consciousness. I conclude that the essence of the hard problem for physics must not be concerned with an explanation of the existence of consciousness, but that it rather should be about the identification of metaphysically reasonable grounds to decide where to put it into nature.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

The Quantum Mind/Classical Brain Problem

Alfredo Pereira

The quantum theory of mind allows a shift from the Mind/Brain metaphysical problem to the Quantum Mind/Classical Brain scientific problem: how could systematic and coherent quantum processes - assumed to be the physical support of our conscious experiences - occur in a macroscopic system as the brain? I discuss a solution based on a neurobiological model that attributes to quantum computation in intra-neuronal signal-transduction pathways the role of directly supporting phenomenal experience. In this model, quantum coherence is created or prepared by classical mechanisms as recurrent neuronal networks, oscillatory synchrony and gated membrane channels, thus avoiding common theoretical constraints for the existence of quantum communication and computation, as ultra-cold temperatures and quasi-isolation from the environment.

NeuroQuantology•Sep 3, 2007•16 citations

Quantum mechanics, objective reality, and the problem of consciousness

Ranjan Mukhopadhyay

The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.

arXiv:1804.03606•Journal of Consciousness Studies•Apr 10, 2018•3 citations

What’s It Like to Be a Universe: Implications of Being In, Of, and About a Brain, or a Speculative Panconsciousness Approach to Quantum Nonlocality

David Gruber

ABSTRACT The problem of quantum nonlocality references instantaneous entanglements happening between particles at great distances, putting under question physical assumptions about time and local effects. Despite a wide range of proposed solutions in physics, the problem persists; however, due to the recent interest in panconsciousness and panpsychism in philosophy as well as numerous suggestions that consciousness and quantum physics are intimately related, I argue in favor of thinking strange quantum effects—and nonlocality as case in point—in lieu of conscious activity happening at a universal scale. Drawing on the mind-brain problem or “the hard problem” as an intellectual resource and particularly pertinent metaphor in the case helps to illuminate the argument; briefly stated, I argue that a conscious universe eliminates the necessity of thinking distance as a problem needing to be resolved to comprehend disparate physical observations. In other words, I offer a speculative vision for quantum nonlocality and ultimately aim to encourage scholars to more carefully consider what it is like to be In, Of, and About a brain when thinking about the universe.

The Journal of Speculative Philosophy•Aug 1, 2022•0 citations
Although it is not endorsed by every theoretical physicist, I hold that - paraphrasing Abner Shimony - a theory of everything must 'close the circle'. That is, it must provide an account of the existence of consciousness in nature. Phenomenal consciousness, this intimate 'feel of me being me', is difficult to grasp in physical terms. David Chalmers famously distinguished the 'easy' cognitive problems of the mind from the true 'hard problem': physical theories describe worlds that could have been zombie-worlds as well, i.e. worlds occupied by creatures who act the way we do, but who do not share with us that special aspect we call phenomenal consciousness. That is to say, the facts of physics do not entail it.\nIn this thesis I explore how we should understand the problem from the perspectives of a discipline that seems to be concerned by its very nature with 'a view from the outside'. The burden of the hard problem of consciousness for physics seems to be concerned with putting a shift from the third- to the first person's perspective somewhere into physics. A deeper analysis of two concrete proposals for a physical theory of the mind reveals that specific interpretations of quantum mechanics take this first person's perspective as fundamental from the outset. It turns out that views on the ontology of quantum theory sometimes perfectly align with perspectives on the ontology of consciousness. I conclude that the essence of the hard problem for physics must not be concerned with an explanation of the existence of consciousness, but that it rather should be about the identification of metaphysically reasonable grounds to decide where to put it into nature.
The quantum theory of mind allows a shift from the Mind/Brain metaphysical problem to the Quantum Mind/Classical Brain scientific problem: how could systematic and coherent quantum processes - assumed to be the physical support of our conscious experiences - occur in a macroscopic system as the brain? I discuss a solution based on a neurobiological model that attributes to quantum computation in intra-neuronal signal-transduction pathways the role of directly supporting phenomenal experience. In this model, quantum coherence is created or prepared by classical mechanisms as recurrent neuronal networks, oscillatory synchrony and gated membrane channels, thus avoiding common theoretical constraints for the existence of quantum communication and computation, as ultra-cold temperatures and quasi-isolation from the environment.
The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.
ABSTRACT The problem of quantum nonlocality references instantaneous entanglements happening between particles at great distances, putting under question physical assumptions about time and local effects. Despite a wide range of proposed solutions in physics, the problem persists; however, due to the recent interest in panconsciousness and panpsychism in philosophy as well as numerous suggestions that consciousness and quantum physics are intimately related, I argue in favor of thinking strange quantum effects—and nonlocality as case in point—in lieu of conscious activity happening at a universal scale. Drawing on the mind-brain problem or “the hard problem” as an intellectual resource and particularly pertinent metaphor in the case helps to illuminate the argument; briefly stated, I argue that a conscious universe eliminates the necessity of thinking distance as a problem needing to be resolved to comprehend disparate physical observations. In other words, I offer a speculative vision for quantum nonlocality and ultimately aim to encourage scholars to more carefully consider what it is like to be In, Of, and About a brain when thinking about the universe.