The aim of this paper is to construct an ontology to account consistently for both the objective and subjective worlds. First, I will determine the fundamental properties of consciousness from a first-person perspective and derive from them a subjective definition of consciousness. Second, I will infer from their existence at a macroscopic level some expectations about the empirical world and show that these expectations can be identified with quantum properties of matter. This will lead to the construction of an ontology and to a physical counterpart of the former subjective definition of consciousness, which accounts for the existence of a continuum between conscious and unconscious states. Finally, I will go beyond the common objections to quantum mind to propose a simple yet suitable model of mind which explains why consciousness arises specifically inside the nervous systems of living creatures.
The aim of this paper is to construct an ontology to account consistently for both the objective and subjective worlds. First, I will determine the fundamental properties of consciousness from a first-person perspective and derive from them a subjective definition of consciousness. Second, I will infer from their existence at a macroscopic level some expectations about the empirical world and show that these expectations can be identified with quantum properties of matter. This will lead to the construction of an ontology and to a physical counterpart of the former subjective definition of consciousness, which accounts for the existence of a continuum between conscious and unconscious states. Finally, I will go beyond the common objections to quantum mind to propose a simple yet suitable model of mind which explains why consciousness arises specifically inside the nervous systems of living creatures.
Although quantum physics has led to the most accurate predictions to date about the nature of matter and the universe, a metaphysical interpretation of its non-deterministic and subjective nature still remains an ongoing debate. In this work, we will review the nature of the debate and propose a new way to address the controversies about the non-deterministic and subjective nature of quantum physics. In our previous work, we have shown that everything is made of information, energy and matter. We propose to define spirit or soul as the content of information, spiritual heart as the receiver of information, and mind as the processor of information. In this paper, we show that the intrinsic uncertain and non-deterministic nature of quantum physics can be explained by the insights from these definitions. Information relates to the possibilities and potentialities of an object. Information is intrinsically uncertain and non-deterministic. Since quantum physics is the fundamental physics theory describing the information, energy and matter of everything, quantum physics has intrinsic an uncertain and non-deterministic nature. We further demonstrate that the process of quantum measurement can be interpreted as the role played by soul, spiritual heart and mind in the manifestation of physical phenomena. We conclude that our insight that everything is made of information, energy and matter and the definition of soul, spiritual heart and mind provides a simple metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics. They can help us understand and resolve the two controversies about quantum physics.
This paper explores the intricate relationship between the observer, consciousness, and quantum mechanics, attempting to defend the interpretation of the wave function as a representation of consciousness. More precisely, in our framework, a quantum state, represented by a wave function, determines a state of consciousness related to the first-person experiences,
w, of the events
E, detected by senses. Building on Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, we argue that the wave function is not an objective universal entity, but rather one that is inherently associated with the first-person experiences
w∈P of an observer
O . The set
P also includes other observers,
O′, as subsets. We demonstrate that this proposal does not lead to solipsism, because there is no unique hierarchy of observers, as indicated above, but there are many possible hierarchies of observers, such that, e.g., the roles of the first-person observer,
O, and the third-person observer,
O′ are interchanged. The corresponding quantum states,
ψO and
ψO′, are elements of the space of all possible quantum states, the Hilbert space,
H. It is this larger space that we identify as the objective reality. Thus, our approach overcomes the main obstacle faced by researchers who tried to make sense of quantum mechanics, namely, the wall of solipsism. In this framework, the Everett many-worlds interpretation and the wave function collapse interpretation are not mutually exclusive but instead represent complementary perspectives within the hierarchy of observers, each offering insight into the underlying physics from a different vantage point.
It is widely accepted that consciousness at the start of the 20th century was considered mainly in the context of neurology and the mind-body problem belonged to the domain of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy, later broadened by behavioural science and cognitive science. However, these disciplines cannot completely explain the correlation between mental activity and matter. \nChapter one starts by defining the difficulty of determining consciousness. A discussion of how philosophers (such as Descartes, Locke, Dennett and Nagel) attempted to describe this phenomenon leads to the conclusion that firstly, consciousness is indefinable and secondly, it continues to be a challenge for both – philosophy and science – to explain how subjective consciousness fits into the objective world. The following two parts of the chapter focus on the major philosophical theories of the mind-body problem. \nIn chapter two there is a focus on the mutual relation between philosophy and science, physics in particular. However, this project deals more with the implications of science for the philosophy of mind and mind-body problem than the science itself. The second enquiry of this chapter is to point out the difference in philosophical and scientific understanding of the word ‘substance’ (crucial to the mind-body problem). \nChapter three considers quantum theory, since the relation between mind and body started to be tackled from the completely new point of view, after the philosophers began to assimilate the implications of quantum physics. Firstly, there is a short introduction to quantum theory and the most significant points for philosophy and quantum mechanics issues are provided (such as quantum superposition, the measurement problem or the backward causation). Analysis of three prevailing theories is provided. \nThis project addresses the contribution of quantum mechanics to the studies of consciousness and matter and examines whether it helps in solving the mind-body problem.
As generally accepted, consciousness or mind and material brain are closely related to each other; but how? Quantum mechanics is a new pathway to understand the hard problem of consciousness and its relation to the brain. Consciousness has specific properties such as unity, irreducibility, non-locality, etc. The completely different features of classical physics (locality, reducibility, determinacy, etc.) hindered the success of scientists to study consciousness. But quantum mechanics with its features (non-locality, irreducibility, indeterminacy, etc.) gave scientists hope to study consciousness. Several quantum approaches to consciousness have been proposed in recent decades; the most important point about these approaches is that each one has used its own philosophy to determine its viewpoint about the mind’s nature and even its quantum approach. In general, all scientific theories are based on some metaphysical principles which come from the worldview of scientists. In this article four contemporary approaches are discussed: The Eccles-Beck, Stapp, Penrose-Hameroff, and Avicenna-Bohm theories; philosophical and scientific points are highlighted for each of them. Finally, the theory of Top-Down Causation is discussed because we think it can provide a fertile philosophical ground for theories of “mind-brain relation” and “quantum consciousness”.