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

NeuroQuantology

Quantum Entanglement: Can We "See" the Implicate Order? Philosophical Speculations

Michele Caponigro, Xiaojiang Jiang, Ravi Prakash, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Published Jun 29, 2010• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This brief paper argue about a possible philosophical description of the implicate order starting from a simple theoretical experiment.Utilizing an EPR source and the human eyes (as biological detectors) of a "single" person, we try to investigate the philosophical and physical implications of quantum entanglement in terms of implicate order.We know, that most specialists still disagree on the exact number of photons required to trigger a neural response, although there will be many technical challenges, we assume that neural response will be achieved in some way.The objective of paper is to investigate possible links between: quantum mechanics, quantum cognitive science, brain and mind.At the moment, the questions are more than the answers.We argue that we are perennially immersed in the implicate order and that the "real path" of quantum entanglement process is from the implicate order towards explicate order, not vice versa.Finally, we speculate about the common ground between the implicate order and chitta (Vedic theory of Mind).

DOI
10.14704/nq.2010.8.3.296

Related papers

From Quantum Theory To Mind-Matter Interaction: Where's The Missing Link?

Navjot Singh Gadda

Overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that consciousness may be fundamentally linked to properties of physical systems. Quantum coherence in biological molecules, as well as entangled states of macroscopic objects such as brains, are important examples that support this notion. If we consider the quantum effects that seem most relevant to biology (e.g., coherence, entanglement, superposition), does it become feasible to identify general rules for observing biological function arising from processes associated with quantum mechanics? What implications would follow if a scientific theory were formulated to describe the interplay between brain functioning and quantum uncertainty? Such a framework will require additional postulates on the nature of quantum interactions in condensed phase systems. One challenge for present day theorists is whether and how classical and quantum mechanics may ultimately provide an integrated description of physics. This article will explore the issues related to quantum theory's ability to address mind-body phenomena and their connection to consciousness.

•Jun 2, 2022•3 citations

Quantum Interpretation of Vedic theory of Mind: an Epistemological Path and

Michele Caponigro, Ram Lakhan, Pandey Vimal

This brief paper argues about a possible quantum interpretation of Vedic Theory of Mind. Chitta, Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara, in our quantum approach will be considered respectively as: com- mon ground, quantum superpositions, observer (quantum collapsing) and measurement outcomes eingvalues,Povm. We suggest that through the continue interactions between these four compo- nents, we are a ble to understand the formation of Ahamkara (Ego). Chitta (by vrittis) is linked to Manas via entanglement. The unsolved problem is the nature of Buddhi component and his right collocation in this process. Moreover, we argue that our approach can be suppor ted by Zeilinger's interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally, we will speculate about possible analogy between Chitta and Bohm's Holomovement.

•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

Why Cognitive Scientists Cannot Ignore Quantum Mechanics

Quentin Smith

Abstract There is something fundamentally disturbing about contemporary philosophy of mind and philosophical cognitive science. Almost without exception (exceptions such as Lockwood (1989) and Chalmers (1996, see esp. p. 349) ), the philosophical theories are logically inconsistent with the most well-confirmed theory ever developed by humans, namely, quantum mechanics. Why do philosophers develop theories of the mind-brain as if quantum mechanics does not exist, or as if it is utterly irrelevant to theories of the mind-brain? I believe this epistemic situation has arisen due to a series of questionable philosophical arguments about the role of philosophy of mind/cognitive science and quantum mechanics in our overall theoretical framework. In sect. I explain some of these arguments and contend they are unsound.

•Jan 23, 2003•6 citations

Prologue

Sudip Patra, Menas C. Kafatos

Is mind quantum-like? Is consciousness quantum physical? Does consciousness have a role to play in the emergence of the classical world from the underlying quantum universe? Or is this dichotomy between classical and quantum an illusion? How can world philosophies enrich our views on these matters and interact with the best scientific theories? These are some questions that motivated us to conceive the current book. We also felt an urgent need to discuss the central philosophical questions haunting the emerging frameworks of quantum cognition and quantum-like framework (QLF). We have observed that there are very good technical or mathematical works being done in the emerging fields of quantum cognition and QLF, but there is still a great need for exploring the underlying and open philosophical questions they demand. Quantum cognition developed as a frontier research programme in understanding various cognitive phenomena that are hard or impossible to describe based on classical cognitive science paradigm. Classical cognitive science draws philosophically and mathematically from classical physics and classical probability theory. For example, cognitive realism thinking is deeply motivated by the scientific realism of classical physics. However, as we explore, there are numerous empirical findings which demonstrate clearly that human mind and cognitive processes exhibit features that are more quantum-like. Central to these features are indeterminacy, context dependence, and complementarity of cognitive phenomena, for example, perception, information retrieval, and even qualia. Many good works in the previous decade have demonstrated the efficacy of quantum-like mathematical modelling in such cases. However, given that efficacy, we cannot simply conclude that mind is quantum. Rather there are features that go beyond what is allowed in standard quantum formalism.

Routledge eBooks•May 26, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Intentionality

Godehard Brüntrup

Two mysteries -loosely connected?The Authors who have suggested a deep connection between the solution of the mind-body problem and the understanding of quantum mechanics are too numerous to list.But what exactly would be the alleged structural fit between these two deeply puzzling theoretical issues?Can a genuine philosophical issue -which by its very nature is conceptual in nature -ultimately be resolved by advances in the empirical sciences?The connection is all too often asserted to lie in the subjects confounding natures, but the mere fact that two problems are of equal impenetrability to the human mind does not imply that there is a profound interdependence between the two.There is however an obvious way in which quantum mechanics might have a bearing on the philosophical mind-body problem: if quantum mechanics implies that for some physical events there is no physical cause, then at least the very strong variants of the so-called "principle of causal closure" of the physical realm lose much of their corroborative underpinning in physics as practiced by real physicists as such, and are thus constrained to the speculative physicalism advanced by metaphysicians.However, unless one assumes a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason, which would exclude chance events in principle, even events supposedly not caused by some physical cause are not immediately thereby caused by some nonphysical cause.Moreover the fact is that not all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics imply indeterministic 'choices' of events: neither the many-worlds interpretation nor a Bohmian hidden variable interpretation assume indeterminism.Even in the most obvious theoretical nexus

De Gruyter eBooks•Aug 6, 2014•2 citations

Quantum Interpretation of Vedic theory of Mind: an Epistemological Path and Objective Reduction of Thoughts

Michele Caponigro, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

This brief paper argues about a possible quantum interpretation of Vedic Theory of Mind. Chitta, Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara, in our quantum approach will be considered respectively as: common ground, quantum superpositions, observer (quantum collapsing) and measurement outcomes eingvalues,Povm. We suggest that through the continue interactions between these four components, we are able to understand the formation of Ahamkara (Ego). Chitta (by vrittis) is linked to Manas via entanglement. The unsolved problem is the nature of Buddhi component and his right collocation in this process. Moreover, we argue that our approach can be supported by Zeilinger’s interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally, we will speculate about possible analogy between Chitta and Bohm’s Holomovement.

Journal of consciousness exploration & research•Jan 1, 2010•3 citations
This brief paper argue about a possible philosophical description of the implicate order starting from a simple theoretical experiment.Utilizing an EPR source and the human eyes (as biological detectors) of a "single" person, we try to investigate the philosophical and physical implications of quantum entanglement in terms of implicate order.We know, that most specialists still disagree on the exact number of photons required to trigger a neural response, although there will be many technical challenges, we assume that neural response will be achieved in some way.The objective of paper is to investigate possible links between: quantum mechanics, quantum cognitive science, brain and mind.At the moment, the questions are more than the answers.We argue that we are perennially immersed in the implicate order and that the "real path" of quantum entanglement process is from the implicate order towards explicate order, not vice versa.Finally, we speculate about the common ground between the implicate order and chitta (Vedic theory of Mind).
Overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that consciousness may be fundamentally linked to properties of physical systems. Quantum coherence in biological molecules, as well as entangled states of macroscopic objects such as brains, are important examples that support this notion. If we consider the quantum effects that seem most relevant to biology (e.g., coherence, entanglement, superposition), does it become feasible to identify general rules for observing biological function arising from processes associated with quantum mechanics? What implications would follow if a scientific theory were formulated to describe the interplay between brain functioning and quantum uncertainty? Such a framework will require additional postulates on the nature of quantum interactions in condensed phase systems. One challenge for present day theorists is whether and how classical and quantum mechanics may ultimately provide an integrated description of physics. This article will explore the issues related to quantum theory's ability to address mind-body phenomena and their connection to consciousness.
This brief paper argues about a possible quantum interpretation of Vedic Theory of Mind. Chitta, Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara, in our quantum approach will be considered respectively as: com- mon ground, quantum superpositions, observer (quantum collapsing) and measurement outcomes eingvalues,Povm. We suggest that through the continue interactions between these four compo- nents, we are a ble to understand the formation of Ahamkara (Ego). Chitta (by vrittis) is linked to Manas via entanglement. The unsolved problem is the nature of Buddhi component and his right collocation in this process. Moreover, we argue that our approach can be suppor ted by Zeilinger's interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally, we will speculate about possible analogy between Chitta and Bohm's Holomovement.
Abstract There is something fundamentally disturbing about contemporary philosophy of mind and philosophical cognitive science. Almost without exception (exceptions such as Lockwood (1989) and Chalmers (1996, see esp. p. 349) ), the philosophical theories are logically inconsistent with the most well-confirmed theory ever developed by humans, namely, quantum mechanics. Why do philosophers develop theories of the mind-brain as if quantum mechanics does not exist, or as if it is utterly irrelevant to theories of the mind-brain? I believe this epistemic situation has arisen due to a series of questionable philosophical arguments about the role of philosophy of mind/cognitive science and quantum mechanics in our overall theoretical framework. In sect. I explain some of these arguments and contend they are unsound.
Is mind quantum-like? Is consciousness quantum physical? Does consciousness have a role to play in the emergence of the classical world from the underlying quantum universe? Or is this dichotomy between classical and quantum an illusion? How can world philosophies enrich our views on these matters and interact with the best scientific theories? These are some questions that motivated us to conceive the current book. We also felt an urgent need to discuss the central philosophical questions haunting the emerging frameworks of quantum cognition and quantum-like framework (QLF). We have observed that there are very good technical or mathematical works being done in the emerging fields of quantum cognition and QLF, but there is still a great need for exploring the underlying and open philosophical questions they demand. Quantum cognition developed as a frontier research programme in understanding various cognitive phenomena that are hard or impossible to describe based on classical cognitive science paradigm. Classical cognitive science draws philosophically and mathematically from classical physics and classical probability theory. For example, cognitive realism thinking is deeply motivated by the scientific realism of classical physics. However, as we explore, there are numerous empirical findings which demonstrate clearly that human mind and cognitive processes exhibit features that are more quantum-like. Central to these features are indeterminacy, context dependence, and complementarity of cognitive phenomena, for example, perception, information retrieval, and even qualia. Many good works in the previous decade have demonstrated the efficacy of quantum-like mathematical modelling in such cases. However, given that efficacy, we cannot simply conclude that mind is quantum. Rather there are features that go beyond what is allowed in standard quantum formalism.
Two mysteries -loosely connected?The Authors who have suggested a deep connection between the solution of the mind-body problem and the understanding of quantum mechanics are too numerous to list.But what exactly would be the alleged structural fit between these two deeply puzzling theoretical issues?Can a genuine philosophical issue -which by its very nature is conceptual in nature -ultimately be resolved by advances in the empirical sciences?The connection is all too often asserted to lie in the subjects confounding natures, but the mere fact that two problems are of equal impenetrability to the human mind does not imply that there is a profound interdependence between the two.There is however an obvious way in which quantum mechanics might have a bearing on the philosophical mind-body problem: if quantum mechanics implies that for some physical events there is no physical cause, then at least the very strong variants of the so-called "principle of causal closure" of the physical realm lose much of their corroborative underpinning in physics as practiced by real physicists as such, and are thus constrained to the speculative physicalism advanced by metaphysicians.However, unless one assumes a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason, which would exclude chance events in principle, even events supposedly not caused by some physical cause are not immediately thereby caused by some nonphysical cause.Moreover the fact is that not all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics imply indeterministic 'choices' of events: neither the many-worlds interpretation nor a Bohmian hidden variable interpretation assume indeterminism.Even in the most obvious theoretical nexus
This brief paper argues about a possible quantum interpretation of Vedic Theory of Mind. Chitta, Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara, in our quantum approach will be considered respectively as: common ground, quantum superpositions, observer (quantum collapsing) and measurement outcomes eingvalues,Povm. We suggest that through the continue interactions between these four components, we are able to understand the formation of Ahamkara (Ego). Chitta (by vrittis) is linked to Manas via entanglement. The unsolved problem is the nature of Buddhi component and his right collocation in this process. Moreover, we argue that our approach can be supported by Zeilinger’s interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally, we will speculate about possible analogy between Chitta and Bohm’s Holomovement.