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.
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.
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.
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).
This paper attempts to build a bridge between the interpretation of quantum theory and the philosophy of mind. In contrast to other such attempts, the bridge which this paper suggests does not consist in extending features of quantum theory to the philosophy of mind. The argument of this paper is that the discussion about a revision of the Cartesian tradition in current philosophy of mind is relevant to the interpretation of quantum theory: taking this discussion into account sharpens up the task for the interpretation of quantum physics as far as the scope of what is known as quantum holism is concerned. In particular, considering this discussion makes out a strong case against the interpretation that considers quantum holism to be universal in the physical realm. I: Introduction There are a number of suggestions for a connection between on the one hand the interpretation of quantum theory and on the other hand the enquiry into the nature of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. Some scientists, notably Penrose (1994), chapters 7‐8, propose that quantum theory is important to brain research. Furthermore, since the advent of quantum theory, the process of quantum state reduction, which is presumed indeterministic, has been employed for a solution to the problem how free will can have physical effects (the most elaborate proposal in this respect is Eccles (1994, chapter 9)). This paper also seeks to build a bridge between the interpretation of quantum theory and the philosophy of mind. However, the bridge which this paper suggests does not consist in extending features of quantum theory to the philosophy of mind. The thesis of this paper is that the discussion about a revision of the Cartesian tradition in today’s philosophy of mind along the lines of direct realism and externalism is pertinent to the interpretation of quantum physics when it comes to the question of the extension of what is known as quantum holism . The scope of quantum theory including the superposition principle and the Schrodinger dynamics is a subject of much debate: Do the features which are peculiar to quantum theory concern only more or less the microphysical realm, i.e., the realm of atoms and their constituents? Or do these features extend to macroscopic systems and common sense objects, such as measuring instruments, trees, and cats, so that they concern the whole physical realm? I show that if one endorses the latter position, one is committed to certain consequences in the philosophy of mind. I relate these consequences to the discussion on Cartesianism and its revision in today’s philosophy of mind. I argue the following: (a) Taking this discussion into
This paper presents a conceptual and philosophical interpretation of quantum measurement, focusing on the role of human intention as a metaphysical variable in the process commonly described as wave-function collapse. Rather than proposing a physical mechanism or experimentally testable claim, the work examines how intention, observation, and meaning-making may be understood within the broader limits of scientific epistemology. The paper argues that science functions as a powerful methodological tool for modeling observable phenomena, but that its scope is necessarily bounded by empirical measurement and repeatability. Within this framework, the study explores how trans-empirical aspects of experience—such as intention, consciousness, and belief—can be discussed without being reduced to physical causation. The emphasis is not on rejecting scientific inquiry, but on clarifying its domain of applicability. Using concepts from quantum mechanics (superposition, collapse, observer-dependence) as interpretive structures, the paper develops a metaphysical model in which collapse is understood as a process of selection aligned with intention, rather than as a solely mechanical outcome of measurement. Behavioral and cognitive examples are presented as illustrative analogies, not as quantum experiments. This work is situated at the intersection of philosophy of science, consciousness studies, and conceptual interpretations of quantum mechanics. It contributes to the ongoing development of Javed’s Quantum Thought, a framework that seeks to integrate scientific reasoning with broader ontological reflection while maintaining clear distinctions between empirical science and metaphysical interpretation.
This paper presents a conceptual and philosophical interpretation of quantum measurement, focusing on the role of human intention as a metaphysical variable in the process commonly described as wave-function collapse. Rather than proposing a physical mechanism or experimentally testable claim, the work examines how intention, observation, and meaning-making may be understood within the broader limits of scientific epistemology. The paper argues that science functions as a powerful methodological tool for modeling observable phenomena, but that its scope is necessarily bounded by empirical measurement and repeatability. Within this framework, the study explores how trans-empirical aspects of experience—such as intention, consciousness, and belief—can be discussed without being reduced to physical causation. The emphasis is not on rejecting scientific inquiry, but on clarifying its domain of applicability. Using concepts from quantum mechanics (superposition, collapse, observer-dependence) as interpretive structures, the paper develops a metaphysical model in which collapse is understood as a process of selection aligned with intention, rather than as a solely mechanical outcome of measurement. Behavioral and cognitive examples are presented as illustrative analogies, not as quantum experiments. This work is situated at the intersection of philosophy of science, consciousness studies, and conceptual interpretations of quantum mechanics. It contributes to the ongoing development of Javed’s Quantum Thought, a framework that seeks to integrate scientific reasoning with broader ontological reflection while maintaining clear distinctions between empirical science and metaphysical interpret ation.
Abstract The paper investigates David Bohm’s philosophy of science as a form of fallibilist realism that underpins his causal interpretation of quantum mechanics Bohm (Bohm 1952a, 1952b, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Bohm and Hiley 1975, 1984, 1993). Bohm’s central aim is to establish the superiority of his interpretation over the standard Copenhagen framework, particularly in contrast to that of Niels Bohr. Whereas Bohr asserts that knowledge of quantum phenomena is restricted to the statistical outcomes of measurement, Bohm’s approach is distinctly realist in orientation. Responding to the challenges posed by Einstein and other physicists, Bohm relies on extra-empirical criteria such as determinism, objectivity and intelligibility. The paper develops what will be termed the methodology of intuitive intelligibility (II), consisting of four stages: (1) reformulation of the standard quantum equations, (2) physical interpretation of the mathematical symbols, (3) drawing analogies with classical laws, and (4) drawing analogies with common experience. It is argued that Bohm applies the (II) methodology consistently, with the notable exception of the ontological status of the wave function and quantum potential. In attempting to explain causal relations from a 3N-dimensional configuration space (where N is the number of particles) to familiar three-dimensional space through an appeal to ‘information’, Bohm arguably commits a category mistake. A proposed resolution—drawing on Bohm’s own holistic analogies—is supported by the recent multi-field interpretation (Romano Multi-field and Bohm’s theory. Synthese, 198(30), 10587–10609, 2021). The term fallibilist realism aptly characterizes Bohm’s stance in the philosophy of science: he repeatedly emphasizes that the causal interpretation is not intended as a final theory. Nevertheless, holism constitutes a substantive ontological commitment that he is unwilling to abandon.