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

DNA Decipher Journal

Exploring Mindless Materialist Visions of the Mindless Evolution of Minds from Mindless Matter

Graham P. Smetham

Published Jul 27, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Despite the fact that the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial, there seem to be a legion of past their sell by date pundits still championing the cause of a crude nineteenth century materialism. Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.

Related papers

The Falsehood of the Materialists’ Mindless Evolution of Minds from Mindless Matter

Graham P. Smetham

Despite the fact that the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial, there seem to be a legion of past their sell by date pundits still championing the cause of a crude nineteenth century materialism. Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.

•Jul 31, 2013•1 citation

On Materialist Visions of the Mindless Evolution of Minds from Mindless Matter

Graham P. Smetham

Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial. The unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.

Scientific GOD Journal•Oct 12, 2013•0 citations

The Self-Aware Emptiness of the Quantum Universe

Graham P. Smetham

Some of Zurek’s remarks seem to indicate that he thinks that his analysis undermines the ‘ultimate evidence’ that the classical world is entangled and dependent upon consciousness. However, a rigorous analysis shows that the opposite is the case; Zurek’s epiontic quantum Darwinian classical universe is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. It would seem that the entire epiontic process of the evolution of reality is geared towards the production of ever greater levels of sentient awareness and the material world is an ‘advertising billboard’ for a realm of solidity amidst the ‘unreal’ ‘dream stuff’ of the quantum realm within which individualized consciousness can grow to fruition. And the reason that the apparent solidity of the apparently material universe comes into being is because the universe is nothing more than an enormous and multitudinous ultimately immaterial epiontic information exchange which takes place within the quantum ‘dream stuff is made of.’

Scientific GOD Journal•Feb 1, 2012•0 citations

Quantum Entanglement, Consciousness & Evolution

Graham P. Smetham

For physicists such as Bohm, Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and others, consciousness, or potential consciousness, is an innate and inseparable aspect of the quantum immaterial realm which underlies the apparently material realm.  Furthermore, as Bohm states, “every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees;” this interconnection accounts for a deep level of the evolutionary interrelationships between creatures and environments.  Because of the deeply connected nature of the quantum field there must be a quantum informational interconnection between environments and the creatures within them. The supporters of the hardcore materialist worldview tend to consider, without actually thinking too much (if at all), that anyone involved in scientifically investigating the nature of quantum reality and its relationship to the ‘observer’ as being so irredeemably infected with what these ‘rationalists’ call ‘woo’ that they should not be taken seriously. In this article we take a more in depth look at the crucial issues raised by the paper that Tsakiris unsuccessfully attempted to draw to the unwilling attention of a materialist.

Scientific GOD Journal•Oct 12, 2013•1 citation

Quantum consciousness and life

Alexander E. Wendt

Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•0 citations

Mind and matter - The quantum mind!

I Dinakar

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 Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research•Apr 1, 2025•0 citations
Despite the fact that the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial, there seem to be a legion of past their sell by date pundits still championing the cause of a crude nineteenth century materialism. Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.
Despite the fact that the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial, there seem to be a legion of past their sell by date pundits still championing the cause of a crude nineteenth century materialism. Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.
Materialists cling to the conviction that ‘matter’ is the ultimate constituent of the process of reality, as when Dennett asserts that a “mindless little scrap of molecular machinery” is the basis for the development of mind. However, the advent of the quantum revolution indicates that the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the process of reality, made up of quantum fields, is insubstantial and immaterial. The unfolding quantum teleological perspective suggests that that there is a mind-like inner teleological ‘pressure’ operating within the quantum realm of potentiality which functions in order to manifest the potentialities into experienced ‘realities’.
Some of Zurek’s remarks seem to indicate that he thinks that his analysis undermines the ‘ultimate evidence’ that the classical world is entangled and dependent upon consciousness. However, a rigorous analysis shows that the opposite is the case; Zurek’s epiontic quantum Darwinian classical universe is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. It would seem that the entire epiontic process of the evolution of reality is geared towards the production of ever greater levels of sentient awareness and the material world is an ‘advertising billboard’ for a realm of solidity amidst the ‘unreal’ ‘dream stuff’ of the quantum realm within which individualized consciousness can grow to fruition. And the reason that the apparent solidity of the apparently material universe comes into being is because the universe is nothing more than an enormous and multitudinous ultimately immaterial epiontic information exchange which takes place within the quantum ‘dream stuff is made of.’
For physicists such as Bohm, Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and others, consciousness, or potential consciousness, is an innate and inseparable aspect of the quantum immaterial realm which underlies the apparently material realm.  Furthermore, as Bohm states, “every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees;” this interconnection accounts for a deep level of the evolutionary interrelationships between creatures and environments.  Because of the deeply connected nature of the quantum field there must be a quantum informational interconnection between environments and the creatures within them. The supporters of the hardcore materialist worldview tend to consider, without actually thinking too much (if at all), that anyone involved in scientifically investigating the nature of quantum reality and its relationship to the ‘observer’ as being so irredeemably infected with what these ‘rationalists’ call ‘woo’ that they should not be taken seriously. In this article we take a more in depth look at the crucial issues raised by the paper that Tsakiris unsuccessfully attempted to draw to the unwilling attention of a materialist.
Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.
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.