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 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 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 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).
In this paper I give a new information-theoretic analysis of the formalisms and interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) in general, and of two mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics in particular: The Copenhagen interpretation and David Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Adopting Juan G. Roederer’s reading of the notion of pragmatic information, I argue that pragmatic information is not applicable to the Copenhagen interpretation since the interpretation is primarily concerned with epistemology rather than ontology. However it perfectly fits Bohm’s ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics in the realms of biotic and artificial systems. Viewing Bohm’s interpretation of QM in the context of pragmatic information imposes serious limitations to the qualitative aspect of such an interpretation, making his extension of the notion active information to every level of reality illegitimate. Such limitations lead to the idea that, contrary to Bohm’s claim, mind is not a more subtle aspect of reality via the quantum potential as active information, but the quantum potential as it affects particles in the double-slit experiment represents the non-algorithmic aspect of the mind as a genuine information processing system. This will provide an information-based ground, firstly, for refreshing our views on quantum interpretations and secondly, for a novel qualitative theory of the relationship of mind and matter in which mind-like properties are exclusive attributes of living systems. To this end, I will also take an information-theoretic approach to the notion of intentionality as interpreted by John Searle.
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 examines major interpretations of quantum wave function collapse, including the orthodox, many-worlds, decoherence, and neorealist interpretations. The interpretations increasingly support quantum reality, and are progressing toward a three-level model of the ‘explicate’ local, ‘implicate’ nonlocal, and ‘super-implicate’ unified field levels consistent with the ancient 3-in-1 Vedic model. This completely holistic model is ontologically rich enough for a logically consistent account of the causal influence of mind over matter, as well as the change from mathematical possibilities to physical actualities without positing quantum wave function collapse.
NeuroQuantology | June 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 2 | Page 230-251
Quantum mechanics has achieved extraordinary predictive power while leaving its deepestquestions unresolved. Chief among them is the measurement problem: why does a quantumsystem in superposition yield a definite classical outcome when observed? The standardCopenhagen interpretation accepts this as a fundamental feature of reality without offering aphysical account of what superposition is or why measurement destroys it.This paper proposes that the measurement problem persists because of a prior, unexaminedassumption: that superposition is a property of matter. We argue instead, drawing from theSāṃkhya metaphysics codified in the Bhagavad Gītā, that superposition is an independententity — Puruṣa — and that 0 and 1 are states of Prakṛti, the material domain. Superpositiondoes not collapse; rather, measurement instruments — being themselves instruments of Prakṛti— can only return Prakṛti-values. They are structurally incapable of accessing Puruṣa directly.This is not a metaphorical comparison. We treat it as a structural hypothesis with concreteimplications for quantum foundations, consciousness research, and the design of post-binarycomputational systems.Important note - This is cross domain mapping, no maths or physics proof mentioned in this, pure thought so read thinking this.