This paper explores the role of the mind in the physical world. We begin with a brief introduction to distinct types of retrocausal phenomena connected with parapsychology and physics. We provide an introduction to laws of quantum mechanics (QM) that lead some to surmise connections between QM and psychic phenomena (psi). Next, we present our argument that verification of psi will require changes to QM. As a possible placeholder for these changes we introduce “Mind”, from Cartesian dualism. This area of research points the way to connections between two fundamental issues in science: the mind-matter hard problem and the measurement problem of QM. Positive outcomes of carefully executed experiments could demonstrate a close relationship between these two problems, including the possibility that sentience plays an important role in the fundamental laws of physics. We focus on a version of Daryl Bem’s seeing the future experiments, which should allow for discrimination between various interpretations of QM. Finally, although the authors are psi skeptics, we suggest methodologies that may enable psi phenomena to be acceptable to mainstream science.
This paper explores the role of the mind in the physical world. We begin with a brief introduction to distinct types of retrocausal phenomena connected with parapsychology and physics. We provide an introduction to laws of quantum mechanics (QM) that lead some to surmise connections between QM and psychic phenomena (psi). Next, we present our argument that verification of psi will require changes to QM. As a possible placeholder for these changes we introduce “Mind”, from Cartesian dualism. This area of research points the way to connections between two fundamental issues in science: the mind-matter hard problem and the measurement problem of QM. Positive outcomes of carefully executed experiments could demonstrate a close relationship between these two problems, including the possibility that sentience plays an important role in the fundamental laws of physics. We focus on a version of Daryl Bem’s seeing the future experiments, which should allow for discrimination between various interpretations of QM. Finally, although the authors are psi skeptics, we suggest methodologies that may enable psi phenomena to be acceptable to mainstream science.
Introduction: the study considers the problem of observer’s status during specific quantum-mechanical experiments, in which the empirical result directly depends on the participation of the experimenter's mind. Here the problem arises of the connection between the mind of the observer and the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. The paper pays attention to modern trends in physics and philosophy devoted to the study of this phenomenon. Some aspects of the philosophical interpretation of the mind as a quantum mechanism are presented. Materials and Methods: the research materials demonstrate an overview of several common quantum-philosophical theories. Attempts have been made to search for the connection of quantum phenomena with the mechanisms of the functioning of human mind. The experimental background of quantum physics is demonstrated, providing material for analyzing the possibility of applying modern quantum theory to the question of identifying the relationship of the quantum approach and describing the problem of the influence of the observer’s mind on the result of a physical experiment. Results: the concept of quantum mechanics, taking into account the latest achievements and results of physics, philosophy and psychology, allows us to consider the mind of the observer as an integral part of the mechanism responsible for the formation of the surrounding physical reality. The anthropic principle of participation considered in the work gives the observer's mind a special role allowing to form a quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. Discussion and conclusions: it is shown that the mind of the observer plays an important role in quantum theory. Moreover, mind as a psychic phenomenon may be in fact identical with the quantum-mechanical concept of choosing an alternative. Given the fact that the brain's thought processes influence the measurement results, it can be assumed that mind changes quantum probabilities. This assumption allows us to take a different look at the concept of reality itself.
One of the deep mysteries facing science concerns how the subjective aspect of consciousness (qualia) comes to exist. There is a possibility that psychic phenomena (psi) can provide an answer since psi and qualia may have the same source. Although I'm a psi skeptic I would love to see reliable data supporting it, since that could then usher in an exciting new exploration into brain mechanisms and would force fundamental physics to change. This paper explores four different approaches for understanding qualia and psi: 1) Modify physics. Four quite different approaches will be discussed: a) a modified Born Rule, b) a modification to general relativity, c) a Bohmian update of hidden variables, and d) adding a panpsychic ‘psychon' to QED. 2) Surprising emergence. This is the view whereby the neuroscience and psychology of the future will show how qualia and psi can come about by surprising brain mechanisms. 3) Panentheism and Cosmic Mind. In this view, consciousness is primary and possibly not amenable to scientific explanation. 4) Awesome illusion. Here, "qualia" is an ill-posed question and will therefore not be answered by science. For psi, being an illusion means that the past experiments are not replicable when steps are taken to satisfy friendly skeptics like me. Although I am a skeptic, I strongly hope that psi is replicable since that would usher in a revolution in physics and neuroscience. It could even lead to an understanding of qualia.
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.
In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrodinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.
In this paper we will address important considerations for the structure of a physical theory and the need and implications for the conscious observer and creator. Complementarity and reciprocity are dominate in the sttucture of the Quantum \'Vorld. It is clear that one's meaningful existence directly involves one's intent and acdon both mental and physical in consequence. Hence, it is vital ro undersrand what intemional will is, the manner in which it arises, as it relates to one's ethical responsibility the meaning of their life may also be considered in the context of intentional will and may be described and understOod. We investigate the role of conscious intention in the physical and mental world. In this paper, we examine the theoretical constructs of the properties of observational intention and their local and nonlocal effects on mind and matter. One begins by sensing a physical or psychic input and then becoming consciously aware of it as perceptions and thoughts which result in concepts developed for memories, reasoning and feelings. Then a thought and decision will be made and imention are carried into action in the physical and mental world. We proceed by investigating the role and action of the thought of intentional will and its role in quantum mechanics, its structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness. In order to proceed with our investigation will present some of the basic tenants of quantum mechanics, the structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness in quantum measurement and its non local intentional interaction. The quantum theory gives us two inescapable conclusions: J) we are intimaly linked ro the world as participatory observers, and 2) nonlocal remote connections and interactions are shown to be parr of our world process. Discoveries, and/or creations of new concepts in physics lead ro the observer/participant issue. Quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic microcosm, is a description that may imply that the observer has an impact on the observed, that rhe observer has an effect on what is observed. The relativity theory scems to imply that the state of the observer affecrs his interpretation of what he sees. In the context of quantum theoty and relativity, we may be able to shed light on the relationship of discovery as well as creation and irs validation of the properties of an external reality. In quantum physics, as well as in the structure of n-dimensional relativistic models, the implication for a fundamental remore connection of events is deeply implied by the structure of these models and their experimental test and we can use this property for our experimental models of the properties of consciousness. The structure of physical theoty, its very fabric, is pointing towards a world view that speaks of concepts which have been considered external to the body of science but yet may be implied by modern physical theoty itself.
Abstract Physics has a somewhat uneasy relationship to the mind. On the one hand, minds are part of the natural universe and although much of physics is concerned with the non-minded parts of reality, recently a set of problems has emerged in physics that has placed a special focus on observers. In quantum mechanics, the contrast between what the deterministic dynamics yields and what the observer sees is at the forefront of the theory’s difficulties. In the controversies surrounding time, questions about whether the relativistic image of time can account for the subjective experience of passage and flow have been central. In general, reconciling the manifest image of the world with the image presented by science requires at least some tacit understanding of how minds work. And because the evidence for our theories ultimately comes from experience, eventually we have to be able to bring the mind itself firmly under the scope of our physical theories. On the other hand, there is a set of philosophical controversies about the relationship between the mental and the physical that many people believe physics would do well to steer clear of. This chapter argues for a division between the aspects of the mind that physics must cope with and those that it can ignore. I argue the most difficult unresolved questions about the mind can be ignored without affecting progress in physics.