Abstract This article begins with an account of how quantum physics represents physical systems and how it differs from classical physics, focusing on three features of quantum theory that have been thought to be relevant to free will: indeterminism, nonlocality, and observer-participation. It examines various interpretations of quantum theory, including deterministic interpretations, such as the “many-worlds” interpretation and hidden variable interpretations. It considers other topics, puzzles about Schrodinger's cat and a recent challenge to deterministic interpretations of quantum theory, called “the free will theorem” by mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen. It discusses the views of three thinkers who have argued in different ways for the relevance of quantum theory to both consciousness and free will: mathematician Roger Penrose, physicist Henry Stapp, and neuroscientist and Nobel laureate John Eccles.
Abstract This article begins with an account of how quantum physics represents physical systems and how it differs from classical physics, focusing on three features of quantum theory that have been thought to be relevant to free will: indeterminism, nonlocality, and observer-participation. It examines various interpretations of quantum theory, including deterministic interpretations, such as the “many-worlds” interpretation and hidden variable interpretations. It considers other topics, puzzles about Schrodinger's cat and a recent challenge to deterministic interpretations of quantum theory, called “the free will theorem” by mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen. It discusses the views of three thinkers who have argued in different ways for the relevance of quantum theory to both consciousness and free will: mathematician Roger Penrose, physicist Henry Stapp, and neuroscientist and Nobel laureate John Eccles.
Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles ' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.
As generally accepted, consciousness or mind and material brain are closely related to each other; but how? Quantum mechanics is a new pathway to understand the hard problem of consciousness and its relation to the brain. Consciousness has specific properties such as unity, irreducibility, non-locality, etc. The completely different features of classical physics (locality, reducibility, determinacy, etc.) hindered the success of scientists to study consciousness. But quantum mechanics with its features (non-locality, irreducibility, indeterminacy, etc.) gave scientists hope to study consciousness. Several quantum approaches to consciousness have been proposed in recent decades; the most important point about these approaches is that each one has used its own philosophy to determine its viewpoint about the mind’s nature and even its quantum approach. In general, all scientific theories are based on some metaphysical principles which come from the worldview of scientists. In this article four contemporary approaches are discussed: The Eccles-Beck, Stapp, Penrose-Hameroff, and Avicenna-Bohm theories; philosophical and scientific points are highlighted for each of them. Finally, the theory of Top-Down Causation is discussed because we think it can provide a fertile philosophical ground for theories of “mind-brain relation” and “quantum consciousness”.
Contemporary physics finds itself pondering questions about mind and consciousness, an uncomfortable area for theorists. But historically, key figures at the founding of quantum theory assumed that reality was composed of two parts, mind and matter, which interacted with each other according to some new laws that they specified. This departure from the prior (classical-physicalist) assumption that mind was a mere side effect of brain activity was such a startling proposal that it basically split physics in two, with one camp insisting that mind will ultimately be explained via physical processes in the brain and the other camp embracing mind as innate in creation and the key to understanding reality in its completeness. Henry Stapp made important contributions toward a coherent explanation by advocating John von Neumann’s orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics. von Neumann postulated that at its basis, quantum mechanics requires both a psychological and physical component. He was left, however, with a dualist view in which the psychological and physical aspects of QM remained unresolved. In this article, the relevant issues are laid out with the aim of finding a nondual explanation that allows mind and matter to exist as features of the same universal consciousness, in the hope that the critical insights of Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, and Stapp will be recognized and valued, with the aim of an expanded physics that goes beyond physicalist dogma.
If the concept of “free will” is reduced to that of “choice” all physical world share the latter quality. Anyway the “free will” can be distinguished from the “choice”: The “free will” involves implicitly certain preliminary goal, and the choice is only the mean, by which it can be achieved or not by the one who determines the goal. Thus, for example, an electron has always a choice but not free will unlike a human possessing both. Consequently, and paradoxically, the determinism of classical physics is more subjective and more anthropomorphic than the indeterminism of quantum mechanics for the former presupposes certain deterministic goal implicitly following the model of human freewill behavior.The choice is usually linked to very complicated systems such as human brain or society and even often associated with consciousness. In its background, the material world is deterministic and absolutely devoid of choice. However, quantum mechanics introduces the choice in the fundament of physical world, in the only way, in which it can exist: All exists in the “phase transition” of the present between the uncertain future and the well-ordered past. Thus the present is forced to choose in order to be able to transform the coherent state of future into the well-ordering of past. The concept of choice as if suggests that there is one who chooses. However quantum mechanics involves a generalized case of choice, which can be called “subjectless”: There is certain choice, which originates from the transition of the future into the past. Thus that kind of choice is shared of all existing and does not need any subject: It can be considered as a low of nature.There are a few theorems in quantum mechanics directly relevant to the topic: two of them are called “free will theorems” by their authors, Conway and Kochen, and according to them: “Do we really have free will, or, as a few determined folk maintain, is it all an illusion? We don’t know, but will prove in this paper that if indeed there exist any experimenters with a modicum of free will, then elementary particles must have their own share of this valuable commodity” “The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe”.Those theorems can be considered as a continuation of the so-called theorems about the absence of “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics.
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
OBJECTIVE: Theories about consciousness are in an initial state of development. In the recent past, diverse theories have been proposed to explain the phenomenon of the consciousness using the Quantum Mechanics (QM) as a fundamental tool. Here, we criticize some of these theories in the light of the current knowledge in neuroscience. DEVELOPMENT: The QM theories of consciousness by John Eccles, Dana Zohar and Roger Penrose are discussed. For a better understanding of these theories, some physical principles of the quantum formalism are firstly introduced. We then expose these theories in the authors original formalism and discuss them from a neuroscientist point of view. DISCUSSION: As currently exposed, the three QM theories of consciousness suffer from important neuroscientist concerns. It is not necessary the use QM to explain different aspects of brain function such as consciousness, which would be better understood using tools from the neurosciences