The sheep-goat effect cannot be explained without considering mind of specific states. This work speculates mind-matter interaction, as was inferred by many including Erwin Schrödinger, for entertaining analytically-flavored “phenomenological” interpretation of the sheep-goat effect. A fundamental construct of this theory is the operation of mind-matter events in a spatial-temporal-attentional domain, which reduces to the spatial-temporal domain wherein purely objective events are registered, at the vanishing of the effect of attention. Time-dependent Schrodinger’s equation is then treated as a lower-dimensional case of a higher-dimensional mind-matter-event equation elaborated in the spatial-temporal-attentional complex. The domain-coupling when modulated by the phase difference between the temporal and attentional dimensions, can enhance or inhibit the deviation of the event registration in the spatial-temporal domain from its baseline probability. The outcome is akin the sheep-goat effect.
The sheep-goat effect cannot be explained without considering mind of specific states. This work speculates mind-matter interaction, as was inferred by many including Erwin Schrödinger, for entertaining analytically-flavored “phenomenological” interpretation of the sheep-goat effect. A fundamental construct of this theory is the operation of mind-matter events in a spatial-temporal-attentional domain, which reduces to the spatial-temporal domain wherein purely objective events are registered, at the vanishing of the effect of attention. Time-dependent Schrodinger’s equation is then treated as a lower-dimensional case of a higher-dimensional mind-matter-event equation elaborated in the spatial-temporal-attentional complex. The domain-coupling when modulated by the phase difference between the temporal and attentional dimensions, can enhance or inhibit the deviation of the event registration in the spatial-temporal domain from its baseline probability. The outcome is akin the sheep-goat effect.
The sheep-goat effect of psi cannot be explained without considering mind of specific states. This work speculates mind-matter interaction, as was inferred by many including Erwin Schrödinger, for entertaining an analytically flavored “phenomenological” interpretation of the sheep-goat effect. A fundamental construct of this theory is the operation of mind-matter events in a spatial-temporal-attentional domain, which relaxes to the spatial-temporal domain wherein purely objective events are registered, when the effect of attention vanishes. Attention is quantitated as a nonuniformly interspaced discrete index that depends solely on the number of viable neurons that function in a coherent state for a purpose of the mind. A spatial-attentional “information” domain is assumed to be operable by hinging it with the spatial-temporal “energy” domain along the spatial dimension to form a so-called vivo-dynamic complex. Operations of an event function with respect to the attentional dimension are assigned to assimilate those with respect to the temporal dimension. Domain operators are introduced to specify the domain of temporal or attentional attribution as needed to assess an event and identify the outcome of domain-coupling on the registration of an event. Time-dependent Schrodinger’s equation is then, imperatively, treated as a lower-dimensional case of a higher-dimensional mind-matter-event equation elaborated in the spatial-temporal-attentional complex. The resulted mind-matter-event function defined in the vivo-dynamic complex relaxes to an objective-event function in the spatial-temporal domain at either zeroing of the attention or vanishing of the first-order derivative of the function with respect to the attentional index. The mind-matter-event equation leads to simple traveling-wave-type solutions that are formed by combining the temporal presentation and attentional perception. The auto or cross interaction of the mind-matter event functions then creates “information-energy” coupling terms presumed to be amenable to instrument probing in the spatial-temporal domain as is the objective-event term. The domain-coupling when modulated by the phase difference between the temporal and attentional dimensions is seen to enhance or inhibit the deviation of the event registration in the spatial-temporal domain from its baseline probability. The outcome is thus akin to the sheep-goat effect. The phase-dependency of the event-coupling also elicits why it may be difficult to replicate psi. Such a theoretical manipulation offers novel insights to phenomena that manifest mind-matter interaction.
Experiments with remote perception and Random Event Generators (REG) performed over the last decades show small but significant anomalous effects. Since these effects seem to be independent of spatial and temporal distance, they appear to be in disagreement with the standard scientific worldview. A very simple explanation of quantum mechanics is presented, rejecting all unjustified claims about the world. A view of mind in agreement with cognitive neuroscience is introduced. It is argued that mind and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain and are understandable without any nonphysical assumptions. A plausible explanation of the results of anomalous experiments, based on the concept of synchronicity, introduced by C.G. Jung and advocated by W. Pauli, is offered. A proof is given that strong correlations should exist between any systems that once interacted. Synchronicity events between parts of the brain and physical objects may be sufficient to explain the results of anomalous experiments. Standard physics is sufficient to understand these phenomena. Motto: It would be most satisfactory if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.
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.
This working paper proposes a speculative ontological framework in which selected quantumphenomena are interpreted as three-dimensional manifestations of higher-dimensional spatialstructures. The central hypothesis is that fundamental particles are not complete objectsconfined to accessible three-dimensional space, but higher-dimensional structures whose observableproperties correspond to constrained projections, slices, or manifestations within a coherentthree-dimensional layer. In this framework, time is not treated as a spatial dimension. Instead,time is defined as the computational ordering of state transitions. Measurement is interpretedas a physical interaction that constrains higher-dimensional possibility into a definite three-dimensional outcome. The double-slit experiment is used as a guiding example: superposition isinterpreted as multiple compatible three-dimensional manifestations of one higher-dimensionalentity, while which-path detection corresponds to a constraint that eliminates interference byforcing one stable observable manifestation. The framework does not replace standard quantummechanics. Rather, it proposes an ontological interpretation of why quantum formalism maybe required for observers whose access is restricted to a three-dimensional domain. Major openproblems include deriving the Born rule, reproducing the full formalism of quantum mechanicsand quantum field theory, explaining relativistic effects under computational time, and generatingtestable predictions.
The cognitive frame in which most neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior is conducted contains the assumption that brain mechanisms per se fully suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms must therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. One consequence of this stance is that psychological terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (terms such as "feeling," "knowing," and "effort") have not been included as primary causal factors in neuropsychological research: insofar as properties are not described in material terms they are deemed irrelevant to the causal mechanisms underlying brain function. However, the origin of this demand that experiential realities be excluded from the causal base is a theory of nature that has been known for more that three quarters of a century to be fundamentally incorrect. It is explained here why it is consequently scientifically unwarranted to assume that material factors alone can in principle explain all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience. More importantly, it is explained how a key quantum effect can be introduced into brain dynamics in a simple and practical way that provides a rationally coherent, causally formulated, physics-based way of understanding and using the psychological and physical data derived from the growing set of studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.
Till 1925 the idea of what the quantum theory would be was unknown. During 1925 three different but equivalent versions of quantum theory were proposed – Schrödinger-proposed wave mechanics; Heisenberg-developed matrix mechanics and Dirac-introduced operator theory. Considering the de Broglie’s matter waves Erwin Schrödinger, an Austrian physicist, argued that if a particle like an electron behaves as a wave then the equation of wave motion could be successfully applied to it. He postulated a function varying in both space and time in a wave-like manner (hence called wave function and denoted it as ψ). This function is generally complex and assumed to contain information about a system. Schrödinger set up a linear and time-dependent wave-like equation, called Schrödinger wave equation, to describe the wave aspect of a particle taking account of de Broglie’s relation for wavelength. Physically, |ψ(X, t)|2, where ψ(X, t) is the solution of the Schrödinger equation, is interpreted as position probability density. That is, |ψ(X, t)|2 is the probability density of observing a particle at position X at time t. ψ does not give exact outcomes of observations but helps us to know all possible events and their probabilities . Further, the probability interpretation allows us to find the average or expected result of a set of measurements on a quantum system.