Attempts to reduce consciousness to notions of quantum mechanics lead to quantum theories of consciousness that are unlikely to be successful. The main drawback of these theories is that they consider reality, which is studied by quantum mechanics, as the cause of consciousness a priori. The paper shows that this reality exists only in one's mind and is the product, not the cause, of consciousness. This allows us to take a new look at the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Attempts to reduce consciousness to notions of quantum mechanics lead to quantum theories of consciousness that are unlikely to be successful. The main drawback of these theories is that they consider reality, which is studied by quantum mechanics, as the cause of consciousness a priori. The paper shows that this reality exists only in one's mind and is the product, not the cause, of consciousness. This allows us to take a new look at the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.
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.
There have lately been a variety of attempts to connect, or even explain, if not in fact, reduce human consciousness to quantum mechanical processes. Such attempts tend to draw a sharp and fundamental distinction between the role of consciousness in classical mechanics, and on the other hand, in quantum mechanics, with an insistence on the assumed exceptional character of the latter. What is strangely missed, however, is the role of human consciousness as such in the very discovery or creation of both of these physical theories. And this a priori role is far more important than all the possible a posteriori interplays between consciousness and the mentioned two theories of physics, interplays which may happen during one or another specific experiment, measurement, and so on. In this regard it is suggested that the specific features human consciousness may exhibit during interactions with quantum mechanical systems may as well have other explanations which do not appear to be less plausible, or less well founded.
The notion in quantum mechanics that observation causes the collapse of the probability wave function brings consciousness directly into physical theory. To date, however, there has not been an adequate explanation as to how this could be the case, a circumstance that leads some to view this notion as unparsimonious and speculative. This paper attempts to provide an a priori reason for the mutual dependency of consciousness and matter by considering the consequences of the indistinguishability of elementary particles and the temporally extended nature of consciousness. In doing so, it is hoped that an ontology is elucidated which is applicable within many mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Abstract The paper proposes that quantum theory implies a radically new notion of matter which has not been properly understood before David Bohm’s groundbreaking work. Bohm proposed that the fundamental particles of physics (such as electrons) are not merely pushed around mechanically by classical forces but are also able to respond to information. Information is thus assumed to be an objective commodity which can exist independently of the human mind and which actively guides or instructs physical processes. This notion of active information also applies in computational, biological and psychological phenomena, thus helping us to understand how the mental and the physical sides of reality are related. It may even help us to understand the nature of conscious experience. The latter part of the paper considers the deeper mathematical and physical background of quantum theory and suggests that we need to revise our basic assumptions about quantum objects, such as the role of the wave function.
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”.