The mind matter problem is an age old philosophical one which engaged the minds of scholars from the Vedic period through those of neuroscience of modern age and the quantum physicists in the 20th century. The vedic sages considered consciousness not only as primordial, but also universal and ubiquitous, causative of matter (reality in its various aspects). According to neuroscience consciousness is a result of functions of the brain, the neural networks and hence the search for the locality of origin of qualia, the building blocks of conscious experience. The search is still on for the Holy Grail of neuroscience along with the explanation for the mechanism of origin of the nonmaterial, abstract, phenomenon such as consciousness from the material brain, “the hard problem of David Chalmers, 1997”. Physics entered philosophy (W. Heisenberg, 1958) and the physicists began the quest for the site of origin of consciousness. Interestingly, contrary to the view of neuroscientists the quantum physicists viewed consciousness as a primary phenomenon and matter as secondary, (derivative) of consciousness, similar to that of the Vedic seers!. A comparative study of views of Vedanta and quantum physicists makes it interesting. One also finds that the terms consciousness, self, matter and reality have been used synonymously and will be dealt with likewise.
The mind matter problem is an age old philosophical one which engaged the minds of scholars from the Vedic period through those of neuroscience of modern age and the quantum physicists in the 20th century. The vedic sages considered consciousness not only as primordial, but also universal and ubiquitous, causative of matter (reality in its various aspects). According to neuroscience consciousness is a result of functions of the brain, the neural networks and hence the search for the locality of origin of qualia, the building blocks of conscious experience. The search is still on for the Holy Grail of neuroscience along with the explanation for the mechanism of origin of the nonmaterial, abstract, phenomenon such as consciousness from the material brain, “the hard problem of David Chalmers, 1997”. Physics entered philosophy (W. Heisenberg, 1958) and the physicists began the quest for the site of origin of consciousness. Interestingly, contrary to the view of neuroscientists the quantum physicists viewed consciousness as a primary phenomenon and matter as secondary, (derivative) of consciousness, similar to that of the Vedic seers!. A comparative study of views of Vedanta and quantum physicists makes it interesting. One also finds that the terms consciousness, self, matter and reality have been used synonymously and will be dealt with likewise.
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.
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.
For the past 20 years and more, arguments about the role of quantum mechanics in consciousness and mind theory have been mounting. On the one side are traditional neuroscientists who believe that the way to understanding the brain is through looking at the nerve cells. On the other side are various physicists who suggest that the laws of quantum mechanics may have an influence on the dynamics of consciousness and the mind. At the same time however, consciousness and the mind cannot be separated from matter. They originate in the microscopic world of the human brain. There can be no definite separation between mind and matter; there is no ‘mind’ without ‘matter’, and no ‘matter’ without ‘mind’. In terms of cognitive neuroscience, we know a great deal about the working of nerve cells. For example, we understand quite well about the formation of action potential, ion exchange, energy use, axonal transport, the vesicle cycle, and formation, oscillation and breakdown in nerve transmission. But we still do not understand how experience is formed in our material brain (color, sound, smell, taste, pain, imagination, decision, dreams, love, or orgasm) and how consciousness arises in an unconscious material organ. The insufficiency of these answers no doubt arises from the insufficiency of the methods used by cognitive science.
Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.
Many open questions or unsolved problems exist in all areas of physics. In Foundations of Physics, one open question, a century old, is how does quantum reality give rise to classical reality. This is called the quantum-classical transition, for which there are many interpretations formally called the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Now, the open problem may be located in physics, but is ultimately a philosophical problem. Physics has been unable to solve this problem with the methods of physics, say mathematics. Instead, the problem is philosophical in nature—the discipline from which physics came about—and so needs (in spite of what many hardcore physicists may detest) philosophy to solve this problem. A new angle on the subject is required; perhaps a different science may be useful, that of neuroscience. The alternative theory presented here, the Brain Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (BIQM)—which states that classical reality is the brain’s interpretation of quantum reality appearing in our collective consciousness—represents a multidisciplinary fusion of philosophy of physics, neuroscience, and consciousness studies to attack this key and lingering unsolved problem in the Foundations of Physics. This paper seeks to provide solutions for two main unsolved problems: 1) the interpretation of quantum mechanics and, by virtue, 2) the consciousness/matter problem, which is an open problem in the philosophy of mind and consciousness studies. This article not only represents an interpretation of quantum mechanics, but is a fairly comprehensive theory of reality.
Over the past decade, discussions of the roles that quantum mechanics might or might not play in the theory of consciousness/mind have become increasingly sharp. One side of this debate stand conventional neuroscientists who assert that brain science must look to the neuron for understanding, and on the other side are certain physicists, suggesting that the rules of quantum theory might influence the dynamics of consciousness/mind. However, consciousness and mind are not separate from matter. Submicroscopic world of the human brain give rise to consciousness, mind. We are never able to make a sharp separation between mind and matter. Thus ultimately there is no “mind” that can be separated from “matter” and no “matter” that can be separated from “mind”. The brain as a mixed physical system composed of the macroscopic neuron system and an additional microscopic system. The former consists of pathway conduction of neural impulses. The latter is assumed to be a quantum mechanical many-body system interacting with the macroscopic neuron system.