The article aims to discuss the problem of applicability of quantum-mechanical concepts to the analysis of the mechanisms of brain and the nature of consciousness. Are these tools sufficient and adequate to solve this problem? We claim that despite numerous attempts made in this direction it is difficult to speak about any significant progress. Although the intersection and active interaction between quantum theory and neuroscience forms a kind of “zone of exchange”, allowing us to claim the formation of “quantum neurophysics”, physicalism and reductionism, actually imposed by quantum mechanics, allow us to discuss the nonlocality of neural networks only by analogy with quantum nonlocality. This discussion actually do not touch the underlying machinery of the functionality of these networks, including the processes of their synchronization. Although J. Fodor’s concept of modularity in the context of holism philosophy and ideas of biocultural co-constructivism lead to the idea that it is possible to apply N. Bohr’s complementarity to comprehension of brain functions, but in reality the presence of quantum effects at the level of brain as an integral system is not so obvious. The expression of thought in a word, which means the transformation of a continuous spectrum into a discrete one, only superficially resembles the process of wave function reduction. We can conclude that the boundaries of applicability of quantum-mechanical representations pass through the conceptual space, which does not capture to advance extent the essential features of neither brain, nor consciousness.
The article aims to discuss the problem of applicability of quantum-mechanical concepts to the analysis of the mechanisms of brain and the nature of consciousness. Are these tools sufficient and adequate to solve this problem? We claim that despite numerous attempts made in this direction it is difficult to speak about any significant progress. Although the intersection and active interaction between quantum theory and neuroscience forms a kind of “zone of exchange”, allowing us to claim the formation of “quantum neurophysics”, physicalism and reductionism, actually imposed by quantum mechanics, allow us to discuss the nonlocality of neural networks only by analogy with quantum nonlocality. This discussion actually do not touch the underlying machinery of the functionality of these networks, including the processes of their synchronization. Although J. Fodor’s concept of modularity in the context of holism philosophy and ideas of biocultural co-constructivism lead to the idea that it is possible to apply N. Bohr’s complementarity to comprehension of brain functions, but in reality the presence of quantum effects at the level of brain as an integral system is not so obvious. The expression of thought in a word, which means the transformation of a continuous spectrum into a discrete one, only superficially resembles the process of wave function reduction. We can conclude that the boundaries of applicability of quantum-mechanical representations pass through the conceptual space, which does not capture to advance extent the essential features of neither brain, nor consciousness.
The study examines a problematic hypothesis of possible approaches to identifying the quantum physical foundations of the functioning of consciousness. The authors proceed from the fact that in modern conditions, not a single science, nor all sciences taken together, gives a final answer to the question of the “mechanism” of the origin of thought. However, this does not mean at all that research in this direction needs to be stopped. The authors express confidence that modern and subsequent research into the “quantum concept of consciousness” will lead to the identification of previously unknown patterns, opening the way to the formation of new principles and approaches. As an example, the corresponding Penrose - Hameroff concept is considered. Quantum mechanics complements the tools of neurobiology and other branches of neuroscience, which together form an interdisciplinary field of knowledge that is dynamically growing and developing. The authors are not apologists for the omnipotence of quantum physics. Quantum correlates of consciousness actually mean that it is not today’s quantum mechanics itself that explains the emergence of mental states, but the fact that in the birth of these states it is essential that in the very process of the formation of neurodynamic impulses in the neurons of the cerebral cortex that generate mental states, there are processes of quantum nature. It should also be recognized that the quantum-molecular level (nanolevel) of processes in the neurons of the brain really exists and it is this that is the source of proto-consciousness. Science strives to move forward, new research programs are emerging within the framework of quantum biology, quantum psychology, quantum information science, which in turn can shed light on the hypothesis of the “quantum concept of consciousness.”
Science is learning more about the brain activity necessary for consciousness, but has not identified any mechanisms for how it could actually arise through neural processes. Here I present ways to build consciousness into the mathematics of quantum mechanics for use in the growing area of quantum neurology. Quantum waves are not physical in the sense of forces acting on particles through cause and effect, and they are expressed using mathematical placeholders that do not have agreed-upon real-world representations. These can be used to represent consciousness. Quantum mechanics has shown how the traditional aspects of the physical world emerge from non-physical quantum information through a combination of mathematical, not causal, determinism, and stochastic interactions. The modeling methods here could help account for how the mental world could also emerge from information fields. Neural interactions for mental experiences are complex, so it is reasonable to expect that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks. But emergent properties are not magic – they work through procedural mechanisms – in this case for how neural processes generate experiences. No steps for how consciousness could be manufactured in this way are apparent, and philosophers have strong arguments for such not being possible. An alternative is to model consciousness as part of quantum waves, so it is accessed, not created, by the brain. This is a form of neutral monism – the idea that the physical and mental worlds both come from a single underlying source – in this case quantum waves. The classical physical picture of particles and forces acting under cause and effect has developed into a belief system, not just a theory, and this has created difficulties in taking quantum mechanics itself at face value. The result has been the creation of numerous “interpretations” of quantum mechanics that seek to frame it within these philosophical presuppositions. The conceptual framework of Cartesian dualism provides a platform for analysis of the related philosophical issues of consciousness and of quantum mechanics itself.
The question of whether quantum mechanical phenomena play a functional role in brain activity and the emergence of consciousness remains one of the most controversial yet intellectually stimulating debates at the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind. This review systematically examines the principal theoretical frameworks proposing quantum-level mechanisms in neural computation, including the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) hypothesis by Penrose and Hameroff, the quantum brain hypothesis of Stapp, quantum coherence models in microtubules, and quantum field theories of consciousness. We critically evaluate the current state of empirical evidence—including recent quantum biology findings, the challenge of decoherence in warm, biological systems, and experimental observations of quantum effects in biological systems—alongside computational models that bridge quantum formalism and neural network dynamics. Furthermore, we discuss the implications of quantum cognition models for understanding perception, decision-making, and memory. Despite significant scientific skepticism, emerging evidence from quantum biology and advanced neuroimaging technologies provides tentative support for quantum processes in neural substrates. We conclude by identifying critical gaps in current knowledge and outlining future research directions that may resolve the debate, including proposals for experimental paradigms using quantum sensing technologies applied to neural tissue. This review aims to serve as a foundational reference for researchers across disciplines approaching the quantum mind hypothesis with scientific rigor.
The article deals with the relationship of ideas about the quantum-physical foundations of the functioning of consciousness with quantum computer science. The fundamental question of the nature of consciousness as a unique phenomenon characterized by self-development, adaptive functions, nonlinearity and openness remains debatable. Modern research on the so-called “quantum concept of consciousness” opens up the prospect for subsequent discoveries of new, unsolved patterns. At the junction of quantum mechanics, psychophysics and neurobiology, an interdisciplinary field of knowledge is now being formed and dynamically developing. The comprehension of the methods and formalisms developed within its framework in application to the ontological aspect of the essential nature of consciousness is chosen as the subject of research in this work. The universal laws of quantum mechanics, the concepts of quantum entanglement and the nonlocality of the wave function are important tools for understanding the role of the observer's consciousness at the quantum-molecular level (nanoscale) of consciousness functioning. The article shows that the principles of quantum data processing have a certain superiority over traditional methods of information processing and can become a significant analogue in the development of the quantum concept of consciousness. The characteristic processes of the “work” of consciousness are revealed, which cannot be comprehended without reference to entropic processes and quantum jumps at bifurcation points, entailing stochastic choice, i.e. information generation. The hypothesis of the quantum concept of consciousness is considered in relation to the macroscopic nature of consciousness, its synergetic complexity. The main conclusion is connected with the idea that the modern understanding of consciousness is undergoing many changes due to the widespread introduction of new knowledge in the field of computer science, quantum physics, and neuroscience.
The nature and idea of consciousness is very mysterious and has profound importance, with existential, medical and spiritual implications and productivity. Behavior and functioning of the brain or, in other words, material brain activity is in some way correlated to the consciousness or mental activity. Since it is the most fundamental theory about the matter that is currently available, in efforts to understand the consciousness we can assume that the Quantum theory can be helpful. Various steps and studies have been carried out to achieve the extent of relation of quantum theory to the different neurophysiological levels of descriptions. In past and in current scenario efforts have been made to adopt quantum theory in different ways that correlate it to consciousness. The concept that this is solely a quantum effect and does not work for a classical case is also discussed. Researchers studied this about the notorious puzzles and contradiction of quantum mechanics, the theory physicists use to describe the tiniest objects in the Universe.
Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately 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 relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. 'feeling', 'knowing' and 'effort') are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.