This chapter asks whether consciousness-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics can help interactive dualism even if they do not solve the conservation problem. It begins by explaining why consciousness-collapse theories are often considered vague or mysterious, especially because consciousness seems difficult to integrate into precise physical dynamics. This chapter then examines the proposal that consciousness can be connected to quantum theory through a physical correlate of consciousness and through superposition-resistant properties. On this approach, consciousness or its physical correlate resists quantum superposition and thereby contributes to wave function collapse. This chapter considers the strengths of this strategy, especially its promise of a lawful mind-matter connection, but also stresses major difficulties. Absolute superposition resistance faces the quantum Zeno problem, while weaker collapse models remain speculative. This chapter further argues that making consciousness-collapse dynamics precise may endanger libertarian freedom by placing conscious action under impersonal mathematical rules. It concludes that consciousness-collapse quantum mechanics is an intriguing research program, not a settled solution.
This chapter asks whether consciousness-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics can help interactive dualism even if they do not solve the conservation problem. It begins by explaining why consciousness-collapse theories are often considered vague or mysterious, especially because consciousness seems difficult to integrate into precise physical dynamics. This chapter then examines the proposal that consciousness can be connected to quantum theory through a physical correlate of consciousness and through superposition-resistant properties. On this approach, consciousness or its physical correlate resists quantum superposition and thereby contributes to wave function collapse. This chapter considers the strengths of this strategy, especially its promise of a lawful mind-matter connection, but also stresses major difficulties. Absolute superposition resistance faces the quantum Zeno problem, while weaker collapse models remain speculative. This chapter further argues that making consciousness-collapse dynamics precise may endanger libertarian freedom by placing conscious action under impersonal mathematical rules. It concludes that consciousness-collapse quantum mechanics is an intriguing research program, not a settled solution.
One of the most serious challenges (if not the most serious challenge) for interactive psycho-physical dualism (henceforth interactive dualism or ID) is the so-called ‘interaction problem’. It has two facets, one of which this article focuses on, namely the apparent tension between interactions of non-physical minds in the physical world and physical laws of nature. One family of approaches to alleviate or even dissolve this tension is based on a collapse solution (‘consciousness collapse/CC) of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (QM). The idea is that the mind brings about the collapse of a superposed wave function onto one of its eigenstates. Thus, it is claimed, can the mind change the course of things without violating any law figuring in physical theory. I will first show that this hope is premature because energy and momentum are probably not conserved in collapse processes, and that even if this can be dealt with, the violations are either severe or produce further ontological problems. Second, I point out several conceptual difficulties for interactionist CC. I will also present solutions for those problems, but it will become clear that those solutions come at a high cost. Third, I shall briefly list some empirical problems which make life even harder for interactionist CC. I conclude with remarks about why no- collapse interpretations of QM don’t help either and what the present study has shown is the real issue for ID: namely to find a plausible integrative view of dualistic mental causation and laws of nature.
Abstract Consciousness and quantum mechanics are two mysteries in our times. A careful and thorough examination of possible connections between them may help unravel these two mysteries. On the one hand, an analysis of the conscious mind and psychophysical connection seems indispensable in understanding quantum mechanics and solving the notorious measurement problem. On the other hand, it seems that in the end quantum mechanics, the most fundamental theory of the physical world, will be relevant to understanding consciousness and even solving the mind-body problem when assuming a naturalist view. This book is the first volume which provides a comprehensive review and thorough analysis of intriguing conjectures about the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. Written by leading experts in this research field, this book will be of value to students and researchers working on the foundations of quantum mechanics and philosophy of mind.
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.
The collapse postulate in quantum mechanics is problematic due to the measurement problem. The problem lies not with collapse per se, but with the appeal to measurement; a theory that could underwrite the collapse process without ineliminable reference to measurement would constitute a solution to the measurement problem. This is the strategy pursued by dynamical (or spontaneous) collapse theories. But dynamical collapse theories face a number of challenges. First, they make different empirical predictions from standard quantum mechanics, and hence are potentially empirically refutable. Second, there are difficulties reconciling the dynamical collapse mechanism with special relativity. Third, the post-collapse state is not the same as the post-measurement state of standard quantum mechanics, raising the possibility that dynamical collapse theories do not solve the measurement problem after all. Assuming that these challenges can be met, dynamical collapse theories can lay claim to being serious contenders for the correct description of the quantum world. And the description they provide has a number of interesting consequences. First, it makes indeterminism an irreducible fact about the physical world. It has been argued that this has important consequences for the foundations of statistical mechanics, for free will, and for consciousness. Second, many dynamical collapse theories can be taken to imply that the quantum wave function is fundamental, giving rise to a new kind of vagueness, since a wave can be fuzzy around the edges in a way that a particle cannot. Furthermore, the quantum wave function is defined over a high-dimensional space, not the three-dimensional space of experience, suggesting to some that three-dimensionality is an illusion.
In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
Could there be quantum superpositions of conscious states, as suggested by the Wigner's friend thought experiment? Mathematical theories of consciousness, notably integrated information theory (IIT), make this question more precise by associating physical systems with both quantitative amounts of consciousness and structural characterizations of conscious states. Motivated by a recent proposal that ties wave-function collapse to integrated information, we construct a simple quantum circuit that would, on that proposal, place a minimal system-a feedback dyad-into a superposition of states that differ in their associated conscious states. This "Schrödinger's dyad" provides a controlled setting for evaluating a central desideratum of consciousness-based collapse models: that collapse rates depend on how different the experiences in the superposition are. We prove a structural constraint on collapse dynamics of a standard (Lindblad) type: if collapse is governed by too few collapse operators, collapse rates cannot in general be made to depend solely on qualitative differences between conscious states. Avoiding this limitation requires introducing many commuting operators, leading to a rapid proliferation of collapse terms even for very simple systems. This proliferation bears directly on claims that IIT-based collapse theories may be especially experimentally tractable, since the required dynamics becomes highly complex. More generally, the difficulty is not specific to IIT: any Wigner-style collapse theory that distinguishes experiences using rich internal organization (such as neural connectivity in addition to neural state) will face a comparable explosion in dynamical complexity.