Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0508100

Notes on Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

Elemér Elad Rosinger

Published Aug 13, 2005• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0508100

Related papers

Quantum theories of mind and decoherence

Gregory R. Mulhauser

Two principle concerns prompt some theorists to link quantum mechanics and theories of mind or theories of consciousness. On the one hand, it is commonly thought that conscious minds play some important role in processes of quantum measurement and that any good theory of mind ought to explain how a mind can play such a role. On the other hand, a few people think that the framework of classical physics is not, by itself, sufficiently powerful to explain the myriad remarkable properties of minds and that a good explanation must rely on some special features of quantum mechanics. Usually, these features include either state vector reduction-the collapse of the wave function-or special capabilities, often computational or super-computational ones, allegedly displayed by physical substrates while existing in hypothesised coherent states of linear superposition. Two questions summarise the author's misgivings about both the above motivations for linking quantum mechanics and theories of mind. First, does the process of quantum measurement really require a conscious observer? Second, does quantum mechanics underwrite any special effects in, say, intraneuronal protein lattices, which could play a role in instantiating consciousness in biological systems? It turns out that the particular character of the negative answer suggested for the first question also prompts a negative answer for the second. He summarises these negative answers after describing briefly some popular attempts to forge quantum theories of mind.

•Jan 1, 1997•0 citations

Quantum consciousness and life

Alexander E. Wendt

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•0 citations

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

Yu, Shan, Nikolić, Danko

It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.

arXiv:1009.2404•Sep 13, 2010•1 citation

NEWS ON QUANTUM FOUNDATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Alexander A. Berezin

This note was written by a theoretical physicist currently working on physical aspects of consciousness, mind-matter relationships, and mind-body interactions. My purpose here is to inform the readers of this journal, in not too technical terms, of some recent ideas relating quantum mechanics, gravitation, and psychological phenomena. Attempts to relate the nature of consciousness to quantum mechanics have been known almost from the be+g of quantum mechanics. For an extended discussion and earlier references see, e.g., Stapp (1982). The common thread of the majority of the suggested hypotheses linking consciousness to a quantum level of description is a drawing of a between the spontaneous localization of mental patterns and (spontaneous or induced) reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The latter essentially means that quantum systems are inherently described in probabilistic terms and any external observation reduces the manyfold of all potential possibilia to a single given realization. Interpretation of this process is one of the most difficult and controversial topics of quantum mechanics since in quantum mechanics it is thus far essentially impossible to demarcate unambiguously the observer from the quantum system itself. Despite that gravitational effects are usually deemed to be too weak at atomic level, a few authors recently discussed gravity as an inherent route used by nature to achieve an automatic spontaneous reduction of the wave functions of extended objects. In his recent book, Roger Penrose (1989) looks for the possible connections between consciousness, quantum mechanical reduction and gravitational phenomena. To simplify, the essence of these hypotheses is that subtle gravitational effects at the atomic-molecular level lock the brain into a particular mental state, thereby providing the materialization of the potential (quantum) mental image by the route similar to the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Isotopic diversity of chemical elements can substantially contribute to this picture, as well as to life processes in general (Berezin, 1988). Since gravity is a mass-sensitive effect, the fact that different stable isotopes of the same element (e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen) have different atomic masses may affect the path of mental processing.

Perceptual and Motor Skills•Jan 1, 1990•1 citation

Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics

Gao, Shan

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.

•Jul 18, 2022•43 citations

A Historical View of the Relation Between Quantum Mechanics and the Brain: A NeuroQuantologic Perspective

Sultan Tarlacı

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.

NeuroQuantology•Mar 4, 2010•34 citations
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.
Two principle concerns prompt some theorists to link quantum mechanics and theories of mind or theories of consciousness. On the one hand, it is commonly thought that conscious minds play some important role in processes of quantum measurement and that any good theory of mind ought to explain how a mind can play such a role. On the other hand, a few people think that the framework of classical physics is not, by itself, sufficiently powerful to explain the myriad remarkable properties of minds and that a good explanation must rely on some special features of quantum mechanics. Usually, these features include either state vector reduction-the collapse of the wave function-or special capabilities, often computational or super-computational ones, allegedly displayed by physical substrates while existing in hypothesised coherent states of linear superposition. Two questions summarise the author's misgivings about both the above motivations for linking quantum mechanics and theories of mind. First, does the process of quantum measurement really require a conscious observer? Second, does quantum mechanics underwrite any special effects in, say, intraneuronal protein lattices, which could play a role in instantiating consciousness in biological systems? It turns out that the particular character of the negative answer suggested for the first question also prompts a negative answer for the second. He summarises these negative answers after describing briefly some popular attempts to forge quantum theories of mind.
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.
It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.
This note was written by a theoretical physicist currently working on physical aspects of consciousness, mind-matter relationships, and mind-body interactions. My purpose here is to inform the readers of this journal, in not too technical terms, of some recent ideas relating quantum mechanics, gravitation, and psychological phenomena. Attempts to relate the nature of consciousness to quantum mechanics have been known almost from the be+g of quantum mechanics. For an extended discussion and earlier references see, e.g., Stapp (1982). The common thread of the majority of the suggested hypotheses linking consciousness to a quantum level of description is a drawing of a between the spontaneous localization of mental patterns and (spontaneous or induced) reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The latter essentially means that quantum systems are inherently described in probabilistic terms and any external observation reduces the manyfold of all potential possibilia to a single given realization. Interpretation of this process is one of the most difficult and controversial topics of quantum mechanics since in quantum mechanics it is thus far essentially impossible to demarcate unambiguously the observer from the quantum system itself. Despite that gravitational effects are usually deemed to be too weak at atomic level, a few authors recently discussed gravity as an inherent route used by nature to achieve an automatic spontaneous reduction of the wave functions of extended objects. In his recent book, Roger Penrose (1989) looks for the possible connections between consciousness, quantum mechanical reduction and gravitational phenomena. To simplify, the essence of these hypotheses is that subtle gravitational effects at the atomic-molecular level lock the brain into a particular mental state, thereby providing the materialization of the potential (quantum) mental image by the route similar to the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Isotopic diversity of chemical elements can substantially contribute to this picture, as well as to life processes in general (Berezin, 1988). Since gravity is a mass-sensitive effect, the fact that different stable isotopes of the same element (e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen) have different atomic masses may affect the path of mental processing.
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.
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.