The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical problems.

Conceptual problems [ edit ]

The idea that a quantum effect is necessary for consciousness to function is still in the realm of philosophy. Penrose proposes that it is necessary, but other theories of consciousness do not indicate that it is needed. For example, Daniel Dennett proposed a theory called multiple drafts model that doesn't indicate that quantum effects are needed in his 1991 book Consciousness Explained. ^[58] A philosophical argument on either side isn't scientific proof, although philosophical analysis can indicate key differences in the types of models and show what type of experimental differences might be observed. But since there isn't a clear consensus among philosophers, it isn't conceptual support that a quantum mind theory is needed.

There are computers that are specifically designed to compute using quantum mechanical effects. Quantum computing is computing using quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement. ^[59] They are different from binary digital electronic computers based on transistors. Whereas common digital computing requires that the data be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superpositions of states. One of the greatest challenges is controlling or removing quantum decoherence. This usually means isolating the system from its environment as interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere. Some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to 20 millikelvins in order to prevent significant decoherence. ^[60] As a result, time-consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms inoperable, as maintaining the state of qubits long enough eventually corrupts the superpositions. ^[61] There aren't any obvious analogies between the functioning of quantum computers and the human brain. Some hypothetical models of quantum mind have proposed mechanisms for maintaining quantum coherence in the brain, but they have not been shown to operate.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon often invoked for quantum mind models. This effect occurs when pairs or groups of particles interact so that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance. Instead, a quantum state has to be described for the whole system. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated. If one particle is measured, the same property of the other particle immediately adjusts to maintain the conservation of the physical phenomenon. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly, no matter how far apart the particles are. ^{[62] [63]} It is not possible to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds ^[64] (see Faster-than-light § Quantum mechanics). Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles decohere through interaction with the environment—for example, when a measurement is made ^[65] or the particles undergo random collisions or interactions. According to Pearce, "In neuronal networks, ion-ion scattering, ion-water collisions, and long-range Coulomb interactions from nearby ions all contribute to rapid decoherence times; but thermally-induced decoherence is even harder experimentally to control than collisional decoherence." He anticipated that quantum effects would have to be measured in femtoseconds, a trillion times faster than the rate at which neurons function (milliseconds). ^[54]

Another possible conceptual approach is to use quantum mechanics as an analogy to understand a different field of study like consciousness, without expecting that the laws of quantum physics will apply. An example of this approach is the idea of Schrödinger's cat. Erwin Schrödinger described how one could, in principle, create entanglement of a large-scale system by making it dependent on an elementary particle in a superposition. He proposed a scenario with a cat in a locked steel chamber, wherein the cat's survival depended on the state of a radioactive atom—whether it had decayed and emitted radiation. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat is both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics. ^[66] But since Schrödinger's time, physicists have given other interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real. ^{[67] [68]} Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, "when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other?" In the same way, one can ask whether the act of making a decision is analogous to having a superposition of states of two decision outcomes, so that making a decision means "opening the box" to reduce the brain from a combination of states to one state. This analogy about decision-making uses a formalism derived from quantum mechanics, but doesn't indicate the actual mechanism by which the decision is made. In this way, the idea is similar to quantum cognition. This field clearly distinguishes itself from the quantum mind as it is not reliant on the hypothesis that there is something micro-physical quantum mechanical about the brain. Quantum cognition is based on the quantum-like paradigm, ^{[69] [70]} generalized quantum paradigm, ^[71] or quantum structure paradigm ^[72] that information processing by complex systems such as the brain can be mathematically described in the framework of quantum information and quantum probability theory. This model uses quantum mechanics only as an analogy, but doesn't propose that quantum mechanics is the physical mechanism by which it operates. For example, quantum cognition proposes that some decisions can be analyzed as if there is interference between two alternatives, but it is not a physical quantum interference effect.

Practical problems [ edit ]

The demonstration of a quantum mind effect by experiment is necessary. Is there a way to show that consciousness is impossible without a quantum effect? Can a sufficiently complex digital, non-quantum computer be shown to be incapable of consciousness? Perhaps a quantum computer will show that quantum effects are needed. In any case, complex computers that are either digital or quantum computers may be built. These could demonstrate which type of computer is capable of conscious, intentional thought. But they don't exist yet, and no experimental test has been demonstrated.

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that can provide some extremely accurate numerical predictions. Richard Feynman called quantum electrodynamics, based on the quantum mechanics formalism, "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen. ^{[73] :Ch1} So it is not impossible that the model could provide an accurate prediction about consciousness that would confirm that a quantum effect is involved. If the mind depends on quantum mechanical effects, the true proof is to find an experiment that provides a calculation that can be compared to an experimental measurement. It has to show a measurable difference between a classical computation result in a brain and one that involves quantum effects.

The main theoretical argument against the quantum mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales. ^{[74] [75]} No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales. ^[76]

Daniel Dennett uses an experimental result in support of his Multiple Drafts Model of an optical illusion that happens on a time scale of less than a second or so. In this experiment, two different colored lights, with an angular separation of a few degrees at the eye, are flashed in succession. If the interval between the flashes is less than a second or so, the first light that is flashed appears to move across to the position of the second light. Furthermore, the light seems to change color as it moves across the visual field. A green light will appear to turn red as it seems to move across to the position of a red light. Dennett asks how we could see the light change color before the second light is observed. ^[58] Velmans argues that the cutaneous rabbit illusion, another illusion that happens in about a second, demonstrates that there is a delay while modelling occurs in the brain and that this delay was discovered by Libet. ^[77] These slow illusions that happen at times of less than a second don't support a proposal that the brain functions on the picosecond time scale.

According to David Pearce, a demonstration of picosecond effects is "the fiendishly hard part – feasible in principle, but an experimental challenge still beyond the reach of contemporary molecular matter-wave interferometry....The conjecture predicts that we'll discover the interference signature of sub-femtosecond macro-superpositions." ^[54]

Penrose says,

The problem with trying to use quantum mechanics in the action of the brain is that if it were a matter of quantum nerve signals, these nerve signals would disturb the rest of the material in the brain, to the extent that the quantum coherence would get lost very quickly. You couldn't even attempt to build a quantum computer out of ordinary nerve signals, because they're just too big and in an environment that's too disorganized. Ordinary nerve signals have to be treated classically. But if you go down to the level of the microtubules, then there's an extremely good chance that you can get quantum-level activity inside them.

For my picture, I need this quantum-level activity in the microtubules; the activity has to be a large scale thing that goes not just from one microtubule to the next but from one nerve cell to the next, across large areas of the brain. We need some kind of coherent activity of a quantum nature which is weakly coupled to the computational activity that Hameroff argues is taking place along the microtubules.

There are various avenues of attack. One is directly on the physics, on quantum theory, and there are certain experiments that people are beginning to perform, and various schemes for a modification of quantum mechanics. I don't think the experiments are sensitive enough yet to test many of these specific ideas. One could imagine experiments that might test these things, but they'd be very hard to perform. ^[33]

A demonstration of a quantum effect in the brain has to explain this problem or explain why it is not relevant, or that the brain somehow circumvents the problem of the loss of quantum coherency at body temperature. As Penrose proposes, it may require a new type of physical theory.

Ethical problems [ edit ]

According to Lawrence Krauss, "You should be wary whenever you hear something like, 'Quantum mechanics connects you with the universe'... or 'quantum mechanics unifies you with everything else.' You can begin to be skeptical that the speaker is somehow trying to use quantum mechanics to argue fundamentally that you can change the world by thinking about it." ^[2] A subjective feeling is not sufficient to make this determination. Humans don't have a reliable subjective feeling for how we do a lot of functions. According to Daniel Dennett, "On this topic, Everybody's an expert... but they think that they have a particular personal authority about the nature of their own conscious experiences that can trump any hypothesis they find unacceptable." ^[78]

Since humans are the only animals that can verbally communicate their conscious experience, performing experiments to demonstrate quantum effects in consciousness requires experimentation on a living human brain.^{[ citation needed ]} This is not automatically excluded or impossible, but it seriously limits the kinds of experiments that can be done. Studies of the ethics of brain studies are being actively solicited ^[79] by the BRAIN Initiative, a U.S. Federal Government funded effort to document the connections of neurons in the brain.

An ethically objectionable practice by proponents of quantum mind theories involves the practice of using quantum mechanical terms in an effort to make the argument sound more impressive, even when they know that those terms are irrelevant. Dale DeBakcsy notes that "trendy parapsychologists, academic relativists, and even the Dalai Lama have all taken their turn at robbing modern physics of a few well-sounding phrases and stretching them far beyond their original scope in order to add scientific weight to various pet theories." ^[80] At the very least, these proponents must make a clear statement about whether quantum formalism is being used as an analogy or as an actual physical mechanism, and what evidence they are using for support. An ethical statement by a researcher should specify what kind of relationship their hypothesis has to the physical laws.

Misleading statements of this type have been given by, for example, Deepak Chopra. Chopra has commonly referred to topics such as quantum healing or quantum effects of consciousness. Seeing the human body as being undergirded by a "quantum mechanical body" composed not of matter but of energy and information, he believes that "human aging is fluid and changeable; it can speed up, slow down, stop for a time, and even reverse itself," as determined by one's state of mind. ^[81] Robert Carroll states Chopra attempts to integrate Ayurveda with quantum mechanics to justify his teachings. ^[82] Chopra argues that what he calls "quantum healing" cures any manner of ailments, including cancer, through effects that he claims are literally based on the same principles as quantum mechanics. ^[83] This has led physicists to object to his use of the term quantum in reference to medical conditions and the human body. ^[83] Chopra said, "I think quantum theory has a lot of things to say about the observer effect, about non-locality, about correlations. So I think there’s a school of physicists who believe that consciousness has to be equated, or at least brought into the equation, in understanding quantum mechanics." ^[84] On the other hand, he also claims "[Quantum effects are] just a metaphor. Just like an electron or a photon is an indivisible unit of information and energy, a thought is an indivisible unit of consciousness." ^[84] In his book Quantum Healing, Chopra stated the conclusion that quantum entanglement links everything in the Universe, and therefore it must create consciousness. ^[85] In either case, the references to the word "quantum" don't mean what a physicist would claim, and arguments that use the word "quantum" shouldn't be taken as scientifically proven.

Chris Carter includes statements in his book, Science and Psychic Phenomena, ^[86] of quotes from quantum physicists in support of psychic phenomena. In a review of the book, Benjamin Radford wrote that Carter used such references to "quantum physics, which he knows nothing about and which he (and people like Deepak Chopra) love to cite and reference because it sounds mysterious and paranormal.... Real, actual physicists I've spoken to break out laughing at this crap.... If Carter wishes to posit that quantum physics provides a plausible mechanism for psi, then it is his responsibility to show that, and he clearly fails to do so." ^[87] Sharon Hill has studied amateur paranormal research groups, and these groups like to use "vague and confusing language: ghosts 'use energy,' are made up of 'magnetic fields', or are associated with a 'quantum state.'" ^{[88] [89]}

Statements like these about quantum mechanics indicate a temptation to misinterpret technical, mathematical terms like entanglement in terms of mystical feelings. This approach can be interpreted as a kind of Scientism, using the language and authority of science when the scientific concepts don't apply.

Perhaps the final question is, what difference does it make if quantum effects are involved in computations in the brain? It is already known that quantum mechanics plays a role in the brain, since quantum mechanics determines the shapes and properties of molecules like neurotransmitters and proteins, and these molecules affect how the brain works. This is the reason that drugs such as morphine affect consciousness. As Daniel Dennett said, "quantum effects are there in your car, your watch, and your computer. But most things — most macroscopic objects — are, as it were, oblivious to quantum effects. They don't amplify them; they don't hinge on them." ^[33] Lawrence Krauss said, "We're also connected to the universe by gravity, and we're connected to the planets by gravity. But that doesn't mean that astrology is true.... Often, people who are trying to sell whatever it is they're trying to sell try to justify it on the basis of science. Everyone knows quantum mechanics is weird, so why not use that to justify it?... I don't know how many times I've heard people say, 'Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I'm really into meditation, or I love the spiritual benefits that it brings me.' But quantum mechanics, for better or worse, doesn't bring any more spiritual benefits than gravity does." ^[2]

See also[ edit ]

• Artificial consciousness
• Quantum cognition
• Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics
• Coincidence detection in neurobiology
• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness
• Evolutionary neuroscience
• Many-minds interpretation
• Hameroff-Penrose Orchestrated Objective Reduction
• Hard problem of consciousness
• Holonomic brain theory
• Mechanism (philosophy)
• Quantum cognition
• Quantum neural network

References[ edit ]

1. ^ "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 19, 2011 [First published Tue Nov 30, 2004].

2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Boyle, Alan. "How to Spot Quantum Quackery". NBC News Science News. Retrieved 8 Mar 2018.

3. ^ Dyson, Freeman (2004). Infinite in All Directions: Gifford Lectures Given at Aberdeen, Scotland April--November 1985 (1st Perennial ed.). New York: Perennial. p. 297. ISBN 0060728892.

4. ^ Searle, John R. (1997). The Mystery of Consciousness (1. ed.). New York: New York Review of Books. pp. 53 –88. ISBN 9780940322066.

5. ^ Stenger, Victor. The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (PDF). The Humanist. 53 No 3 (May–June 1992). pp. 13–15.

6. ^ Stephen P. Stich; Ted A. Warfield (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell Philosophy Guides. John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 9780470998755.

7. ^ David J. Chalmers (1995). "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.

8. ^ Chalmers, David J. (1997). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Paperback ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511789-9.

9. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Bohm, David (2002). Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Online-Ausg. ed.). Hoboken: Routledge. ISBN 0203995155.

10. ^ Piaget, Jean (1997). Jean Piaget: selected works. (The Origin of Intelligence in the Child) (Repr. ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415168861.

11. ^ Wade, Jenny (1996). Changes of Mind: A Holonomic Theory of the Evolution of Consciousness. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. ISBN 9780791428498.

12. ^ Paavo Pylkkänen. "Can quantum analogies help us to understand the process of thought?" (PDF). Mind & Matter. 12 (1): 61–91. p. 75.

13. ^ "Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness". ScienceDaily. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2017-12-28.

14. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in "Microtubules" Inside Brain Neurons Corroborates Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness". Elsevier. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2017-12-28.

15. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Penrose, Roger (1989). The Emperor's New Mind. New York, NY: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-01-4534-6.

16. ^ Gödel, Kurt (1992). On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems (Reprint. ed.). New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 0486669807.

17. ^ Bringsjord, S. and Xiao, H. 2000. A Refutation of Penrose's Gödelian Case Against Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence

18. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Penrose, Roger (1999). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics ([New edition] ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0192861980.

19. ^ Penrose, Roger (1995). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Repr. (with corrections). ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0198539789.

20. ^ Hameroff, Stuart (2008). "That's life! The geometry of π electron resonance clouds" (PDF). In Abbott, D; Davies, P; Pati, A (eds.). Quantum aspects of life. World Scientific. pp. 403–434. Retrieved Jan 21, 2010.

21. ^ Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff (2011). "Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory". Journal of Cosmology. 14.

22. ^ Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (17 March 2009). "Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness". PNAS. 106 (11): 4219–4224. Bibcode: 2009PNAS..106.4219R. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806273106. PMC 2657444. PMID 19251667.

23. ^ Khoshbin-e-Khoshnazar M.R. (2007). "Achilles' Heels of the 'Orch OR' Model". NeuroQuantology. 5 (1): 182–185. doi: 10.14704/nq.2007.5.1.123.

24. ^ Maurits van den Noort, Sabina Lim, Peggy Bosch (2016-10-28). "Towards a theory of everything: The observer's unconscious brain". Nature. 538 (7623): 36–37. Bibcode: 2016Natur.538...36D. doi: 10.1038/538036a.

25. ^ Киккава, М., Исикава, Т., Наката, Т., Вакабаяси, Т., Хирокава, Н. (1994). "Прямая визуализация шва решетки микротрубочек как in vitro, так и in vivo". Журнал клеточной биологии. 127 (6): 1965-1971. doi: 10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965. ПМК 2120284. PMID 7806574.

26. ^ Киккава М., Метлагель З. (2006). "Молекулярная "молния" для микротрубочек". Сотовый. 127 (7): 1302-1304. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009. PMID 17190594. S2CID 31980600.

27. ^ F. J. Binmöller & C. M. Müller (1992). "Постнатальное развитие красящей связи между астроцитами в зрительной коре крыс". Глия. 6 (2): 127-137. doi: 10.1002/glia.440060207. PMID 1328051. S2CID 548862.

28. ^ De Zeeuw, C. I., Hertzberg, E. L., Mugnaini, E. (1995). "Дендритное пластинчатое тело: Новая нейрональная органелла, предположительно связанная с соединениями дендродентрических щелей". Журнал неврологии. 15 (2): 1587-1604. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-02-01587.1995. PMC 6577840. PMID 7869120.

29. ^ Hameroff S (2013-08-12). "Сознание, мозг и геометрия пространства-времени". Анн. Н. Я. Акад. Sci. 929 (1): 74–104. Код нагрудника: 2001НЯСА.929...74Ч. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x. PMID 11349432. S2CID 12399940.

30. ^ Sahu S, Ghosh S, Ghosh B, Aswani K, Hirata K, Fujita D, Bandyopadhyay A (2014-05-14). "Атомарный водный канал, контролирующий замечательные свойства одной микротрубочки мозга: корреляция одного белка с его супрамолекулярной сборкой". Биосенс Биоэлектрон. 47: 141-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2013.02.050. PMID 23567633.

31. ^ Осборн, Ханна (2014-01-16). "Квантовые колебания в мозге открывают" Ящик Пандоры "Теорий сознания - Yahoo News UK". Uk.news.yahoo.com. Проверено 2014-08-04.

32. ^ Дэниел, Деннет. "Edge Conversation Chapter 10: Intuition Pumps, and response by Roger Penrose". Edge.com. Проверено 20 февраля 2018года.

33. ^ Перейти к:^{a b c d} Пенроуз, понял. "Краевой Разговор Глава 14: Сознание Включает В Себя Невычислимые Ингредиенты". Edge.com. Проверено 20 февраля 2018года.

34. ^ Ricciardi L. M.; Umezawa H. (1967). "Физика мозга и проблемы многих тел". Kibernetik. 4 (2): 44-48. doi: 10.1007/BF00292170. PMID 5617419. S2CID 29289582.

35. ^ Риччарди Л. М.; Умэдзава Х. (2004) [1967]. Гордон Г. Г.; Прибрам К. Х.; Витьелло Г. (ред.). "Физика мозга и проблемы многих тел". Мозг и Бытие. Амстердам: John Benjamins Publ Co: 255-266.

36. ^ Г. Витьелло, Мой Разоблаченный Двойник. Джон Бенджаминс, 2001.

37. ^ Freeman W.; Vitiello G. (2006). "Нелинейная динамика мозга как макроскопическое проявление лежащей в основе динамики многих тел". Физика жизни отзывы. 3 (2): 93-118. arXiv: q-bio/0511037. Бибкод: 2006PhLRv...3...93F. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2006.02.001. S2CID 11011930.

38. ^ Атманспахер Х. (2006), "Квантовые подходы к сознанию", Квантовые подходы к сознанию. Критическая обзорная статья в Стэнфордском университете. Энциклопедия философии, Исследовательская лаборатория метафизики, Стэнфордский университет

39. ^ Прибрам К. Х. (1999). "Квантовая голография: имеет ли она отношение к функции мозга?". 115 (1-4): 97-102. doi: 10.1016/s0020-0255(98)10082-8.

40. ^ Прибрам К. Х. (2004). "Сознание переоценено". Разум и материя. 2: 7–35.

41. ^ Pribram, K. (1999) Status Report: Quantum Holography and the Braln. Acta Polyiechnica Scandinavica: Сложность возникновения, Иерархия, Организация, Том 2, с. 33-60.