Quantum mind

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical
mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement
and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain consciousness.

Assertions that consciousness is somehow quantum-mechanical can overlap with quantum mysticism, a
pseudoscientific movement that assigns supernatural characteristics to various quantum phenomena such as
nonlocality and the observer effect.[2]

Contents
History
Approaches
Bohm
Penrose and Hameroff
Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman
Pribram, Bohm, Kak
Stapp
David Pearce
Yu Feng
Criticism
Conceptual problems
Practical problems
Ethical problems
See also
References
Further reading
External links

History
Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the
mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Freeman Dyson
argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every
electron."[3]

Other contemporary physicists and philosophers considered these arguments unconvincing.[4] Victor Stenger
characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along
with gods, unicorns and dragons."[5]
David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may
relate to dualistic consciousness.[6] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of
consciousness.[7][8]

Approaches

Bohm

David Bohm viewed quantum theory and relativity as contradictory, which implied a more fundamental level
in the universe.[9] He claimed both quantum theory and relativity pointed to this deeper theory, which he
formulated as a quantum field theory. This more fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided
wholeness and an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe as we experience it.

Bohm's proposed implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness. He suggested that it could explain
the relationship between them. He saw mind and matter as projections into our explicate order from the
underlying implicate order. Bohm claimed that when we look at matter, we see nothing that helps us to
understand consciousness.

Bohm discussed the experience of listening to music. He believed the feeling of movement and change that
make up our experience of music derive from holding the immediate past and the present in the brain together.
The musical notes from the past are transformations rather than memories. The notes that were implicate in the
immediate past become explicate in the present. Bohm viewed this as consciousness emerging from the
implicate order.

Bohm saw the movement, change or flow, and the coherence of experiences, such as listening to music, as a
manifestation of the implicate order. He claimed to derive evidence for this from Jean Piaget's[10] work on
infants. He held these studies to show that young children learn about time and space because they have a
"hard-wired" understanding of movement as part of the implicate order. He compared this hard-wiring to
Chomsky's theory that grammar is hard-wired into human brains.

Bohm never proposed a specific means by which his proposal could be falsified, nor a neural mechanism
through which his "implicate order" could emerge in a way relevant to consciousness.[9] He later collaborated
on Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory as a model of quantum consciousness.[11]

According to philosopher Paavo Pylkkänen, Bohm's suggestion "leads naturally to the assumption that the
physical correlate of the logical thinking process is at the classically describable level of the brain, while the
basic thinking process is at the quantum-theoretically describable level."[12]

Penrose and Hameroff

Theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff collaborated to produce the theory
known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR). Penrose and Hameroff initially developed their ideas
separately and later collaborated to produce Orch-OR in the early 1990s. They reviewed and updated their
theory in 2013.[13][14]

Penrose's argument stemmed from Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In his first book on consciousness, The
Emperor's New Mind (1989),[15] he argued that while a formal system cannot prove its own consistency,
Gödel's unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians.[16] Penrose took this to mean that human
mathematicians are not formal proof systems and not running a computable algorithm. According to
Bringsjord and Xiao, this line of reasoning is based on fallacious equivocation on the meaning of
computation.[17] In the same book, Penrose wrote, "One might speculate, however, that somewhere deep in
the brain, cells are to be found of single quantum sensitivity. If this proves to be the case, then quantum
mechanics will be significantly involved in brain activity."[15]:p.400

Penrose determined wave function collapse was the only possible physical basis for a non-computable process.
Dissatisfied with its randomness, he proposed a new form of wave function collapse that occurs in isolation
and called it objective reduction. He suggested each quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime
curvature and that when these become separated by more than one Planck length they become unstable and
collapse.[18] 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.[18]

Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[19]
Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimer subunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that
are 8 nm apart and may contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that
contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by about 2 nm. Hameroff proposed that these electrons are close
enough to become entangled.[20] He originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–
Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[21] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical
coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules, but this too was experimentally discredited.[22]

Orch-OR has made numerous false biological predictions, and is not an accepted model of brain
physiology.[23] In other words, there is a missing link between physics and neuroscience.[24] For instance, the
proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, was falsified by
Kikkawa et al.,[25][26] who showed that all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The proposed
existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.[27] Orch-OR predicted that
microtubule coherence reaches the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs), but De Zeeuw et al. proved
this impossible[28] by showing that DLBs are micrometers away from gap junctions.[29]

In 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban
Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[30] corroborates Orch-
OR theory.[14][31]

Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is difficult to separate them from scientists'
personal opinions. The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the nature of
consciousness. For example, Penrose wrote,

my own point of view asserts that you can't even simulate conscious activity. What's going on in
conscious thinking is something you couldn't properly imitate at all by computer.... If something
behaves as though it's conscious, do you say it is conscious? People argue endlessly about that.
Some people would say, 'Well, you've got to take the operational viewpoint; we don't know what
consciousness is. How do you judge whether a person is conscious or not? Only by the way they
act. You apply the same criterion to a computer or a computer-controlled robot.' Other people
would say, 'No, you can't say it feels something merely because it behaves as though it feels
something.' My view is different from both those views. The robot wouldn't even behave
convincingly as though it was conscious unless it really was—which I say it couldn't be, if it's
entirely computationally controlled.[32]

Penrose continues,
 A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer. I'm not saying that all the brain's action
is completely different from what you do on a computer. I am claiming that the actions of
consciousness are something different. I'm not saying that consciousness is beyond physics, either
—although I'm saying that it's beyond the physics we know now.... My claim is that there has to
be something in physics that we don't yet understand, which is very important, and which is of a
noncomputational character. It's not specific to our brains; it's out there, in the physical world. But
it usually plays a totally insignificant role. It would have to be in the bridge between quantum and
classical levels of behavior—that is, where quantum measurement comes in.[33]

W. Daniel Hillis responded, "Penrose has committed the classical mistake of putting humans at the center of
the universe. His argument is essentially that he can't imagine how the mind could be as complicated as it is
without having some magic elixir brought in from some new principle of physics, so therefore it must involve
that. It's a failure of Penrose's imagination.... It's true that there are unexplainable, uncomputable things, but
there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the complex behavior we see in humans is in any way related to
uncomputable, unexplainable things."[33]

Lawrence Krauss is also blunt in criticizing Penrose's ideas. He has said, "Roger Penrose has given lots of
new-age crackpots ammunition by suggesting that at some fundamental scale, quantum mechanics might be
relevant for consciousness. When you hear the term 'quantum consciousness,' you should be suspicious....
Many people are dubious that Penrose's suggestions are reasonable, because the brain is not an isolated
quantum-mechanical system."[2]

Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman

Hiroomi Umezawa and collaborators proposed a quantum field theory of memory storage.[34][35] Giuseppe
Vitiello and Walter Freeman proposed a dialog model of the mind. This dialog takes place between the
classical and the quantum parts of the brain.[36][37][38] Their quantum field theory models of brain dynamics
are fundamentally different from the Penrose-Hameroff theory.

Pribram, Bohm, Kak

Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory (quantum holography) invoked quantum mechanics to explain higher
order processing by the mind.[39][40] He argued that his holonomic model solved the binding problem.[41]
Pribram collaborated with Bohm in his work on quantum approaches to mind and he provided evidence on
how much of the processing in the brain was done in wholes.[42] He proposed that ordered water at dendritic
membrane surfaces might operate by structuring Bose-Einstein condensation supporting quantum
dynamics.[43]

Stapp

Henry Stapp proposed that quantum waves are reduced only when they interact with consciousness. He
argues from the Orthodox Quantum Mechanics of John von Neumann that the quantum state collapses when
the observer selects one among the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action. The collapse,
therefore, takes place in the expectation that the observer associated with the state. Stapp's work drew criticism
from scientists such as David Bourget and Danko Georgiev.[44] Georgiev[45][46][47] criticized Stapp's model
in two respects:

Stapp's mind does not have its own wavefunction or density matrix, but nevertheless can act
upon the brain using projection operators. Such usage is not compatible with standard
 quantum mechanics because one can attach any number of ghostly minds to any point in
space that act upon physical quantum systems with any projection operators. Stapp's model
therefore negates "the prevailing principles of physics".[45]
Stapp's claim that quantum Zeno effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly
contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory: that acting with projection operators
upon the density matrix of a quantum system can only increase the system's Von Neumann
entropy.[45][46]

Stapp has responded to both of Georgiev's objections.[48][49]

David Pearce

British philosopher David Pearce defends what he calls physicalistic idealism ("the non-materialist physicalist
claim that reality is fundamentally experiential and that the natural world is exhaustively described by the
equations of physics and their solutions"), and has conjectured that unitary conscious minds are physical states
of quantum coherence (neuronal superpositions).[50][51][52][53] This conjecture is, according to Pearce,
amenable to falsification, unlike most theories of consciousness, and Pearce has outlined an experimental
protocol describing how the hypothesis could be tested using matter-wave interferometry to detect nonclassical
interference patterns of neuronal superpositions at the onset of thermal decoherence.[54] Pearce admits that his
ideas are "highly speculative," "counterintuitive," and "incredible."[52]

Yu Feng

In a recent paper Yu Feng argues that panpsychism (or panprotopsychism) is compatible with Everett’s
relative-state interpretation of quantum mechanics.[55] With the help of quantum Darwinism Feng proposes a
hierarchy of co-consciousness relations and claims it may solve the combination problem. Making a
comparison with the emergent theory of physical space,[56][57] Feng suggests that the phenomenal space may
emerge from quantum information by the same mechanism, and argues that quantum mechanics resolves any
structural mismatch between the mind and the physical brain.

Criticism
These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their
discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical
evidence. According to Krauss, "It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely
small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum
phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change
things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."[2]

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

Conceptual problems

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

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

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

References
1. "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 19, 2011 [First published Tue Nov 30, 2004].
2. Boyle, Alan. "How to Spot Quantum Quackery" (https://www.nbcnews.com/science/how-spot-q
uantum-quackery-6c10403763). 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 (https://archive.org/details/mysterycons
cious00sear) (1. ed.). New York: New York Review of Books. pp. 53 (https://archive.org/details/
mysteryconscious00sear/page/n69)–88. ISBN 9780940322066.
5. Stenger, Victor. The Myth of Quantum Consciousness (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vst
enger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf) (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
(https://books.google.com/books?
id=NEGK_ZStddkC&q=dualistic+consciousness&pg=PA126). Blackwell Philosophy Guides.
John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 9780470998755.
7. David J. Chalmers (1995). "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (http://consc.net/pape
rs/facing.html). 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. 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?" (htt
p://philpapers.org/archive/PYLCQA.1.pdf) (PDF). Mind & Matter. 12 (1): 61–91. p. 75.
13. "Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial
theory of consciousness" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm).
ScienceDaily. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2017-12-28.
14. "Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in "Microtubules" Inside Brain Neurons Corroborates
Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness" (http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-rele
ases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neur
ons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness). Elsevier. 2014-01-16.
Retrieved 2017-12-28.
15. Penrose, Roger (1989). The Emperor's New Mind (https://archive.org/details/emperorsnewmind
00roge). 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 (http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/refute.penrose.pdf). Journal of Experimental and
Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
18. Penrose, Roger (1999). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the
Laws of Physics (https://archive.org/details/emperorsnewmindc1999penr) ([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 (https://archive.org/details/shadowsofmindsea00penr_0) (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" (http://www.
quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf) (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" (http://journalofcosmology.com/Conscio
usness160.html). 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" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC2657444). PNAS. 106 (11): 4219–4224. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.4219R (htt
ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PNAS..106.4219R). doi:10.1073/pnas.0806273106 (http
s://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0806273106). PMC 2657444 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
ticles/PMC2657444). PMID 19251667 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/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 (https://doi.org/10.14704%2F
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" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F538036a). Nature.
538 (7623): 36–37. Bibcode:2016Natur.538...36D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natu
r.538...36D). doi:10.1038/538036a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F538036a).
25. Kikkawa, M., Ishikawa, T., Nakata, T., Wakabayashi, T., Hirokawa, N. (1994). "Direct
visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC2120284). Journal of Cell Biology. 127 (6): 1965–1971.
doi:10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965 (https://doi.org/10.1083%2Fjcb.127.6.1965). PMC 2120284 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2120284). PMID 7806574 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/7806574).
26. Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. (2006). "A molecular "zipper" for microtubules". Cell. 127 (7): 1302–
1304. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cell.2006.12.009).
PMID 17190594 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17190594). S2CID 31980600 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:31980600).
27. F. J. Binmöller & C. M. Müller (1992). "Postnatal development of dye-coupling among
astrocytes in rat visual cortex". Glia. 6 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1002/glia.440060207 (https://doi.or
g/10.1002%2Fglia.440060207). PMID 1328051 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1328051).
S2CID 548862 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:548862).
28. De Zeeuw, C.I., Hertzberg, E.L., Mugnaini, E. (1995). "The dendritic lamellar body: A new
neuronal organelle putatively associated with dendrodentritic gap junctions" (https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6577840). Journal of Neuroscience. 15 (2): 1587–1604.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-02-01587.1995 (https://doi.org/10.1523%2FJNEUROSCI.15-02-0
1587.1995). PMC 6577840 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6577840).
PMID 7869120 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7869120).
29. Hameroff S (2013-08-12). "Consciousness, the brain, and spacetime geometry". Ann. N. Y.
Acad. Sci. 929 (1): 74–104. Bibcode:2001NYASA.929...74H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
2001NYASA.929...74H). doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.
1749-6632.2001.tb05709.x). PMID 11349432 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11349432).
S2CID 12399940 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12399940).
30. Sahu S, Ghosh S, Ghosh B, Aswani K, Hirata K, Fujita D, Bandyopadhyay A (2014-05-14).
"Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule:
correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly" (https://zenodo.org/record/889377).
Biosens Bioelectron. 47: 141–8. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2013.02.050 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.bi
os.2013.02.050). PMID 23567633 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23567633).
31. Osborne, Hannah (2014-01-16). "Quantum Vibrations in Brain Opens 'Pandora's Box' of
Theories of Consciousness - Yahoo News UK" (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/quantum-vibrations
-brain-opens-39-pandora-39-box-160301481.html). Uk.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved
2014-08-04.
32. Daniel, Dennett. "Edge Conversation Chapter 10: Intuition Pumps, and response by Roger
Penrose" (https://www.edge.org/conversation/daniel_c_dennett-chapter-10-intuition-pumps).
Edge.com. Retrieved 20 Feb 2018.
33. Penrose, Roger. "Edge Conversation Chapter 14: Consciousness Involves Noncomputable
Ingredients" (https://www.edge.org/conversation/roger_penrose-chapter-14-consciousness-inv
olves-noncomputable-ingredients). Edge.com. Retrieved 20 Feb 2018.
34. Ricciardi L.M.; Umezawa H. (1967). "Brain physics and many-body problems". Kibernetik. 4 (2):
44–48. doi:10.1007/BF00292170 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00292170). PMID 5617419 (ht
tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5617419). S2CID 29289582 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:29289582).
35. Ricciardi L.M.; Umezawa H. (2004) [1967]. Gordon G. G.; Pribram K. H.; Vitiello G. (eds.).
"Brain physics and many-body problems". Brain and Being. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ
Co: 255–266.
36. G. Vitiello, My Double Unveiled. John Benjamins, 2001.
37. Freeman W.; Vitiello G. (2006). "Nonlinear brain dynamics as macroscopic manifestation of
underlying many-body dynamics". Physics of Life Reviews. 3 (2): 93–118. arXiv:q-bio/0511037
(https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0511037). Bibcode:2006PhLRv...3...93F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.e
du/abs/2006PhLRv...3...93F). doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2006.02.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.plre
v.2006.02.001). S2CID 11011930 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11011930).
38. Atmanspacher H. (2006), "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" (https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/qt-consciousness), Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. A critical survey article in
Stanford Univ. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
39. Pribram K. H. (1999). "Quantum holography: Is it relevant to brain function?". Information
Sciences. 115 (1–4): 97–102. doi:10.1016/s0020-0255(98)10082-8 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F
s0020-0255%2898%2910082-8).
40. Pribram K.H. (2004). "Consciousness Reassessed". Mind and Matter. 2: 7–35.
41. Pribram, K. (1999) Status Report: Quantum Holography and the Braln. Acta Polyiechnica
Scandinavica: Emergence Complexity, Hierarchy, Organization, Vol. 2, pp. 33-60.
42. Pribram, K.H. Holography, holonomy and brain function. Elsevier's Encyclopedia of
Neuroscience, 1999.
43. Jibu M.; Pribrm K. H.; Yasue K. (1996). "From conscious experience to memory storage and
retrieval: The role of quantum brain dynamics and boson condensation of evanescent
photons". International Journal of Modern Physics B. 10 (13n14): 1735–1754.
Bibcode:1996IJMPB..10.1735J (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996IJMPB..10.1735J).
doi:10.1142/s0217979296000805 (https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0217979296000805).
44. Bourget, D. (2004). "Quantum Leaps in Philosophy of Mind: A Critique of Stapp's Theory".
Journal of Consciousness Studies. 11 (12): 17–42.
45. Georgiev, D. (2012). "Mind efforts, quantum Zeno effect and environmental decoherence".
NeuroQuantology. 10 (3): 374–388. doi:10.14704/nq.2012.10.3.552 (https://doi.org/10.14704%
2Fnq.2012.10.3.552).
46. Georgiev, D. (2015). "Monte Carlo simulation of quantum Zeno effect in the brain". International
Journal of Modern Physics B. 29 (7): 1550039. arXiv:1412.4741 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.474
1). Bibcode:2015IJMPB..2950039G
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015IJMPB..2950039G). doi:10.1142/S0217979215500393
(https://doi.org/10.1142%2FS0217979215500393). S2CID 118390522 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:118390522).
47. Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=OtRBDwAAQBAJ). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1003273264).
48. https://www.NeuroQuantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/619/548
49. Stapp, Henry (2015). "Reply to Georgiev: No-Go for Georgiev's No-Go Theorem".
NeuroQuantology. 13 (2). doi:10.14704/nq.2015.13.2.851 (https://doi.org/10.14704%2Fnq.201
5.13.2.851).
50. Pearce, David. "Non-Materialist Physicalism: An experimentally testable conjecture" (https://w
ww.physicalism.com). Retrieved 15 Feb 2018.
51. Pearce, David. "Quantum computing: the first 540 million years: Abstract of talk given at Tucson
conference "Toward a Science of Consciousness" (2010)" (https://www.hedweb.com/philsoph/
quantum-computer.html). Retrieved 18 Feb 2018.
52. Pearce, David. "The Binding Problem of Consciousness" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8
xizbtklciA). YouTube.com.
53. Pearce, David. "Schrödinger's Neurons: David Pearce at the "2016 Science of Consciousness"
conference in Tucson" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N6j1pHiEA4). YouTube.com.
Retrieved 18 Feb 2018.
54. Pearce, David. "Non-Materialist Physicalism: An experimentally testable conjecture, Section 6"
(https://www.physicalism.com/#6). Retrieved 15 Feb 2018.
55. Feng, Yu. "Pan(proto)psychism and the Relative-State Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (h
ttps://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=FENPAT-2&aid=FENPAT-2v1). PhilPapers.
56. Cao, ChunJun; Carroll, Sean M.; Michalakis, Spyridon (2017-01-27). "Space from Hilbert
space: Recovering geometry from bulk entanglement" (https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRe
vD.95.024031). Physical Review D. 95 (2): 024031. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024031 (https://
doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevD.95.024031). S2CID 15081884 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:15081884).
57. Cao, ChunJun; Carroll, Sean M. (2018-04-03). "Bulk entanglement gravity without a boundary:
Towards finding Einstein's equation in Hilbert space" (https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev
D.97.086003). Physical Review D. 97 (8): 086003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.086003 (https://d
oi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevD.97.086003). S2CID 54035325 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:54035325).
58. Dennett, Daniel, C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown & Co.
59. Gershenfeld, Neil; Chuang, Isaac L. (June 1998). "Quantum Computing with Molecules" (http://
cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/98.06.sciqc.pdf) (PDF). Scientific American. 278 (6): 66–71.
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0698-66 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientificamerican0698-66).
60. Jones, Nicola (19 June 2013). "Computing: The quantum company" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2
F498286a). Nature. 498 (7454): 286–288. Bibcode:2013Natur.498..286J (https://ui.adsabs.harv
ard.edu/abs/2013Natur.498..286J). doi:10.1038/498286a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F498286a).
PMID 23783610 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23783610).
61. Amy, Matthew; Matteo, Olivia; Gheorghiu, Vlad; Mosca, Michele; Parent, Alex; Schanck, John
(November 30, 2016). "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2
and SHA-3". arXiv:1603.09383 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383) [quant-ph (https://arxiv.org/arc
hive/quant-ph)].
62. Matson, John (13 August 2012). "Quantum teleportation achieved over record distances" (http://
www.nature.com/news/quantum-teleportation-achieved-over-record-distances-1.11163).
Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11163 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature.2012.11163).
S2CID 124852641 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:124852641).
63. Griffiths, David J. (2004), Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-
13-111892-7
64. Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, London,
2004, p. 603.
65. Asher Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, 1993; ISBN 0-7923-2549-4 p.
115.
66. Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik
(The present situation in quantum mechanics)". Naturwissenschaften. 23 (48): 807–812.
Bibcode:1935NW.....23..807S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1935NW.....23..807S).
doi:10.1007/BF01491891 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01491891). S2CID 206795705 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206795705).
67. Polkinghorne, J. C. (1985). The Quantum World (https://books.google.com/books?id=lp4JPYnL
rtEC&q=%22schrodinger's+cat%22+%22alive+dead&pg=PA67). Princeton University Press.
p. 67. ISBN 0691023883. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150519001623/https://book
s.google.com/books?id=lp4JPYnLrtEC&pg=PA67&dq=%22schrodinger's+cat%22+%22alive+
dead) from the original on 2015-05-19.
68. Tetlow, Philip (2012). Understanding Information and Computation: From Einstein to Web
Science (https://books.google.com/books?id=Rk7O3EG0Xn4C&q=%22alive+and+dead%22&
pg=PA321). Gower Publishing, Ltd. p. 321. ISBN 978-1409440406. Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20150519001741/https://books.google.com/books?id=Rk7O3EG0Xn4C&pg=PA32
1&dq=%22alive+and+dead%22) from the original on 2015-05-19.
69. Khrennikov, A (2006). " "Quantum-like brain: "Interference of minds". Biosystems. 84 (3): 225–
241. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.11.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biosystems.2005.11.0
05). PMID 16427733 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16427733).
70. Khrennikov, A. Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological, Social, and Anomalous
Phenomena (Fundamental Theories of Physics) (Volume 138), Kluwer, 2004.
71. Atmanspacher, H.; Römer, H.; Walach, H. (2002). "Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and
entanglement in physics and beyond". Foundations of Physics. 32 (3): 379–406.
doi:10.1023/a:1014809312397 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2Fa%3A1014809312397).
S2CID 118583726 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118583726).
72. Aerts, D.; Aerts, S. (1994). "Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of
decision processes". Foundations of Science. 1: 85–97. doi:10.1007/BF00208726 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1007%2FBF00208726).
73. Feynman, Richard (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University
Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12575-6.
74. Tegmark, M. (2000). "Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes". Physical
Review E. 61 (4): 4194–4206. arXiv:quant-ph/9907009 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-
ph/9907009). Bibcode:2000PhRvE..61.4194T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhRvE..
61.4194T). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevE.61.4194).
PMID 11088215 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11088215). S2CID 17140058 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:17140058).
75. Charles Seife (4 February 2000). "Cold Numbers Unmake the Quantum Mind". Science. 287
(5454): 791. doi:10.1126/science.287.5454.791 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.287.5454.
791). PMID 10691548 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10691548). S2CID 33761196 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:33761196).
76. Yuhas, Daisy (May 24, 2012). "Speedy Science: How fast can you react?" (https://www.scientifi
camerican.com/article/bring-science-home-reaction-time/). Scientific American. Retrieved
18 Feb 2018.
77. Velmans, M. (1992). "Is Consciousness Integrated?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 15 (2):
229–230. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00068473 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0140525x00068473).
(commentary on Dennett & Kinsbourne "Time and the observer", BBS, 1992, 15(2): 183–201)
Copyright Cambridge University Press
78. Dennett, Daniel (Feb 2017). From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (1st ed.).
New York: W. W. Norton and Company. ISBN 978-0393242072.
79. BRAIN Initiative. "BRAIN Initiative: Research on the Ethical Implications of Advancements in
Neurotechnology and Brain Science (R01)" (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-M
H-17-260.html). Retrieved 4 Feb 2018.
80. DeBakcsy, Dale (May 2014). "Stop Heisenberg Abuse!: Three Outrageous Misappropriations of
Quantum Physics". Skeptical Inquirer. 38 (3): 40–43.
81. Chopra, Deepak (1997). Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing
Old (https://archive.org/details/agelessbodytimel0000chop). Random House. p. 6 (https://archiv
e.org/details/agelessbodytimel0000chop/page/6). ISBN 9780679774495.
82. Carroll, Robert Todd (May 19, 2013), "Deepak Chopra" (http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html),
The Skeptic's Dictionary
83. Park, Robert L (September 1, 2005). "Chapter 9: Voodoo medicine in a scientific world" (https://
books.google.com/books?id=XImEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA137). In Ashman, Keith; Barringer,
Phillip (eds.). After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science. Routledge. pp. 137–.
ISBN 978-1-134-61618-3.
84. Chopra, Deepak (2013-06-19). "Richard Dawkins Plays God: The Video (Updated)" (https://ww
w.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/richard-dawkins-plays-god_b_3467484.html). Huffington
Post. Retrieved 5 Mar 2018.
85. O'Neill, Ian (May 26, 2011). "Does Quantum Theory Explain Consciousness?" (http://news.disc
overy.com/space/does-quantum-theory-explain-consciousness-110526.htm). Discovery News.
Discovery Communications, LLC. Retrieved August 11, 2014.
86. Carter, Chris (2012). Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics.
Inner Traditions Press. ISBN 978-1594774515.
87. Radford, Benjamin (Mar 2014). "The House of Skeptics Serves Psi (and Crow)". Skeptical
Inquirer. 37 (2): 60–62.
88. Hill, Sharon (Mar 2012). "Amateur Paranormal Research and Investigation Groups Doing
'Sciencey' Things" (https://www.csicop.org/si/show/amateur_paranormal_research_and_investi
gation_groups_doing_sciencey_things). Skeptical Inquirer. 36 (2): 38–41.
89. Hill, Sharon. "Scientifical Americans: Paranormal Researchers and the Public Understanding
of Science" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hgmTl12isA). YouTube.com. Retrieved
17 Feb 2018.

Further reading
Flanagan, Brian J. (2003). "Are perceptual fields quantum fields?" (http://wordassociation1.net/
FieldWork.html). NeuroQuantology. 1 (3): 334–364. doi:10.14704/nq.2003.1.3.20 (https://doi.or
g/10.14704%2Fnq.2003.1.3.20).
Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=OtRBDwAAQBAJ). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1003273264).
Hodgson, David (1993). The Mind Matters: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=wrvAQgAACAAJ). Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824068-
6.
Koch, Christof; Hepp, Klaus (2006). "Quantum mechanics in the brain" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20120304140520/http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf) (PDF). Nature. 440
(7084): 611–612. Bibcode:2006Natur.440..611K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.
 440..611K). doi:10.1038/440611a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F440611a). PMID 16572152 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16572152). S2CID 5085015 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:5085015). Archived from the original (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf)
(PDF) on 2012-03-04.
Litt, Abninder; Eliasmith, Chris; Kroon, Frederick W.; Weinstein, Steven; Thagard, Paul (2006).
"Is the brain a quantum computer?" (http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~celiasmi/Papers/litt%20et%20
al.2006.quantum%20brain.cogsci.pdf) (PDF). Cognitive Science. 30 (3): 593–603.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709cog0000_59).
PMID 21702826 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21702826).
Lockwood, Michael (1995). Mind, Brain, and the Quantum: The Compound 'I' (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=wUducgAACAAJ). Basil Blackwell.
McFadden, Johnjoe (2000) Quantum Evolution (http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/quantumevolution.h
tm) HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-255948-X; ISBN 0-00-655128-9 . Final chapter on the quantum
mind.
Rosenblum, Bruce; Kuttner, Fred (2011). Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness (http://quantumenigma.com/) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780199753819.
Schrödinger, Erwin (2012). What is Life?: With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches
(https://archive.org/download/WhatIsLife_201708/What%20is%20Life.pdf) (PDF). Canto
Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107604667.
Weyl, Hermann (1934). Mind and Nature (https://books.google.com/books?id=Sw_WcQAACA
AJ). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wigner, Eugene P. (1970). "Physics and the explanation of life". Foundations of Physics. 1 (1):
35–45. Bibcode:1970FoPh....1...35W (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970FoPh....1...35W).
doi:10.1007/bf00708653 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf00708653). S2CID 121081834 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:121081834).

External links
Center for Consciousness Studies (http://consciousness.arizona.edu/), directed by Stuart
Hameroff
PhilPapers on Philosophy of Mind (https://philpapers.org/browse/philosophy-of-mind), edited
by David Bourget and David Chalmers
Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/),
entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Quantum-Mind (http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/), founded by Simon Raggett

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mind&oldid=1013561212"

This page was last edited on 22 March 2021, at 08:53 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.