DOI: 10.14704/nq.2014.12.1.696

The Mind-Brain Problem and the Measurement Paradox of Quantum Mechanics: Should We Disentangle Them?

Javier Sánchez-Cañizares

Abstract


In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrödinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.

Keywords


Mind-Brain Problem; Quantum Mechanics; Decoherence; Consciousness; Top-Down Causation

Full Text:

Full Text PDF

References


Abbott D, Gea-Banacloche J, Davies PCW, Hameroff SR, Zeilinger A, Eisert J, et al. Plenary Debate: Quantum effects in Biology: Trivial or Not? Fluctuation and Noise Letters 2008; 08(01):C5–C26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219477508004301

Alfinito E, Viglione RG, Vitiello G. The Decoherence Criterion. Modern Physics Letters B 2001; 15(04n05):127–35.

Amit DJ. Modeling Brain Function: The World of Attractor Neural Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623257

Atmanspacher H. Quantum approaches to consciousness. Edward N. Zalta, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/qt-consciousness/

Atmanspacher H, Rotter S. Interpreting neurodynamics: concepts and facts. Cognitive Neurodynamics 2008;2(4):297–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11571-008-9067-8

Barrett NF. Toward an Alternative Evolutionary Theory of Religion: Looking Past Computational Evolutionary Psychology to a Wider Field of Possibilities. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2010;78(3):583–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfq019

Beck F, Eccles JC. Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1992; 89(23):11357–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.23.11357

Bohm D. A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philosophical Psychology 1990; 3(2-3):271–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515089008573004

Caldeira AO, Leggett AJ. Path integral approach to quantum Brownian motion. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 1983 a; 121(3):587–616.

Caldeira AO, Leggett AJ. Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system. Annals of Physics 1983 b; 149(2):374–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(83)90202-6

Cashmore AR. The Lucretian swerve: the biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010; 107(10):4499–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0915161107

Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of consciousness studies 1995; 2(3):200–19.

Churchland PS, Sejnowski TJ. The Computational Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press; 1992.

Clark A. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013; 36(3):1–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477

Collini E, Wong CY, Wilk KE, Curmi PMG, Brumer P, Scholes GD. Coherently wired light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature. Nature 2010;463(7281):644–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08811

Conte E. Testing quantum consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(2):126–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2008.6.2.167

Conte E, Khrennikov A, Todarello O, Federici A, Mendolicchio L, Zbilut JP. Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems & Information Dynamics 2009; 16(1):1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1230161209000074

Crick F. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons; 1994.

Dennett D. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991.

Dennett D. Freedom Evolves. New York: Viking; 2003.

Eagle A. Chance versus Randomness. Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2013. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/chance-randomness/

Freeman WJ. Nonlinear dynamics of paleocortex manifested in the olfactory EEG. Biological Cybernetics 1979; 35:21–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01845841

Freeman WJ, Kozma R, Werbos PJ. Biocomplexity: adaptive behavior in complex stochastic dynamical systems. Bio Systems 2001; 59(2):109–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2647(00)00146-5

Freeman WJ, Livi R, Obinata M, Vitiello G. Cortical phase transitions, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation. International Journal of Modern Physics B 2012; 26(06):1250035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S021797921250035X

Ghosh S, Rosenbaum TF, Aeppli G, Coppersmith SN. Entangled quantum state of magnetic dipoles. Nature 2003; 425(6953):48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01888

Globus G. Toward a quantum psychiatry: hallucination, thought insertion and DSM. NeuroQuantology 2009; 8(1):1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2010.8.1.262

Grush R, Churchland PS. Gaps in Penrose's toilings. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1995; 2(1):10–29.

Hagan S, Hameroff S, Tuszyński JA. Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility. Physical Review E 2002; 65(6):061901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901

Hameroff SR, Penrose R. Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. Journal of consciousness studies 1996; 3(1):36–53.

Hartmann L, Dür W, Briegel H-J. Steady-state entanglement in open and noisy quantum systems. Physical Review A 2006; 74(5):052304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052304

Irvine E. Old Problems with New Measures in the Science of Consciousness. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2012; 63(3):627–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axs019

Kauffman SA. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

Kauffman SA. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

Kauffman SA. Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion. New York: Basic Books; 2008.

Kauffman SA. Physics and Five Problems in the Philosophy of Mind. Edge 2009. Available from: http://edge.org/conversation/five-problems-in-the-philosophy-of-mind

Koch C, Hepp K. Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature 2006;440(7084):611–2. Available from: ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16572152

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/440611a

Kuljiš RO. Integrative Understanding of Emergent Brain Properties, Quantum Brain Hypotheses, and Connectome Alterations in Dementia are Key Challenges to Conquer Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in neurology 2010; 1(August):15.

Li J, Paraoanu GS. Generation and propagation of entanglement in driven coupled-qubit systems. New Journal of Physics 2009; 11:113020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/11/113020

London F, Bauer E. La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique. Paris: Hermann et Cie; 1939.

Lucas JR. Minds, Machines and Gödel. Philosophy 1961; 36:112–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100057983

Manousakis E. Founding Quantum Theory on the Basis of Consciousness. Foundations of Physics 2006; 36(6):795–838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-006-9049-9

Manousakis E. Quantum formalism to describe binocular rivalry. Bio Systems 2009; 98(2):57–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2009.05.012

McKemmish L, Reimers J, McKenzie R, Mark A, Hush N. Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible. Physical Review E 2009; 80(2):021912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912

Naundorf B, Wolf F, Volgushev M. Unique features of action potential initiation in cortical neurons. Nature 2006; 440(7087):1060–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04610

Von Neumann J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press; 1955.

Penrose R. The Emperor's New Mind. Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.

Penrose R. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.

Penrose R. The Road to Reality. London: Jonathan Cape; 2004.

Penrose R, Hameroff SR. Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory. Journal of Cosmology 2011. Available from: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html

Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR. Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013; 36(03):255–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001525

Pregnolato M. Time for quantum consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 2010; 1(8):898–906.

Pusey MF, Barrett J, Rudolph T. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics 2012; 8(6):476–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2309

Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nature reviews Neuroscience 2002; 3(4):261–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn783

Reimers JR, McKemmish LK, McKenzie RH, Mark AE, Hush NS. Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009; 106(11):4219–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806273106

Salari V, Tuszyński JA, Rahnama M, Bernroider G. Plausibility of quantum coherent states in biological systems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2011; 306:012075.

Schwartz JM, Stapp HP, Beauregard M. Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 2005; 360(1458):1309–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1598

Scott Kelso JA. An Essay on Understanding the Mind. Ecological psychology : a publication of the International Society for Ecological Psychology 2008;20(2):180–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10407410801949297

Searle JR. The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: New York Review of Books; 1997.

Smith CUM. Renatus renatus: the Cartesian tradition in British neuroscience and the neurophilosophy of John Carew Eccles. Brain and cognition 2001; 46(3):364–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2001.1294

Smith CUM. The "hard problem" and the quantum physicists. Part 2: Modern times. Brain and cognition 2009; 71(2):54–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.09.004

Smith K. Taking Aim at Free Will. Nature 2011; 477:23–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/477023a

Sols F. Uncertainty, incompleteness, chance, and design. Carreira MM, Gonzalo J, editors. arXiv preprint arXiv:13017036. 2013.

Stapp HP. The Hard Problem: A Quantum Approach. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1996; 3(3):194–210.

Stapp HP. Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature. Foundations of Physics 2001; 31(10):1465–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012682413597

Stapp HP. Quantum interactive dualism: An alternative to materialism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2005; 12(11):43–58.

Stapp HP. The Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Linkages: The Quantum Zeno Effect in Binocular Rivalry. arXiv preprint arXiv:07105569. 2007.

Stapp HP. Philosophy of mind and the problem of free will in the light of quantum mechanics. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.0116. 2008.

Stapp HP. A Model of the Quantum–Classical and Mind–Brain Connections, and the Role of the Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical Implementation of Conscious Intent. In: Stapp HP, editor. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009. p.261–73.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89654-8 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89654-8_14

Summhammer J, Bernroider G. Quantum entanglement in the voltage dependent sodium channel can reproduce the salient features of neuronal action potential initiation. arXiv preprint arXiv:0712.1474. 2007.

Summhammer J, Salari V, Bernroider G. A quantum-mechanical description of ion motion within the confining potentials of voltage-gated ion channels. Journal of integrative neuroscience 2012; 11(2):123–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219635212500094

Tegmark M. Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E 2000; 61(4):4194–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194

Thomsen K. Is Quantum Mechanics needed to explain consciousness? NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(1):43–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2008.6.1.155

Tuszyński JA, Brown JA, Hawrylak P. Dielectric polarization, electrical conduction, information processing and quantum computation in microtubules. Are they plausible? Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London A 1998; 356:1897–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1998.0255

Vannini A. Quantum models of consciousness. Quantum Biosystems 2008; 2:165–84.

Vedral V. Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems. Nature 2008; 453(7198):1004–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07124

Vitiello G. Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. International Journal of Modern Physics B 1995; 9(08):973–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217979295000380

Vitiello G. The dissipative brain. In: Globus G, Pribram KH, Vitiello G, editors. Brain and Being: At the Boundary Between Science, Philosophy, Language and Arts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004.

Vitiello G. Coherent States, Fractals and Brain Waves. New Mathematics and Natural Computation 2009; 05(01):245–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793005709001271

Wigner EP. Symmetries and Reflections. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1967.

Yu S, Nikolić D. Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness. Annalen der Physik 2011; 523(11):931–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201100078

Zurek WH. Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical — Revisited. Los Alamos Science 2002; 27:1–24.


Supporting Agencies

Mind-Brain Group of ICS (University of Navarra)



| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019