Talk:Quantum mind

Some responses to earlier critiques:
I recently found these observations that Quantum Mind theorists have made that may perhaps be put into the article: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0701&L=quantum-mind&P=59

In addition one quantum mind theorist responded to a criticism by Shermer which also highlights that this theory has gone into the testing phase: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm (just scroll down to the second article)

classical mechanics
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness

This is stupid. Of course classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It cannot even explain chemistry. Quantum mechanics can. (But of course not by inappropriately applying microcosm concepts to the macrocosm, like most quantum mysticism, but by solving the Schrödinger equation.) Chemistry is the foundation of cell biology, which is the foundation of consciousness, so, technically, those hypotheses are obviously true but misleading.

Is there not a wording somewhere, in some source, that says more clearly and less misleadingly what this is about? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a valid point. I just edited the leading paragraph to elaborate on this point and hopefully make it more accurate:
 * The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that local physical laws and interactions from classical mechanics or connections between neurons alone cannot explain consciousness, positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition that cause nonlocalized quantum effects, interacting in smaller features of the brain than cells, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. Wcrea6 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible Rename for Ethics Problems Section, "Deepak Chopra Criticism"
Without describing effectively or much at all of any quality, the section within Criticism that is supposed to discuss the ethical problems arising from the idea of Quantum Mind is in effect just criticism of Deepak Chopra's justification of his own ideas with notions of quantum mechanics. Being that no ethical hazards of Deepak's ideas are listed whatsoever (simply justifying his ideas, based on an interpretation of quantum mechanics that may or may not be correct in the mind of the person writing this material is not a ethical criticism of the quantum mind idea nor even of Deepak's interpretation). The quotations are relevant to Deepak's interpretation being subjected to appeals to authority but add nothing of value to any ethical considerations about the Quantum Mind and the substrate suggestion that anything quantum informing metaphysical or non-scientific beliefs/interpretations/extrapolations/etc is not also not an ethical hazard of the quantum mind or of anything more than a silly prejudice and thin veneer over scientific elitism, itself wildly unjustified with quantum mechanics lending itself to so many scientific and unscientific absurd metaphysical explanations illuminating why that is.

Maybe that section is better placed in an article about Deepak Chopra, since it is almost entirely about his ideas and not about this equally nonsensical idea. ThomasLeonHighbaugh (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It is unethical for Chopra to imply that his ideas about quantum mind are scientifically justified when they are not science. Quantum Mechanics is a perfectly sound and well tested theory.  If it is "wildly unjustified with quantum mechanics lending itself to so many scientific and unscientific absurd metaphysical explanations", that is largely due to the efforts of Chopra and others.  It is ethical to point that out.  Readers can judge the value of Chopra's work for themselves, but it is unethical that they should be given the idea that his ideas are based on science. Wcrea6 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The "ethical problems" section should probably just be deleted, since 1) it's largely just WP:SYNTH of blockquotes; 2) it's about quantum woo and ignorant popularization of science and not necessarily the quantum mind in particular; and 3) it gets needlessly distracted with figures like Chopra as you point out.
 * There are ethical problems/questions specific to quantum mind in the area of epistemology of science (not whether the epistemology is sound {because that's epistemology not ethics), but whether it's ethical to pursue/spend resources on science around an unsound epistemology), but I haven't seen these well articulated even in SEP articles. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Categorization
I categorized quantum mind as a fringe theory, this is because there is still insufficient evidence to change the consensus of the scientific community.

The experiment done by Gregory D. Scholes and Aarat Kalra of Princeton University is amazing, but the scientific community has not changed the consensus yet. You may read the following article for that:

https://www.miragenews.com/consciousness-and-quantum-physics-quantum-mind-1036383/

below is the excerpt from the article:

"The Quantum Mind Theory is a radical departure from traditional views of consciousness and remains a fringe view within the scientific community." 36.224.213.25 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move some content from quantum cognition into this article.
I plan to move the neurological/philosophical content from quantum cognition into this article. Please see: Talk:Quantum_cognition Johnjbarton (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

David Pearce
Why is the David Pearce material included here. As far as I can tell it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * May I just briefly defend my sanity? Anyone who understands decoherence (which you do!) will recognise why a quantum-theoretic explanation of phenomenal binding is far-fetched. The CNS is too hot! But the problem is science has no idea how phenomenal binding could be _classically_ explicable either - which doesn't leave us with many (physicalist) options:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
 * Given textbook neuroscience, why aren't we just (at most) what philosopher Phil Goff christened "micro-experiential zombies" - mere patterns of Jamesian "mind dust"? Only someone who groks the neuroscientific mystery of binding will be willing to explore highly implausible quantum-theoretic solutions to an otherwise intractable problem. Note that what makes a "Schrödinger's neurons" proposal fringe isn't new physics - assuming the unitary Schrödinger dynamics, such superpositions of neuronal feature-processors _must_ exist - but rather, the idea such fleeting sub-femtosecond superpositions could have any conceivable relevance to our phenomenally-bound minds. And maybe common sense is correct! But one man's reductio ad absurdum is another man's experimentally falsifiable prediction. I'm simply curious what tomorrow's interferometry will tell us. Davidcpearce (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be clear, I don't think the decoherence-related material I deleted was incorrect. (I personally believe the idea of naive quantum interference playing any role in neurobiology is silly.) However, the content was only backed by primary references with few citations, and thus not material suitable for Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More lunacy, you'll feel, but IMO the eminence of some of the authors means that a "no-collapse" sub-section of quantum mind theories is warranted:
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38920469/
 * ("Here, we present a novel proposal: Conscious experience arises whenever a quantum mechanical superposition forms.") Davidcpearce (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)