120 research outputs found
Can Quantum Mechanics Solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
Get PDFThe hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why physical processes give rise to consciousness (Chalmers 1995). Regardless of many attempts to solve the problem, there is still no commonly agreed solution. It is thus very likely that some radically new ideas are required if we are to make any progress. In this paper we turn to quantum theory to find out whether it has anything to offer in our attempts to understand the place of mind and conscious experience in nature. In particular we will be focusing on the ontological interpretation of quantum theory proposed by Bohm and Hiley (1987, 1993), its further development by Hiley (Hiley and Callaghan 2012; Hiley, Dennis and de Gosson 2021), and its philosophical interpretation by Pylkkänen (2007, 2020). The ontological interpretation makes the radical proposal that quantum reality includes a new type of potential energy which contains active information. This proposal, if correct, constitutes a major change in our notion of matter. We are used to having in physics only mechanical concepts, such as position, momentum and force. Our intuition that it is not possible to understand how and why physical processes can give rise to consciousness is partly the result of our assuming that physical processes (including neurophysiological processes) are always mechanical. If, however, we are willing to change our view of physical reality by allowing non-mechanical, organic and holistic concepts such as active information to play a fundamental role, this, we argue, makes it possible to understand the relationship between physical and mental processes in a new way. It might even be a step toward solving the hard problem
Can quantum mechanics solve the hard problem of consciousness? [Elektronisk resurs]
No full textThe hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why physical processes give rise to consciousness (Chalmers 1995). Regardless of many attempts to solve the problem, there is still no commonly agreed solution. It is thus very likely that some radically new ideas are required if we are to make any progress. In this paper we turn to quantum theory to find out whether it has anything to offer in our attempts to understand the place of mind and conscious experience in nature. In particular we will be focusing on the ontological interpretation of quantum theory proposed by Bohm and Hiley (1987, 1993), its further development by Hiley (Hiley and Callaghan 2012; Hiley, Dennis and de Gosson 2021), and its philosophical interpretation by Pylkkänen (2007, 2020). The ontological interpretation makes the radical proposal that quantum reality includes a new type of potential energy which contains active information. This proposal, if correct, constitutes a major change in our notion of matter. We are used to having in physics only mechanical concepts, such as position, momentum and force. Our intuition that it is not possible to understand how and why physical processes can give rise to consciousness is partly the result of our assuming that physical processes (including neurophysiological processes) are always mechanical. If, however, we are willing to change our view of physical reality by allowing non-mechanical, organic and holistic concepts such as active information to play a fundamental role, this, we argue, makes it possible to understand the relationship between physical and mental processes in a new way. It might even be a step toward solving the hard problem.</p
Can Quantum Mechanics Solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
No full textThe hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why physical processes give rise to consciousness (Chalmers 1995). Regardless of many attempts to solve the problem, there is still no commonly agreed solution. It is thus very likely that some radically new ideas are required if we are to make any progress. In this paper we turn to quantum theory to find out whether it has anything to offer in our attempts to understand the place of mind and conscious experience in nature. In particular we will be focusing on the ontological interpretation of quantum theory proposed by Bohm and Hiley (1987, 1993), its further development by Hiley (Hiley and Callaghan 2012; Hiley, Dennis and de Gosson 2021), and its philosophical interpretation by Pylkkänen (2007, 2020). The ontological interpretation makes the radical proposal that quantum reality includes a new type of potential energy which contains active information. This proposal, if correct, constitutes a major change in our notion of matter. We are used to having in physics only mechanical concepts, such as position, momentum and force. Our intuition that it is not possible to understand how and why physical processes can give rise to consciousness is partly the result of our assuming that physical processes (including neurophysiological processes) are always mechanical. If, however, we are willing to change our view of physical reality by allowing non-mechanical, organic and holistic concepts such as active information to play a fundamental role, this, we argue, makes it possible to understand the relationship between physical and mental processes in a new way. It might even be a step toward solving the hard problem
Bohm's approach and individuality
Get PDFLadyman and Ross (LR) 2007 argue that quantum objects are not individuals (or are at most weakly discernible individuals) and use this idea to ground their metaphysical view, ontic structural realism, according to which relational structures are primary to things. LR acknowledge that there is a version of quantum theory, namely the Bohm theory (BT), according to which particles do have definite trajectories at all times (Bohm 1952; Bohm and Hiley 1993). This would suggest that quantum particles are individuals after all, with position being the property in virtue of which particles are always different from one another. However, LR refer to research by Brown et al. (1996) which they interpret as saying that in BT, the properties normally associated with particles (mass, charge, etc.) are inherent only in the quantum field and not in the particles (in BT it is assumed that a particle is always accompanied by a quantum field). It would then seem that there is nothing there in the trajectories unless one assumes the existence of some “raw stuff” of the particle. In other words it seems that haecceities are needed for the individuality of particles of BT, and LR dismiss this as idle metaphysics. In this paper we point out, following Brown et al.(1996, 1999) that it is reasonable to assume that in BT properties such as mass and charge also reside in the particles (the principle of generosity). Thus, if BT is correct, quantum objects might be individuals after all. However, we move on to emphasize that Bohmian quantum individuals, while in some ways similar to classical particles, also differ from these radically. We will discuss this issue in the light of new developments in the underlying mathematical structures, due to de Gosson and Hiley. In particular, we will show how the mathematical structure of the double cover of the underlying symmetry groups help to understand the relation between classical dynamics and quantum dynamics, as well as the similarities and differences between classical and quantum individuals. We conclude that while BT enables us to retain the notion of individuals in non-relativistic quantum theory, these individuals are very different from those of classical physics. It is likely that they can be best understood in the context of a structuralist, process-oriented view, such as Bohm and Hiley’s broader implicate order framework. Thus, while we think that the prospects of individuality in quantum theory are stronger than what LR imply, we agree with them that structuralist considerations are important in fundamental physics more generally.Peer reviewe
Can Mind Act on Matter via Active Information?
No full textMainstream cognitive neuroscience typically ignores the role of quantum physical effects in the neural processes underlying cognition and consciousness. However, many unsolved problems remain, suggesting the need to consider new approaches. We propose that quantum theory, especially through an ontological interpretation due to Bohm and Hiley, provides a fruitful framework for addressing the neural correlates of cognition and consciousness. In particular, the ontological interpretation suggests that a novel type of “active information”, connected with a novel type of “quantum potential energy”, plays a key role in quantum physical processes. After introducing the ontological interpretation we illustrate its value for cognitive neuroscience bydiscussing it in the light of a proposal by Beck and Eccles about how quantum tunneling could play a role in controlling the frequency of synaptic exocytosis. In this proposal, quantum tunneling would enable the “self” to control its brain without violating the energyconserv ation law. We argue that the ontological interpretation provides a sharper picture of what actuallycould be taking place in quantum tunneling in general and in synaptic exocytosis in particular. Based on the notions of active information and quantum potential energy, we propose a coherent way of understanding how mental processes (understood as involving non-classical physical processes) can act on traditional, classicallydescribable neural processes without violating the energy conservation law.</p
Short-time quantum propagator and Bohmian trajectorie
No full textWe begin by giving correct expressions for the short-time action following the work Makri–Miller. We use these estimates to derive an accurate expression modulo Δt2 for the quantum propagator and we show that the quantum potential is negligible modulo Δt2 for a point source, thus justifying an unfortunately largely ignored observation of Holland made twenty years ago. We finally prove that this implies that the quantum motion is classical for very short times
- …
